Page Range | 48193-48387 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 48385 - Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States | |
82 FR 48383 - National Energy Awareness Month, 2017 | |
82 FR 48230 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
82 FR 48312 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors | |
82 FR 48280 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 48224 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 48236 - Agency Information Collection Activities: EngageDHS | |
82 FR 48227 - Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) | |
82 FR 48227 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science Advisory Board Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Methods Review Panel | |
82 FR 48308 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Murillo: The Self-Portraits” Exhibition | |
82 FR 48212 - Notice of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics Meeting | |
82 FR 48212 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
82 FR 48195 - Federal Student Aid Programs (Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and the Federal Direct Loan Program) | |
82 FR 48307 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
82 FR 48281 - Information Collection: Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material | |
82 FR 48231 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
82 FR 48231 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 48215 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 48216 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 48255 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure | |
82 FR 48254 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
82 FR 48310 - Buckeye Hammond Railroad LLC-Abandonment Exemption-in Lake County, Ind. | |
82 FR 48217 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License | |
82 FR 48253 - United States and Mexico United States Section; Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Channel Maintenance Alternatives at Thurman I and II Arroyos in Hatch, NM, Rio Grande Canalization Project | |
82 FR 48237 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records: Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Evaluation-Phase II | |
82 FR 48223 - Nevada Hydro Company, Inc.; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests | |
82 FR 48226 - Commission Information Collection Activity (FERC-717); Comment Request; Extension | |
82 FR 48220 - Bloom Energy Corporation; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
82 FR 48219 - Xcel Energy Services Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Notice of Complaint | |
82 FR 48229 - Third Meeting of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 48203 - Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program | |
82 FR 48310 - Buckeye East Chicago Railroad LLC-Abandonment Exemption-in Lake County, Ind.; Landisville Railroad, LLC-Discontinuance Exemption-in Lake County, Ind. | |
82 FR 48222 - Voyager Wind II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 48225 - NTE Ohio, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 48221 - American Electric Power Service Corporation v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Complaint | |
82 FR 48222 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign Utility Company Status | |
82 FR 48220 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 48283 - Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal | |
82 FR 48213 - Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2015-2016 | |
82 FR 48213 - Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
82 FR 48308 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Laura Owens” Exhibition | |
82 FR 48307 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Painted in Mexico, 1700-1790: Pinxit Mexici” Exhibition | |
82 FR 48204 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sablefish in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska | |
82 FR 48229 - Instructions for Filing 4G LTE Coverage Data To Determine Areas Presumptively Eligible for Mobility Fund Phase II Support; Contact Information Due by October 23, 2017; Responses Due by January 4, 2018 | |
82 FR 48277 - National Council on the Arts 192nd Meeting | |
82 FR 48228 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
82 FR 48231 - Information Collection; Affidavit of Individual Surety, Standard Form 28 | |
82 FR 48320 - Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee; (Amended) Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 48282 - Information Collection: Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Commission Programs | |
82 FR 48241 - Bureau of Indian Education Strategic Plan | |
82 FR 48217 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Implementation of Title I/II-A Program Initiatives | |
82 FR 48268 - Membership of the Senior Executive Service Standing Performance Review Boards | |
82 FR 48255 - United States v. Showa Denko K.K., SGL Carbon SE, and SGL GE Carbon Holding LLC (USA); Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement | |
82 FR 48267 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Border Security Technology Consortium | |
82 FR 48216 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops; Correction | |
82 FR 48255 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. | |
82 FR 48255 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. | |
82 FR 48318 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs) | |
82 FR 48317 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Application for Determination of Employee Stock Ownership Plan | |
82 FR 48232 - Request for Nominations of Potential Reviewers To Serve on the Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel | |
82 FR 48242 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, National Museum of Health and Medicine, Silver Spring, MD | |
82 FR 48249 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, National Museum of Health and Medicine, Silver Spring, MD | |
82 FR 48245 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
82 FR 48241 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
82 FR 48248 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
82 FR 48243 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
82 FR 48250 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
82 FR 48252 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
82 FR 48247 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
82 FR 48246 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
82 FR 48234 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
82 FR 48230 - FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 48307 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Individual, Corporate or Foundation, and Government Donor Letter Applications | |
82 FR 48219 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 48193 - Special Conditions: ALOFT AeroArchitects, Boeing Model 737-800 Airplanes; Aircraft Electronic System Security Protection From Unauthorized External Access | |
82 FR 48218 - City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Department; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments | |
82 FR 48222 - FirstEnergy Service Company; Notice of Waiver Request | |
82 FR 48309 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact for the Borrego Pipeline Presidential Permit Application Review, Webb County, Texas | |
82 FR 48309 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Caravaggio: Masterpieces From the Galleria Borghese” Exhibition | |
82 FR 48306 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Arch of Titus-From Jerusalem to Rome, and Back” Exhibition | |
82 FR 48296 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Listed Company Manual To Adopt Initial and Continued Listing Standards for Subscription Receipts | |
82 FR 48311 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
82 FR 48316 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Methods To Determine Taxable Income in Connection With a Cost Sharing Arrangement | |
82 FR 48317 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
82 FR 48314 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 48316 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee. | |
82 FR 48319 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8582 | |
82 FR 48216 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries; Notice That Vendor Will Provide 2018 Cage Tags | |
82 FR 48236 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 48236 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 48235 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 48306 - Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P.; License No. 05/05-0327; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest | |
82 FR 48306 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of South Carolina | |
82 FR 48253 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
82 FR 48205 - Freedom of Information Act Procedures | |
82 FR 48301 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Postpone Implementation of a New Attribute for Designated Retail Orders | |
82 FR 48287 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate a Surcharge for Eligibility Requests Submitted to DTC Two Days Prior to Closing Date | |
82 FR 48300 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend Interpretation and Policy .07 of Exchange Rule 4.11, Position Limits, To Increase the Position Limits for Options on Certain ETFs | |
82 FR 48302 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule To Adopt a Strategy QOO Order Fee Cap | |
82 FR 48304 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule To Update Certain Fees Assessed Under Section VI.A (Connectivity Fees) | |
82 FR 48289 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments No. 1, To Harmonize the Corporate Governance Framework of Each Exchange With That of Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated and C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated | |
82 FR 48289 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the U.S. Equity Cumulative Dividends Fund-Series 2027 and the U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend Fund-Series 2027 Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02 | |
82 FR 48320 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Accelerated Payment Verification of Completion | |
82 FR 48319 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Statement of Dependency of Parent(s) | |
82 FR 48251 - Cancellation of September 14, 2017, Meeting of the Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission | |
82 FR 48244 - Cancellation of September 21, 2017, Meeting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory Commission | |
82 FR 48233 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 48320 - VA New Hampshire Vision 2025 Task Force; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 48286 - Competitive Price Adjustment | |
82 FR 48278 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Palisades Nuclear Plant | |
82 FR 48285 - Market Dominant Price Adjustment | |
82 FR 48202 - Notification of Partial Delegation of Authority; Vermont; New Source Performance Standards for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters, and Forced-Air Furnaces | |
82 FR 48227 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
82 FR 48312 - Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments; Public Workshop | |
82 FR 48324 - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Texas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan |
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane. These airplanes, as modified by ALOFT AeroArchitects (ALOFT), will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a Wireless Access Point (WAP), and connection of an improved Wireless Quick Access Recorder (WQAR) to the satellite communications (SATCOM) system, to provide in-flight access to information, in the WQAR, to ground personnel. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on ALOFT on October 17, 2017. Send your comments by December 1, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0580 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1298; facsimile 425-227-1320.
The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable.
In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 8, 2016, ALOFT applied for a supplemental type certificate for installing a Wireless Access Point (WAP), and connection of an improved Wireless Quick Access Recorder (WQAR) to the satellite communications (SATCOM) system, in a Boeing Model 737-800 airplane. The Boeing Model 737-800 airplane is a twin jet engine, short-to-medium-range passenger airplane with a maximum takeoff weight of 174,200 pounds and seating for 189 passengers.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, ALOFT must show that the Boeing Model 737-800, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A16WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
The Boeing Model 737-800 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
A Wireless Access Point (WAP), and connection of an improved Wireless Quick Access Recorder (WQAR) to the satellite communications (SATCOM) system, to provide in-flight access to information, in the WQAR, to ground personnel.
The applicant supplemental type certificate (STC) for the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane design adds wired and wireless access points to the aircraft-control domain and airline-information-services domain networks, which do not exist on current airplanes. The aircraft-control domain consists of the airplane electronic systems, equipment, instruments, networks, servers, software and hardware components, databases, etc., which are part of the type design of the airplane and are installed in the airplane to enable the safe operation of the airplane. These can also be referred to as flight-safety-related systems, and include flight controls, communication, display, monitoring, navigation, and other systems.
The airline-information services domain generally consists of functions that are managed or controlled by the operator, such as administrative functions and cabin-support functions.
This design creates a potential for unauthorized access to aircraft-control and airline-information-services domains, as well as security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of viruses, worms, user mistakes, and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets such as networks, systems, and databases.
Historically, the operating systems for current airplanes are proprietary. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to corruption from worms, viruses and other malicious actions as are more widely used commercial operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows, because access to the design details of the proprietary operating system is limited to the system developer and airplane integrator. Some systems installed on the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane, as modified by ALOFT, will use operating systems that are widely used and commercially available from third-party software suppliers. The security vulnerabilities of these operating systems may be more widely known than are the vulnerabilities of proprietary operating systems currently used by avionics manufacturers. The increased networking of systems based on these popular operating systems increases the opportunity for attack by a larger community, especially those using scripted attacks.
While the FAA has developed policy and guidance on the use and protection of certain databases and software, these documents did not anticipate the potential for access to the airplane systems, networks, and software components by external systems, and the resulting potential security vulnerabilities from access by unauthorized users or from the potential corruption of airplane system software resources (applications, databases, configuration files, etc.) by worms, viruses or other malicious entities.
The major differences between the applicant's STC for the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane implementation and typical implementations include:
1. The electronic transmission of updates to airplane servers of databases and software applications using ground data networks rather than physically controlled media.
2. The connection of external data networks or devices to airplane data networks of the Aircraft Control Domain and the Airline Information Services Domain, which may use wired or wireless connections.
3. The connection of wireless devices operated by the flight crew or operator maintenance personnel to the airplane data networks of the Aircraft Control Domain, and connections between the Airline Information Services Domain (including unprotected electronic flight bags and maintenance computers) and the Aircraft Control Domain.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane. Should ALOFT apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A16WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 737-800 airplanes modified by ALOFT.
1. The applicant must ensure airplane electronic system security protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.
3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Updated waivers and modifications of statutory and regulatory requirements; republication.
On September 29, 2017, the Secretary published a document in the
The waivers and modifications began on September 29, 2017. The waivers and modifications in this document expire on September 30, 2022.
For provisions related to the title IV loan programs (Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, and Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program): Barbara Hoblitzell, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6W253, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7583 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45465), the Secretary published a document in the
In a document published in the
• Is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency;
• Is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency;
• Resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or
• Suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary.
Please note that these waivers and modifications do not apply to an individual who resides or is employed in an area declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official unless that declaration has been made in connection with a national emergency.
Under the HEROES Act, the Secretary's authority to provide the waivers and modifications would have expired on September 30, 2005. However, Public Law 109-78, enacted on September 30, 2005, extended the expiration date of the Secretary's authority to September 30, 2007. Accordingly, in a document in the
Public Law 110-93, enacted on September 30, 2007, eliminated the September 30, 2007, expiration date of the HEROES Act, thereby making permanent the Secretary's authority to issue waivers and modifications of statutory and regulatory provisions.
On December 26, 2007, the Secretary published a document in the
In a document in the
The Secretary is updating the waivers and modifications to reflect statutory and regulatory changes that have occurred since the September 27, 2012, document was published. The waivers and modifications in this document will expire on September 30, 2022. With a few limited exceptions, the waivers and modifications in this document are the same waivers and modifications published in the September 27, 2012,
(1) The Secretary updated the need analysis modification to reflect the change in which tax year's information is collected on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and used to calculate the applicant's expected family contribution (EFC). Previously when completing a FAFSA, a student provided income information from the most recently completed tax year prior to the beginning of the financial aid application cycle (
(2) For the professional judgment modification, the Secretary clarified that in addition to using income information
(3) The Secretary updated the modifications related to verification of adjusted gross income (AGI) and U.S. income tax paid so that affected individuals under this category are no longer required to provide a signature on the statement certifying that he or she has not filed an income tax return or a request for a filing extension because he or she was called up for active duty or for qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; or certifying the amount of AGI and U.S. income tax paid for the specified year.
(4) The Secretary extended the waiver assisting affected individuals with regard to the annual reevaluation requirements for FFEL and Direct Loan borrowers who are repaying loans under the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan, and Direct Loan borrowers who are repaying loans under the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan to include borrowers who are repaying Direct Loans under the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) or Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) repayment plans.
(5) For the fourth category of affected individuals to which waivers and modifications apply, as described later in this document, the Secretary removed the reference to spouses of affected individuals who are serving on active duty or performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency, since the waivers under this category only pertain to the dependent student of such affected individuals.
(6) The Secretary updated the waiver related to verification signature requirements to waive the requirement for a parental signature on any verification documentation required for title IV eligibility for a dependent student because of the parent's status as an affected individual.
(7) The Secretary made a technical change to the waiver related to the section on required signatures on the FAFSA, the Student Aid Report (SAR), and the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR), replacing the reference to “ISIR” with “or submitting corrections electronically”. The Secretary also changed the reference to “responsible parent” to “relevant parent” to mean the parent whose information is reported on the FAFSA.
The Secretary is issuing these waivers and modifications under the authority of the HEROES Act, 20 U.S.C. 1098bb(a). In accordance with the HEROES Act, the Secretary is providing the waivers and modifications of statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the HEA that the Secretary believes are appropriate to ensure that:
• Affected individuals who are recipients of student financial assistance under title IV are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because they are affected individuals;
• Affected individuals who are recipients of student financial assistance are not unduly subject to administrative burden or inadvertent, technical violations or defaults;
• Affected individuals are not penalized when a determination of need for student financial assistance is calculated;
• Affected individuals are not required to return or repay an overpayment of grant funds based on the HEA's Return of Title IV Funds provision; and
• Entities that participate in the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the HEA and that are located in areas that are declared disaster areas by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency, or whose operations are significantly affected by such a disaster, receive temporary relief from administrative requirements.
In 20 U.S.C. 1098bb(b)(1), the HEROES Act further provides that section 437 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232) and section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) do not apply to the contents of this document.
In 20 U.S.C. 1098ee, the HEROES Act provides definitions critical to determining whether a student is an “affected individual” under the act and, if so, to which waivers and modifications the affected individual is entitled. Because these definitions are located outside of the statutes and regulations administered by the Department and with which financial aid administrators are most familiar, whether a student qualifies as an “affected individual” is a frequent source of confusion. To help ensure that the terms are not misinterpreted and that affected individuals receive the waivers and modifications to which they are entitled under the HEROES Act, we provide these definitions below.
(A) A Reserve member of an Armed Force ordered to active duty under 10 U.S.C. 12301(a), 12301(g), 12302, 12304, or 12306, or any retired member of an Armed Force ordered to active duty under 10 U.S.C. 688, for service in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency, regardless of the location at which that active duty service is performed; and
(B) Any other member of an Armed Force on active duty in connection with any war, operation, or emergency or subsequent actions or conditions who has been assigned to a duty station at a location other than the location at which the member is normally assigned.
The following waivers and modifications are grouped into four categories, according to the affected individuals to whom they apply.
Section 480 of the HEA provides that, in the calculation of an applicant's EFC, the term “total income,” which is used in the determination of “annual adjusted family income” and “available income,” is equal to the applicant's, the applicant's spouse's, or the applicant's parent's AGI plus untaxed income and benefits for the second preceding tax year minus excludable income. The HEROES Act allows an institution to substitute AGI plus untaxed income and benefits received in the first calendar year of the award year for which such
If an institution chooses to use anything other than the original EFC, it should use the administrative professional judgment options discussed in the following section.
Section 479A of the HEA specifically gives the FAA at an institution the authority to use professional judgment to make, on a case-by-case basis, adjustments to the cost of attendance or to the values of the items used in calculating the EFC to reflect a student's special circumstances. The Secretary is modifying this provision by removing the requirement that adjustments be made on a case-by-case basis for affected individuals. The use of professional judgment in Federal need analysis is discussed in the Federal Student Aid Handbook available at
The Secretary encourages FAAs to use professional judgment to reflect more accurately the financial need of affected individuals. To that end, the Secretary encourages institutions to determine an affected individual's need using one of the options listed below:
• Using the AGI plus untaxed income and benefits received in the first calendar year of the award year;
• Using another annual income that more accurately reflects the family's current financial circumstances; or
• Making no modifications.
The FAA must clearly document the reasons for any adjustment and the facts supporting the decision. In almost all cases, the FAA should have documentation from a third party with knowledge of the student's special circumstances. As usual, any professional judgment decisions made by an FAA that affect a student's eligibility for a subsidized student financial assistance program must be reported to the Central Processing System.
Section 484B(b)(2) of the HEA and 34 CFR 668.22(h)(3)(ii) require a student to return or repay, as appropriate, unearned grant funds for which the student is responsible under the Return of Title IV Funds calculation. For a student who withdraws from an institution because of his or her status as an affected individual, the Secretary is waiving these statutory and regulatory requirements so that a student is not required to return or repay any overpayment of grant funds based on the Return of Title IV Funds provisions.
For these students, the Secretary also waives 34 CFR 668.22(h)(4), which:
• Requires an institution to notify a student of a grant overpayment and the actions the student must take to resolve the overpayment;
• Denies eligibility to a student who owes a grant overpayment and does not take an action to resolve the overpayment; and
• Requires an institution to refer a grant overpayment to the Secretary under certain conditions.
Therefore, an institution is not required to contact the student, notify the National Student Loan Data System, or refer the overpayment to the Secretary. However, the institution must document in the student's file the amount of any overpayment as part of the documentation of the application of this waiver.
The student is not required to return or repay an overpayment of grant funds based on the Return of Title IV Funds provision. Therefore, an institution must not apply any title IV credit balance to the grant overpayment prior to: Using a credit balance to pay authorized charges; paying any amount of the title IV credit balance to the student or parent, in the case of a parent PLUS loan; or using the credit balance to reduce the student's title IV loan debt (with the student's authorization) as provided in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-04-03 (February 2004; revised November 2004).
Pursuant to 34 CFR 668.57(a)(3)(ii), for an individual who is required to file a U.S. income tax return and has been granted a filing extension by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an institution must accept, in lieu of an income tax return for verification of AGI or U.S. income tax paid:
• A copy of IRS Form 4868, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,” that the individual filed with the IRS for the specified year, or a copy of the IRS's approval of an extension beyond the automatic six-month extension if the individual requested an additional extension of the filing time; and
• A copy of each IRS Form W-2 that the individual received for the specified year or, for a self-employed individual, a statement signed by the individual certifying the amount of AGI and U.S. income tax paid for the specified year.
The Secretary is modifying the requirement of this provision so that the submission of a copy of IRS Form 4868 or a copy of the IRS's approval of an extension beyond the six-month extension is not required if an affected individual has not filed an income tax return by the filing deadline.
For these individuals, an institution must accept, in lieu of an income tax return for verification of AGI and U.S. income tax paid:
• A statement from the individual certifying that he or she has not filed an income tax return or a request for a filing extension because he or she was called up for active duty or for qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; and
• A copy of each W-2 received for the specified year or, for a self-employed individual, a statement by the individual certifying the amount of AGI and U.S. income tax paid for the specified year.
An institution may request that an individual granted a filing extension submit tax information using the IRS Data Retrieval Tool, or by obtaining a tax return transcript from the IRS that lists tax account information for the specified year after the income tax return is filed. If an institution receives the tax information, it must verify the income information of the tax filer(s).
Under 34 CFR 668.22(a)(6)(iii)(A)(
The Secretary is modifying this requirement so that, for a student who withdraws because of his or her status as an affected individual in this category and who is eligible for a post-withdrawal disbursement, the 14-day time period in which the student (or parent) must normally respond to the offer of the post-withdrawal disbursement is extended to 45 days, or to a later deadline set by the institution. If the student or parent submits a response after the designated period, the institution may, but is not required to, make the post-withdrawal disbursement. As required under the current regulations, if the student or parent submits the timely response instructing the institution to make all or a portion of the post-withdrawal disbursement, or the institution chooses to make a post-withdrawal disbursement based on receipt of a late response, the institution must disburse the funds within 180 days of the date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew.
Under 34 CFR 668.22(d)(3)(iii)(B), a student is required to provide a written, signed, and dated request, which includes the reason for that request, for an approved leave of absence prior to the leave of absence. However, if unforeseen circumstances prevent a student from providing a prior written request, the institution may grant the student's request for a leave of absence if the institution documents its decision and collects the written request at a later date. It may be appropriate in certain limited cases for an institution to provide an approved leave of absence to a student who must interrupt his or her enrollment because he or she is an affected individual in this category. Therefore, the Secretary is waiving the requirement that the student provide a written request for affected individuals who have difficulty providing a written request as a result of being an affected individual in this category. The institution's documentation of its decision to grant the leave of absence must include, in addition to the reason for the leave of absence, the reason for waiving the requirement that the leave of absence be requested in writing.
Under 34 CFR 668.164(h)(2), an institution must pay any title IV credit balance to the student, or parent in the case of a parent PLUS loan, as soon as possible, but no later than: 14 days after the balance occurred if the balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or 14 days after the first day of class of a payment period if the balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period. If the student (or parent) has provided authorization, an institution may use a title IV credit balance to reduce the borrower's total title IV loan debt, not just the title IV loan debt for the period for which the Return of Title IV Funds calculation is performed.
For students who withdraw because they are affected individuals in this category, the Secretary finds that the institution has met the 14-day requirement under 34 CFR 668.164(h)(2) if, within that timeframe, the institution attempts to contact the student (or parent) to suggest that the institution be authorized to return the credit balance to the loan program(s).
Based upon the instructions of the student (or parent), the institution must promptly return the funds to the title IV loan programs or pay the credit balance to the student (or parent).
In addition, if an institution chooses to attempt to contact the student (or parent) for authorization to apply the credit balance to reduce the student's title IV loan debt, it must allow the student (or parent) 45 days to respond. If there is no response within 45 days, the institution must promptly pay the credit balance to the student (or parent) or return the funds to the title IV programs if the student (or parent) cannot be located.
Consistent with the guidance provided in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-04-03 (February 2004; revised November 2004), the institution may also choose to pay the credit balance to the student (or parent) without first requesting permission to apply the credit balance to reduce the student's title IV loan debt.
Under 34 CFR 668.165(a)(4)(ii), an institution must return loan or TEACH Grant proceeds, cancel the loan or TEACH Grant, or do both, if the institution receives a loan or TEACH Grant cancellation request from a student or parent:
• By the later of the first day of a payment period or 14 days after the date the institution notifies the student or parent of his or her right to cancel all or a portion of a loan or TEACH Grant, if the institution obtains affirmative confirmation from the student under 34 CFR 668.165(a)(6)(i); or
• Within 30 days of the date the institution notifies the student or parent of his or her right to cancel all or a portion of a loan, if the institution does not obtain affirmative confirmation from the student under 34 CFR 668.165(a)(6)(i).
Under 34 CFR 668.165(a)(4)(iii), if an institution receives a loan cancellation request from a borrower after the period specified in 34 CFR 668.165(a)(4)(ii), the institution may, but is not required to, comply with the request. For a student or parent who is an affected individual in this category, the Secretary is modifying this requirement so that an institution must allow at least 60 days for the student or parent to request the cancellation of all or a portion of a loan or TEACH Grant for which proceeds have been credited to the account at the institution. If an institution receives a loan or TEACH Grant cancellation request after the 60-day period, the institution may, but is not required to, comply with the request.
Under 34 CFR 668.165(b)(1), an institution must obtain a written authorization from a student or parent, as applicable, to:
• Use title IV funds to pay for educationally related charges incurred by the student at the institution other than charges for tuition and fees and, as applicable, room and board; and
• Hold on behalf of the student or parent any title IV funds that would otherwise be paid directly to the student or parent.
The Secretary is modifying these requirements to permit an institution to accept an authorization provided by a student (or parent for a parent PLUS loan) orally, rather than in writing, if the student or parent is prevented from providing a written authorization because of his or her status as an affected individual in this category. The institution must document the oral consent or authorization.
Institutions may, in cases where a student failed to meet the institution's satisfactory academic progress standards as a direct result of being an affected individual in this category, apply the exception provision of “other special circumstances” contained in 34 CFR 668.34(a)(9)(ii).
Sections 428(b)(7)(D) and 464(c)(7) of the HEA and 34 CFR 674.31(b)(2)(i)(C), 682.209(a)(5), and 685.207(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(ii) exclude from a Federal Perkins Loan, FFEL, or Direct Loan borrower's (title IV borrower's) initial grace period any period during which a borrower who is a member of an Armed Forces reserve component is called or ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days. The statutory and regulatory provisions further require that any single excluded period may not exceed three years and must include the time necessary for the borrower to resume enrollment at the next available regular enrollment period. Lastly, any borrower who is in a grace period when called or ordered to active duty is entitled to another six- or nine-month grace period, as applicable, upon completion of the excluded period of service.
The Secretary is modifying these statutory and regulatory requirements to exclude from a title IV borrower's initial grace period, any period, not to exceed three years, during which a borrower is an affected individual in this category. Any excluded period must include the time necessary for an affected individual in this category to resume enrollment at the next available enrollment period.
A title IV borrower is considered to be in an “in-school” status and is not required to make payments on a title IV loan that has not entered repayment as long as the borrower is enrolled at an eligible institution on at least a half-time basis. Under sections 428(b)(7) and 464(c)(1)(A) of the HEA and 34 CFR 674.31(b)(2), 682.209(a), and 685.207(b), (c), and (e)(2) and (3), when a title IV borrower ceases to be enrolled at an eligible institution on at least a half-time basis, the borrower is obligated to begin repayment of the loan after a six- or nine-month grace period, depending on the title IV loan program and the terms of the borrower's promissory note. The Secretary is modifying the statutory and regulatory requirements that obligate an “in-school” borrower who has dropped below half-time status to begin repayment if the borrower is an affected individual in this category, by requiring the holder of the loan to maintain the loan in an “in-school” status for a period not to exceed three years, including the time necessary for the borrower to resume enrollment in the next regular enrollment period, if the borrower is planning to go back to school. The Secretary will pay interest that accrues on a subsidized Stafford Loan as a result of the extension of a borrower's in-school status under this modification.
Under sections 427(a)(2)(C)(i), 428(b)(1)(M)(i), 428B(a)(2) and (d)(1), 428C(b)(4)(C), 455(f)(2)(A), and 464(c)(2)(A)(i) of the HEA and 34 CFR 674.34(b)(1), 682.210(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), 682.210(s)(2), (3), and (4), 685.204(b), 685.204(d), and 685.204(e), a title IV borrower is eligible for a deferment on the loan during periods after the commencement or resumption of the repayment period on the loan when the borrower is enrolled and in attendance as a regular student on at least a half-time basis (or full-time, if required by the terms of the borrower's promissory note) at an eligible institution; enrolled and in attendance as a regular student in a course of study that is part of a graduate fellowship program; engaged in an eligible rehabilitation training program; or, for Federal Perkins Loan borrowers, engaged in graduate or post-graduate fellowship-supported study outside the United States. The borrower's deferment period ends when the borrower no longer meets one of the above conditions.
The Secretary is waiving the statutory and regulatory eligibility requirements for this deferment for title IV borrowers who were required to interrupt a graduate fellowship or rehabilitation training program deferment, or who were in an in-school deferment but who left school, because of their status as an affected individual in this category. The holder of the loan is required to maintain the loan in the graduate fellowship, rehabilitation training program, or in-school deferment status for a period not to exceed three years during which the borrower is an affected individual in this category. This period includes the time necessary for the borrower to resume his or her graduate fellowship program, resume a rehabilitation training program, or resume enrollment in the next regular enrollment period if the borrower returns to school. The Secretary will pay interest that accrues on a FFEL subsidized Stafford Loan or not charge interest on a Direct subsidized Stafford Loan as a result of extending a borrower's eligibility for deferment under this waiver.
Under section 464(e) of the HEA and 34 CFR 674.33(d)(2), there is a three-year cumulative limit on the length of forbearances that a Federal Perkins Loan borrower can receive. To assist Federal Perkins Loan borrowers who are affected individuals in this category, the Secretary is waiving these statutory and regulatory requirements so that any forbearance based on a borrower's status as an affected individual in this category is excluded from the three-year cumulative limit.
Under section 464(e) of the HEA and 34 CFR 674.33(d)(2) and (3), a school must receive a request and supporting documentation from a Federal Perkins Loan borrower before granting the borrower a forbearance, the terms of which must be in the form of a written agreement. The Secretary is waiving these statutory and regulatory requirements to require an institution to grant forbearance based on the borrower's status as an affected individual in this category for a one-year period, including a three-month “transition period” immediately following, without supporting documentation or a written agreement, based on the written or oral request of the borrower, a member of the borrower's family, or another reliable source. The purpose of the three-month transition period is to assist borrowers so that they will not be required to reenter repayment immediately after they are no longer affected individuals in this category. In order to grant the borrower forbearance beyond the initial twelve- to fifteen-month period, supporting documentation from the borrower, a member of the borrower's family, or another reliable source is required.
Under 34 CFR 682.211(i)(1), a FFEL borrower who requests forbearance because of a military mobilization must provide the loan holder with documentation showing that he or she is subject to a military mobilization. The Secretary is waiving this requirement to allow a borrower who is not otherwise eligible for the military service deferment under 34 CFR 682.210(t), 685.204(h), and 674.34(h) to receive forbearance at the request of the borrower, a member of the borrower's family, or another reliable source for a one-year period, including a three-month transition period that immediately follows, without providing the loan holder with documentation. To grant the borrower forbearance beyond this period, documentation supporting the borrower's military mobilization must be submitted to the loan holder.
The Secretary will apply the forbearance waivers and modifications in this section to loans held by the Department.
In accordance with 34 CFR part 674, subpart C—Due Diligence, and 682.410(b)(6), schools and guaranty agencies must attempt to recover amounts owed from defaulted Federal Perkins Loan and FFEL borrowers, respectively. The Secretary is waiving the regulatory provisions that require schools and guaranty agencies to attempt collection on defaulted loans for the time period during which the borrower is an affected individual in this category and for a three-month transition period. The school or guaranty agency may stop collection activities upon notification by the borrower, a member of the borrower's family, or another reliable source that the borrower is an affected individual in this category. Collection activities must resume after the borrower has notified the school or guaranty agency that he or she is no longer an affected individual and the three-month transition period has expired. The loan holder must document in the loan file why it has suspended collection activities on the loan, and the loan holder is not required to obtain evidence of the borrower's status while collection activities have been suspended. The Secretary will apply the waivers described in this paragraph to loans held by the Department.
Depending on the loan program, borrowers may qualify for loan cancellation if they are employed fulltime in specified occupations, such as teaching or in law enforcement, pursuant to sections 428J, 460(b)(1), and 465(a)(2)(A)-(M) and (3) of the HEA, and 34 CFR 674.53, 674.55, 674.55(b), 674.56, 674.57, 674.58, 674.60, 682.216, and 685.217. Generally, to qualify for loan cancellation, borrowers must perform uninterrupted, otherwise qualifying service for a specified length of time (for example, one year) or for consecutive periods of time, such as five consecutive years.
For borrowers who are affected individuals in this category, the Secretary is waiving the requirements that apply to the various loan cancellations that such periods of service be uninterrupted or consecutive, if the reason for the interruption is related to the borrower's status as an affected individual in this category. Therefore, the service period required for the borrower to receive or retain a loan cancellation for which he or she is otherwise eligible will not be considered interrupted by any period during which the borrower is an affected individual in this category, including the three-month transition period. The Secretary will apply the waivers described in this paragraph to loans held by the Department.
A borrower of a Direct Loan or FFEL Loan must make nine voluntary on-time, monthly payments over ten consecutive months to rehabilitate a defaulted loan in accordance with section 428F(a) of the HEA and 34 CFR 682.405 and 685.211(f). Federal Perkins Loan borrowers must make nine consecutive, on-time monthly payments to rehabilitate a defaulted Federal Perkins Loan in accordance with section 464(h)(1)(A) of the HEA and 34 CFR 674.39. To assist title IV borrowers who are affected individuals in this category, the Secretary is waiving the statutory and regulatory requirements that payments made to rehabilitate a loan must be consecutive or made over no more than ten consecutive months. Loan holders should not treat any payment missed during the time that a borrower is an affected individual in this category, or during the three-month transition period, as an interruption in the number of monthly, on-time payments required to be made consecutively, or the number of consecutive months in which payment is required to be made, for loan rehabilitation. If there is an arrangement or agreement in place between the borrower and loan holder and the borrower makes a payment during this period, the loan holder must treat the payment as an eligible payment in the required series of payments. When the borrower is no longer an affected individual in this category, and the three-month transition period has expired, the required sequence of qualifying payments may resume at the point they were discontinued as a result of the borrower's status. The Secretary will apply the waivers described in this paragraph to loans held by the Department.
Under sections 428F(b) and 464(h)(2) of the HEA and under the definition of “satisfactory repayment arrangement” in 34 CFR 668.35(a)(2), 674.2(b), 682.200(b), and 685.102(b), a defaulted title IV borrower may make six consecutive, on-time, voluntary, full, monthly payments to reestablish eligibility for title IV student financial assistance. To assist title IV borrowers who are affected individuals in this category, the Secretary is waiving statutory and regulatory provisions that require the borrower to make consecutive payments to reestablish eligibility for title IV student financial assistance. Loan holders should not treat any payment missed during the time that a borrower is an affected individual in this category as an interruption in the six consecutive, on-time, voluntary, full, monthly payments required for reestablishing title IV eligibility. If there is an arrangement or agreement in place between the borrower and loan holder and the borrower makes a payment during this period, the loan holder must treat the payment as an eligible payment in the required series of payments. When the borrower is no longer an affected individual or in the three-month transition period for purposes of this document, the required sequence of qualifying payments may resume at the point they were discontinued as a result of the borrower's status. The Secretary will apply the waivers described in this paragraph to loans held by the Department.
Under the definition of “satisfactory repayment arrangement” in 34 CFR 685.102(b), a defaulted FFEL or Direct Loan borrower may establish eligibility to consolidate a defaulted loan in the Direct Consolidation Loan Program by making three consecutive, voluntary, on-time, monthly, full payments on the loan. The Secretary is waiving the regulatory requirement that such payments be consecutive. FFEL loan holders should not treat any payment missed during the time that a borrower is an affected individual in this category as an interruption in the three consecutive, voluntary, monthly, full, on-time payments required for establishing eligibility to consolidate a defaulted loan in the Direct Consolidation Loan Program. If there is an arrangement or agreement in place between the borrower and loan holder and the borrower makes a payment during this period, the loan holder must treat the payment as an eligible payment in the required series of payments. When the borrower is no longer an affected individual in this category or in the three-month transition period, the required sequence of qualifying payments may resume at the point they were discontinued as a result of the borrower's status as an affected individual. The Secretary will apply the waivers described in this paragraph to loans held by the Department.
Section 493C(c) of the HEA requires the Secretary to establish procedures for annually determining a borrower's eligibility for the IBR plan, including verification of a borrower's annual income and the annual amount due on the total amount of the borrower's loans. Section 455(e)(1) of the HEA provides that the Secretary may obtain such information as is reasonably necessary regarding the income of a borrower for the purpose of determining the annual repayment obligation of the borrower under an income-contingent repayment plan. Under 34 CFR 682.215(e), 685.209(a)(5), (b)(3), and (c)(4), and 685.221(e), borrowers repaying under the IBR, PAYE, REPAYE, or ICR plans must annually provide their loan holder with documentation of their income and family size so that the loan holder may, if necessary, adjust the borrower's monthly payment amount based on changes in the borrower's income or family size. Borrowers are required to provide information about their annual income and family size to the loan holder each year by a deadline specified by the holder. If a borrower who is repaying his or her loans under the IBR, PAYE, or ICR plans fails to provide the required information by the specified deadline, the borrower's monthly payment amount is adjusted and is no longer based on the borrower's income. This adjusted monthly payment amount is generally higher than the payment amount that was based on the borrower's income.
The Secretary is waiving these statutory and regulatory provisions to require loan holders to maintain an affected borrower's payment at the most recently calculated IBR, PAYE, REPAYE, or ICR monthly payment amount for up to a three-year period, including a three-month transition period immediately following the three-year period, if the borrower's status as an affected individual in this category has prevented the borrower from providing documentation of updated income and family size by the specified deadline.
The HEROES Act encourages institutions to provide a full refund of tuition, fees, and other institutional charges for the portion of a period of instruction that a student was unable to complete, or for which the student did not receive academic credit, because he or she was called up for active duty or for qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency. Alternatively, the Secretary encourages institutions to provide a credit in a comparable amount against future charges.
The HEROES Act also recommends that institutions consider providing easy and flexible reenrollment options to students who are affected individuals in this category. At a minimum, an institution must comply with the requirements of 34 CFR 668.18, which addresses the readmission requirements for service members serving for a period of more than 30 consecutive days under certain conditions. Some institutions must also abide by the protections provided by the Principles of Excellence (Executive Order 13607, issued April 27, 2012) to service members who are absent for shorter periods of service. Institutions agree to comply with the Principles of Excellence through arrangements with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Executive Order 13607 is available at
Of course, an institution may provide such treatment to affected individuals other than those who are called up to active duty or for qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency.
Before an institution makes a refund of institutional charges, it must perform the required Return of Title IV Funds calculations based upon the originally assessed institutional charges. After determining the amount that the institution must return to the title IV Federal student aid programs, any reduction of institutional charges may take into account the funds that the institution is required to return. In other words, we do not expect that an institution would both return funds to the Federal programs and also provide a refund of those same funds to the student.
The Department's regulations in 34 CFR 668.57(b), (c), and (d) require signatures to verify the number of family members in the household, the number of family members enrolled in postsecondary institutions, or other information specified in the annual
Generally, when a dependent applicant for title IV aid submits the FAFSA or submits corrections to a previously submitted FAFSA, at least one parent's signature is required on the FAFSA, SAR, or in connection with submitting corrections electronically. The Secretary is waiving this requirement so that an applicant need not provide a parent's signature when there is no relevant parent who can provide the required signature because of the parent's status as an affected individual in this category. In these situations, a student's high school counselor or the FAA may sign on behalf of the parent as long as the applicant provides adequate documentation concerning the parent's inability to provide a signature due to the parent's status as an affected individual in this category.
20 U.S.C. 1071, 1082, 1087a, 1087aa, Part F-1.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of partial delegation of authority.
On September 19, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent the State of Vermont a letter approving Vermont's request for partial delegation of the New Source Performance Standards for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters, and Forced-Air Furnaces (NSPS). To inform regulated facilities and the public of EPA's approval of Vermont's request for partial delegation of authority to implement and enforce the NSPS, the EPA is making available a copy of EPA's letter to Vermont through this document.
On September 19, 2017, EPA sent the State of Vermont a letter approving Vermont's request for partial delegation of the NSPS.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0514. Copies of documents pertaining to this action are available for public inspection at our Region 1 office during normal business hours. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
Eric Wortman, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square (OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1624, fax number (617) 918-0624, email
In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VT ANR) notified the EPA that VT ANR had adopted an amended § 5-204 of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulation for Wood Stoves and Central Heaters and requested partial delegation to implement and enforce certain provisions of the NSPS. On September 19, 2017, the EPA sent VT ANR a letter approving the request for partial delegation to implement and enforce the NSPS as specified by VT ANR in its notification to the EPA. A copy of the EPA's September 19, 2017 letter to VT ANR follows:
On March 16, 2015, the EPA promulgated Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters, and Forced-Air Furnaces (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAA and QQQQ. In your letter dated May 19, 2017, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VT ANR) requested partial delegation to implement and enforce certain provisions of the NSPS.
VT ANR requested partial delegation to implement and enforce the following provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR 60.539a and 60.5482:
1. Enforcement of prohibitions on the installation and operation of affected wood heaters and central heaters in a manner inconsistent with the installation and owner's manual;
2. Enforcement of prohibitions on operation of catalytic wood heaters or central heaters where the catalyst has been deactivated or removed;
3. Enforcement of prohibitions on advertisement and/or sale of uncertified model lines;
4. Enforcement of prohibitions on advertisement and/or sale of affected wood heaters and central heaters that do not have the required permanent label;
5. Enforcement of proper labeling of affected wood heaters and central heaters; and
6. Enforcement of compliance with other labeling requirements for wood heaters and central heaters.
On December 15, 2016, VT ANR adopted and amended the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations at § 5-204 for Wood Stoves and Central Heaters. In the May 19, 2017 letter, VT ANR provided copies of its revised regulations and its authority to accept delegation.
The EPA has reviewed the pertinent regulations of the State of Vermont, and has determined they provide an adequate and effective procedure for implementation of the requested NSPS provisions. Accordingly, the EPA hereby approves your request for partial delegation of authority to implement and enforce the identified provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR 60.539a and 60.5482.
Please note that this partial delegation of authority is subject to the terms and conditions in the March 6, 1996 Memorandum of Understanding between the VT ANR and the EPA for delegation of Section 111 standards. In addition, the EPA is not delegating any authorities under 40 CFR 60.539a and 60.5482 that specifically indicate they cannot be delegated.
Since this delegation is effectively immediately, there is no need for VT ANR to notify the EPA of its acceptance. Unless we receive written notice of objections from VT ANR within ten (10) days from the date of this letter, VT ANR will be deemed to have accepted all of the terms as stated herein. We will publish a notice of delegation of authority in the
The EPA appreciates Vermont's efforts to accept partial delegation and implement and enforce the Wood Heater and Central Heater NSPS delegated provisions. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to contact Eric Wortman at (617) 918-1624.
This document informs regulated facilities and the public of the EPA's approval of Vermont's request for partial delegation of authority to implement and enforce the NSPS. The partial delegation of authority was effective on September 19, 2017.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with rules adopted in the Commission's document
47 CFR 64.604(b)(8) and 64.611(a)(5) and (g)(1)(vii); and amendments to §§ 64.604(b)(4)(iii), 64.611(c)(2)(i), 64.615(a)(3)(i) introductory text and (a)(3)(i)(A), 64.630, 64.5101(b), and 64.5103(m), published at 82 FR 17754, April 13, 2017, are effective October 17, 2017.
Michael Scott, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1264, or email:
This document announces that, on October 2, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on October 2, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at §§ 64.604(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(8); 64.611(a)(5), (c)(2)(i), and (g)(1)(vii); 64.615(a)(3)(i) introductory text and (a)(3)(i)(A); 64.630; 64.5101(b); and 64.5103(m).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1201.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the 2017 total allowable catch of sablefish allocated to vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (ALT), October 12, 2017, through 2400 hours, ALT, December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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 total allowable catch (TAC) of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 439 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2017 TAC of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b). This closure does not apply to fishing by vessels participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program for the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
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 prohibiting the retention of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 6, 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 § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The purpose of this document is to propose amendments to the procedures followed by the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) when processing a request under the Freedom of Information Act, as amended. These changes will serve to update certain Commission information, conform to changes made in the FOIA Improvements Act of 2016, and streamline how the Commission processes its Freedom of Information Act requests.
Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before November 16, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Jennifer Lawson at (202) 632-7003 or by fax (202) 632-7066 (these numbers are not toll free).
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), enacted on October 17, 1988, established the National Indian Gaming Commission. Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966. The Commission originally adopted Freedom of Information Act procedures on August 23, 1993. These procedures were subsequently amended once on April 19, 2006. Since that time, the United States Congress has amended the FOIA twice, the Commission has changed the location of its headquarters office and streamlined the way it processes its FOIA requests. These proposed amendments serve to incorporate the aforementioned changes into the Commission's regulations.
The Commission certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as such, is exempt from the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.
The proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million per year; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S. based enterprises.
The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which the Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) would be required.
The Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling its tribal consultation obligations—whether directed by statute or administrative action such as Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)—by adhering to the consultation framework described in its Consultation Policy published July 15, 2013. The NIGC's consultation policy specifies that it will consult with tribes on Commission Action with Tribal Implications, which is defined as: Any Commission regulation, rulemaking, policy, guidance, legislative proposal, or operational activity that may have a substantial direct effect on an Indian tribe on matters including, but not limited to the ability of an Indian tribe to regulate its Indian gaming; an Indian Tribe's formal relationship with the Commission; or the consideration of the Commission's trust responsibilities to
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information.
5 U.S.C. 552.
This part contains the regulations the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) follows in implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. These regulations provide procedures by which you may obtain access to records compiled, created, and maintained by the Commission, along with procedures the Commission must follow in response to such requests for records. These regulations should be read together with the FOIA, which provides additional information about access to records maintained by the Commission. Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552(a), are processed in accordance with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations, 25 CFR part 515, as well as under this part.
Records that are required to be maintained by the Commission shall be available for public inspection and copying at 90 K Street NE., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002. Reading room records created on or after November 1, 1996, shall be made available electronically via the Commission's Web site.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Compile or create records solely for the purpose of satisfying a request for records;
(2) Provide records not yet in existence, even if such records may be expected to come into existence at some future time; or
(3) Restore records destroyed or otherwise disposed of, except that the FOIA Officer must notify the requester that the requested records have been destroyed or disposed.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) A brief statement of the reasons for the adverse determination, including any FOIA exemption applied by the agency in denying access to a record unless to do so would harm the interest protected by an applicable exemption;
(2) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such
(3) A statement that the adverse determination may be appealed under § 517.8 of this part and a description of the appeal requirements; and
(4) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services.
(f)
(1)
(2)
(i) When the FOIA Officer believes that a different Federal Government agency is best able to determine whether to disclose the record, the FOIA Officer should typically refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record to that agency. Ordinarily, the agency that originated the record is presumed to be the best agency to make the disclosure determination. If the Commission and another Federal Government agency jointly agree that the agency processing the request is in the best position to respond regarding the record, then the record may be handled as a consultation.
(ii) Whenever the FOIA Officer refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, he or she must document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral.
(iii) After the FOIA Officer refers a record to another Federal Government agency, the agency receiving the referral shall make a disclosure determination and respond directly to the requester. The referral of a record is not an adverse determination and no appeal rights accrue to the requester by this act.
(3)
(a)
(b)
(2) The FOIA Officer may provide requesters in its slower track(s) with an opportunity to limit the scope of their requests in order to qualify for faster processing within the specified limits of faster track(s). The FOIA Officer will do so either by contacting the requester by letter, telephone, electronic mail, or facsimile whichever is more efficient in each case. When providing a requester with the opportunity to limit the scope of their request, the FOIA Officer shall also advise the requester of the availability of the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison to aid in the resolution of any dispute arising between the requester and the Commission as well as the requester's right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.
(c)
(i) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
(ii) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of records which are demanded in a single request; or
(iii) The need for consultation with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, which consultation shall be conducted with all practicable speed.
(2) If the FOIA Officer decides that an initial determination cannot be reached within the time limits specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the FOIA Officer shall notify the requester of the reasons for the delay and include an estimate of when a determination will be made. The requester will then have the opportunity to modify the request or arrange for an alternative time frame for completion of the request. To assist in this process, the FOIA Officer shall advise the requester of the availability of the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison to aid in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the Commission, and notify the requester of his or her right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.
(3) If no initial determination has been made at the end of the 20 day period provided for in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, including any extension, the requester may appeal the action to the FOIA Appeals Officer.
(d)
(2) When a request for expedited processing is received, the FOIA Officer must determine whether to grant the request for expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days of its receipt.
(i) The requester can establish that failure to receive the records quickly could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(ii) The requester is primarily engaged in disseminating information and can demonstrate that an urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity exists.
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for making the request for expedited processing. As a matter of administrative discretion, the FOIA Officer may waive the formal certification requirement.
(4) Administrative appeals of denials of expedited processing will be given expeditious consideration. If the denial of expedited processing is upheld by the FOIA Appeals Officer, that decision is immediately subject to judicial review in the appropriate Federal district court.
(a)
(b)
(1) The information has been designated by the submitter as confidential commercial information protected from disclosure. Submitters of confidential commercial information shall use good faith efforts to designate, either at the time of submission or a reasonable time thereafter, those portions of their submissions they deem protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. Such designation shall be deemed to have expired ten years after the date of submission, unless the requester provides reasonable justification for a designation period of greater duration; or
(2) The FOIA Officer has reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) The FOIA Officer determines that the information should not be disclosed pursuant to Exemption 4 and/or any other exemption of the FOIA;
(2) The information lawfully has been published or officially made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by law (other than the FOIA);
(4) The information requested is not designated by the submitter as exempt from disclosure in accordance with this part, when the submitter had the opportunity to do so at the time of submission of the information or within a reasonable time thereafter, unless the agency has substantial reason to believe that disclosure of the information would result in competitive harm; or
(5) The designation made by the submitter in accordance with this part appears obviously frivolous. When the FOIA Officer determines that a submitter was frivolous in designating information as confidential, the FOIA Officer must provide the submitter with written notice of any final administrative disclosure determination within a reasonable number of days prior to the specified disclosure date, but no opportunity to object to disclosure will be offered.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e)
(2) If the Commission fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits for responding to a request, it may not charge search fees or, in cases where records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational institution, non-commercial scientific institution, or representative of the news media, duplication fees, except as described in paragraphs (e)(2)(i)-(iii) of this section.
(i) If the FOIA Officer determines that unusual circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, apply and provides timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, then a failure to comply with the statutory time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 days.
(ii) If the FOIA Officer determines that unusual circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, then the Commission may charge search fees and duplication fees, where applicable, if the following steps are taken. The FOIA Officer must:
(A) Provide timely written notice of unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with the FOIA and
(B) Discuss with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii).
(iii) If a court determines that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined by the FOIA, then a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION of FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, an exclusive license to the variety of table grape described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 15/731,420, “GRAPEVINE NAMED `SOLBRIO,' ” filed on JUNE 6, 2017.
Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2017.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in THIS PLANT VARIETY are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics.
The Committee meeting will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 2, 2017, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Friday, November 3, 2017. There will be an opportunity for public questions and comments at 8:15 a.m. on Friday, November 3, 2017. All times mentioned herein refer to Eastern Standard Time.
The Committee meeting will take place at The Brown Hotel, 335 W Broadway, Louisville, KY 40202. Written comments may be filed before or up to two weeks after the meeting with the contact person identified herein at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 5041-A, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-2000.
Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, telephone: 202-720-4333, eFax: 855-493-0445, or email:
The Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, which consists of 20 members appointed from 7 categories covering a broad range of agricultural disciplines and interests, has scheduled a meeting on November 2-3, 2017. During this time the Advisory Committee will discuss topics including the status of NASS programs, Census of Agriculture Updates, Census of Agriculture Program Plans, Big Data, and the NASS Strategic Plan.
The Committee meeting is open to the public. The public is asked to pre-register for the meeting at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Your pre-registration must state the names of each person in your group, organization, or interest represented; the number of people planning to give oral comments, if any; and whether anyone in your group requires special accommodations. Submit registrations to Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, via eFax: 855-493-0445, or email:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from India for the period August 14, 2015, to December 31, 2016, based on a timely withdrawal of the request for review.
Applicable October 17, 2017.
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) 482-7438.
On May 1, 2017, the Department published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, Ester withdrew its request for review by the 90-day deadline. No other party requested an administrative review of Ester. Accordingly, we are rescinding the administrative review of the CVD order on PET resin from India covering the period August 14, 2015, to December 31, 2016.
The Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess CVDs on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVDs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period August 14, 2015, to December 31, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/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. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) covering the period November 3, 2014, through December 31, 2015. We have determined, based on adverse facts available, that the mandatory respondents Truong Vinh Ltd. (Truong Vinh) and Rich State Inc. (Rich State) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR). The final net subsidy rates are listed below in the section, “Final Results of Administrative Review.” We are also rescinding the review for Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd. (Dicha Sombrilla) as we have concluded that Dicha Sombrilla did not have reviewable entries during the POR.
Applicable October 17, 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 June 27, 2017, the Department published the
The merchandise covered by this order is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12
Excluded from the scope of this order are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below.
Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft length of one inch or less that are (a) a component of an unassembled article, (b) the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and (c) the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers' chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics (
Also excluded from the scope of this order are steel nails that meet the specifications of Type I, Style 20 nails as identified in Tables 29 through 33 of ASTM Standard F1667 (2013 revision).
Also excluded from the scope of this order are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and 7317.00.30.00.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are nails having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.10.00.
Certain steel nails subject to this order are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00, 7318.29.0000, and 7806.00.8000. Certain steel nails subject to this order also may be classified under HTSUS subheading 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
We are rescinding this administrative review for Dicha Sombrilla. In the
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we find the countervailable subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of these final results of review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after November 3, 2014, through December 31, 2015, at the
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs in the amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above. For all non-reviewed firms, including Dicha Sombrilla, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 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 sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
This information collection is being revised to include modified trip summary and cost-earnings logbook forms for the Atlantic Tunas General Category, Swordfish General Commercial, and Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat fisheries. Reporting burden associated with logbooks for the Atlantic Tunas General Category and HMS Charter/Headboat fisheries has been authorized under previous versions of this information collection, but the reporting burden associated with the Swordfish General Commercial permit is new as it was implemented only in 2014, and the category has not previously been selected for logbook reporting.
NMFS collects information via vessel logbooks to monitor the U.S. catch of Atlantic swordfish, sharks, billfish, and tunas in relation to the quotas, thereby ensuring that the United States complies with its domestic and international obligations. The HMS logbook program, OMB Control No. 0648-0371, was specifically designed to collect the vessel level information needed for the management of Atlantic HMS, and includes set forms, trip forms, negative reports, and cost-earning requirements for both commercial and recreational vessels. The information supplied through the HMS logbook program provides the catch and effort data on a per-set or per-trip level of resolution for both directed and incidental species. In addition to HMS fisheries, the HMS logbook program is also used to report catches of dolphin and wahoo by commercial and charter/headboat fisheries by vessels that do not possess other federal permits. Additionally, the HMS logbook collects data on incidental species, including sea turtles, which is necessary to evaluate the fisheries in terms of bycatch and encounters with protected species. While most HMS fishermen use the HMS logbook program, HMS can also be reported as part of several other logbook collections including the Northeast Region Fishing Vessel Trip Reports (0648-0212) and Southeast Region Coastal Logbook (0648-0016).
These data are necessary to assess the status of HMS, dolphin, and wahoo in each fishery. International stock assessments for tunas, swordfish, billfish, and some species of sharks are conducted through ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics periodically and provide, in part, the basis for ICCAT management recommendations which become binding on member nations. Domestic stock assessments for most species of sharks and for dolphin and wahoo are used as the basis of managing these species.
Supplementary information on fishing costs and earnings has been collected via the HMS logbook program. This economic information enables NMFS to assess the economic impacts of regulatory programs on small businesses and fishing communities, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other domestic laws.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of vendor to provide fishing year 2018 cage tags.
NMFS informs surfclam and ocean quahog individual transferable quota (ITQ) allocation holders that they will be required to purchase their fishing year 2018 (January 1, 2018-December 31, 2018) cage tags from the National Band and Tag Company. The intent of this notice is to comply with regulations for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries and to promote efficient distribution of cage tags.
Anna Macan, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9165; fax (978) 281-9161.
The Federal Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery regulations at 50 CFR 648.77(b) authorize the Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, to specify in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Groundfish Trawl Catcher Processor Economic Data Report (the EDR) collects information for the Gulf of Alaska Trawl Groundfish Economic Data Report Program (GOA Trawl EDR Program) and for Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area.
The GOA Trawl EDR Program evaluates the economic effects of current and future groundfish and prohibited species catch (PSC) management measures for GOA trawl fisheries. This program provides the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council with baseline information on affected harvesters, crew, processors, and communities in the GOA.
Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area primarily allocates several BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries among fishing sectors, and facilitates the formation of harvesting cooperatives among vessels in the Non-American Fisheries Act (non-AFA) Trawl Catcher/Processor Cooperative Program. This program established a limited access privilege program for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector.
Data collected through the EDR includes labor information, revenues received, capital and operational expenses, and other operational or financial data. This information is used to assess the economic effects of Amendment 80 on vessels or entities regulated by the non-AFA Trawl Catcher/Processor Cooperative Program, and impacts of major changes in the groundfish management regime, including allocation of PSC species and target species to harvesting cooperatives.
The EDR is submitted annually by vessel owners and leaseholders of GOA trawl vessels, processors receiving deliveries from those trawl vessels, and Amendment 80 catcher/processors harvesting in the GOA and BSAI. Submission of the EDR is mandatory.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops; correction.
NMFS cancelled the Atlantic Shark Identification workshop originally scheduled for September 7, 2017, in Panama City, FL, and the Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification workshop originally scheduled for September 13,
The Atlantic Shark Identification workshop originally scheduled for September 7, 2017, in Panama City, FL, has been rescheduled to November 30, 2017, and the Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification workshop originally scheduled for September 13, 2017, in Panama City, FL, has been rescheduled to November 28, 2017. See
The locations of the rescheduled workshops have not changed. The Atlantic Shark Identification workshop and the Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification workshop will be held in Panama City, FL. See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at:
In the
3. November 30, 2017, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 7115 Coastal Palms Boulevard, Panama City, FL 32408.
Also, in the
6. November 28, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 1101 North Highway 231, Panama City, FL 32405.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Air Force Materiel Command, Department of the Air Force.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended; the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Battle Sight Technology, LLC of Germantown, OH, a partial exclusive license to practice the invention in any right, title and interest the Air Force has in: U.S. Patent No. 8,137,597 issued on 20 March 2012 entitled “ONE-PART, PRESSURE ACTIVATED CHEMILUMINESCENT MATERIAL,” by Dr. Lawrence Brott.
Written Objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of the publication of this Notice.
Submit written objections to the Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO, 2240 B Street, Rm. 204, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.
Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO, 2240 B Street, Rm. 204, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109.
The Department of the Air Force intends to grant a license for the patent and pending applications unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objection should be sent to: Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 204, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 18, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Erica Johnson, 202-245-7676.
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
The purpose of this follow-up data collection is to provide policy makers with detailed information on the core policies promoted by Title I and Title II-A being implemented at the state and district levels, and the resources and supports they provide to schools and teachers. The timing of the data collection is critical to provide early information on the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in the 2017-18 school year.
This study will rely on information collected from existing sources, for which there are no respondents or burden, and on a set of revised state and district surveys based on the 2014 data collection in order to address the study's research questions. Extant data sources include (a) the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and (b) EDFacts data.
The revised surveys of states and school districts will begin in March 2018. All respondents will have the opportunity to complete an electronic (
Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. These applications are not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
n. You may also register online at
o. Scoping Process
The Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Holyoke Number 1 Hydro Project, Holyoke Number 2 Hydro Project, and Holyoke Number 3 Hydro Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information on the Scoping Document (SD) issued on October 10, 2017.
Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on October 10, 2017, Xcel Energy Services Inc. (Complainant), on behalf of its public utility affiliate Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), filed a formal complaint against Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP or Respondent) pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2017), alleging that SPP has violated its Tariff by assessing Attachment Z2 credit payment obligations to SPS in a manner that is inconsistent with the SPP Tariff, violates the filed rate doctrine, is inconsistent with SPS's network transmission service agreements with
Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contact for Respondent, as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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 (2017). 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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests, must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on October 10, 2017, pursuant to section 385.207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 292.205(c) and 385.207 (2017), Bloom Energy Corporation (Bloom) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission declare that certain Bloom facilities, which have internalized the hydrogen producing second-use process, meet the Commission's standards for cogeneration units as set forth in 18 CFR 292.205(a)(1)-(2) and 18 CFR 292.205(d) of the Commission's regulations, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following 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:
Take notice that on October 10, 2017, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of its operating company affiliates that are transmission owners (TOs) in the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) (together AEP or Complainants)
AEP certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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
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
Take notice that during the month of September 2017, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017).
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Voyager Wind II, 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 October 31, 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 on October 6, 2017, pursuant to rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practices and Procedures 18 CFR 385.207, FirstEnergy Service Company (Service Company), submitted a request that the Commission waive specified portions of 18 CFR 35.39 and any other rules and regulations as may be necessary, to allow Service Company to establish a centralized RTO interface services group to provide services to certain franchised public utilities and market-regulated power sales affiliates within the FirstEnergy Corp. holding company system, as more fully explained in its waiver request.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 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
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l. Deadline for filing additional study requests
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
o. The license application and associated filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
Register online at
p. With this notice, we are designating Nevada Hydro, Inc. as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
q.
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
October 19, 2017, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at
A free webcast of this event is available through
The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding NTE Ohio, 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 October 31, 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
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection, FERC-717, (Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocol) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission published Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due November 16, 2017.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-0173, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC17-13-000 by either of the following methods:
• eFiling at Commission's Web site:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission also established Standards of Conduct requiring that personnel engaged in transmission system operations function independently from personnel engaged in marketing functions. The Standards of Conduct were designed to prevent employees of a public utility (or any of its affiliates) engaged in marketing functions from preferential access to OASIS-related information or from engaging in unduly discriminatory business practices. Companies were required to separate their transmission operations/reliability functions from their marketing/merchant functions and prevent system operators from providing merchant employees and employees of affiliates with transmission-related information not available to all customers at the same time through public posting on the OASIS.
As a result of the efficiency gains, and an overestimate of the respondents in our past request, we are submitting a more accurate number of respondents. The estimate below reflects the work associated with the current information collection requirements:
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held November 29 and 30 at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20052. The CHPAC advises the Environmental Protection Agency on science, regulations, and other issues relating to children's environmental health.
November 29 and 30 at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health in Washington, DC.
950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20052.
Angela Hackel, Office of Children's Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-2977 or
The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. An agenda will be posted to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference meeting of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Methods
The public teleconference will be held on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Eastern time).
The public teleconference will be held by telephone only.
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning this meeting notice may contact Dr. Bryan J. Bloomer, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via phone at (202) 564-4222, or email at
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) requested that the SAB conduct a review of the methods for conducting Risk and Technology Review Assessments required by the Clean Air Act. These assessments evaluate the effects of industrial emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) on public health and the environment. The RTR Methods Review Panel convened a public face-to-face meeting on June 29-30, 2017, to deliberate on the peer review charge questions. The Panel will meet via a public teleconference to discuss the draft report developed by the Panel and to hear and consider public comments.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The collection provides EXIM staff with the information necessary to monitor the borrower's payments for exported goods covered under its short and medium-term export credit insurance policies. It also alerts EXIM staff of defaults, so they can manage the portfolio in an informed manner.
Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Communications Commission.
Notification of filing instructions; deadlines for filing responses and providing contact information.
In these documents, the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force, and the Wireline Competition and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureaus), provide instructions for filing 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) coverage data pursuant to the
Contact information due by October 23, 2017; responses to information collection due by January 4, 2018.
Ken Lynch at (202) 418-7356 or Ben Freeman at (202) 418-0628, or email
This is a summary of the Public Notice,
On August 3, 2017, the Commission adopted the
Entities subject to this information collection must submit contact information for this collection using the template posted at
Additional information about this data collection can be found on the Commission's MF-II 4G LTE Data Collection Web page at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission announces and provides an agenda for the third meeting of Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC).
Thursday, November 9, 2017, 9:30 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Brian Hurley, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at (202) 418-2220 or
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will accommodate as many participants as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will also provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463 (Oct. 6, 1972), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve, with a focus on rural areas.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 26, 2017.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
1 (866) 867-4769, Passcode: 678-100.
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 November 14, 2017.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 2, 2017.
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Standard Form (SF) 28, Affidavit of Individual Surety.
Submit comments on or before December 18, 2017.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0001 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst,
The Affidavit of Individual Surety SF 28 is used by all executive agencies, including the Department of Defense, to obtain information from individuals wishing to serve as sureties to Government bonds. To qualify as a surety on a Government bond, the individual must show a net worth not less than the penal amount of the bond on the SF 28. It is an elective decision on the part of the maker to use individual sureties instead of other available sources of surety or sureties for Government bonds. We are not aware if other formats exist for the collection of this information.
The information on SF 28 is used to assist the contracting officer in determining the acceptability of individuals proposed as sureties.
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking nominations for possible membership on the Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP). The Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) regarding the concept review, scientific and technical merit of grant and cooperative agreement assistance applications, and contract proposals relating to the causes, prevention, and control of diseases, disabilities, injuries, and impairments of public health significance; exposure to hazardous substances in the environment; health promotion and education; and other related activities that promote health and well-being. Members and Chairs shall be selected by the Secretary, HHS, or other official to whom the authority has been delegated, on an “as needed” basis in response to specific applications being reviewed with expertise to provide advice. Members will be selected from authorities in the various fields of prevention and control of diseases, disabilities, and injuries. Members of other chartered HHS advisory committees may serve on the panel if their expertise is required. Consideration is given to professional training and background, points of view represented, and upcoming applications to be reviewed by the committee.
Nominations for membership on the WTCHP SEPs must be received no later than December 15, 2017. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle; but will be kept on file for future cycles. The membership cycles are listed under the Advisory Council Review on the Funding Opportunity Announcement, which is available at:
All nominations should be mailed to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, emailed to
Mia Wallace, Management Analyst, CDC/NIOSH/WTCHP, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone: (404) 498-2253; Email:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens appointed to serve on a CDC SEP and can be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on CDC federal workgroups or prior experience serving on another federal advisory committee does not disqualify a reviewer. However, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Reviewers appointed to the SEP, CDC are not considered Special Government Employees, and will not be required to file financial disclosure reports.
Nominees interested in serving as a member on a WTCHP Peer Review Panel should submit the following items:
• Current
• A statement summarizing the nominee's Areas of Expertise (include unique experiences, skills and knowledge the individual will bring to the WTCHP), Ethnic/Racial Minority Status, and Citizenship; and
• A statement confirming that the nominee is not a registered federal lobbyist.
The Zadroga Act lists the following broad research areas:
• Physical and mental health conditions that may be related to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;
• Diagnosing WTC-related health conditions for which there has been diagnostic uncertainty; and
• Treating WTC-related health conditions for which there has been treatment uncertainty.
Research mentioned in the Zadroga Act includes epidemiologic and other research studies on WTC-related health conditions or emerging conditions among (1) enrolled WTC responders and certified-eligible WTC survivors under treatment; (2) sampled populations outside the NYC disaster area, in Manhattan (as far north as 14th Street) and in Brooklyn; and (3) control populations, to identify potential for long-term adverse health effects in less exposed populations.
Major areas of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:
Linking 9/11 exposure to health conditions:
• Cancers, multisystem or autoimmune, cardiovascular and neurologic disease (including age at diagnosis);
• Characterizing patterns of illness (age, gender, comorbidities, etc.); and
• Characterizing alterations in health and development for those exposed to 9/11 as children.
Characterizing established WTC-related diseases and comorbidities:
• Identifying phenotypes, biomarkers, epigenetics; and
• Care models that address complex co-morbidities and other modifiable factors.
• Health services research and value-based care that addresses disaster-related injury and illness for chronic disease.
(
Characterizing the work-ability and occupational outcomes for those impacted by 9/11.
Lessons learned in recovery:
• Identifying and operationalizing key elements of psychological resilience for disaster responders; and
• Establishing comparison groups for disaster-related research for key health indicators for first responders.
(
Relevant diseases or conditions include, but are not limited to, the following:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
This form was first developed in 2014 to replace Form ACF-196. No changes are being proposed with this request for OMB review. No comments were received in response to the publication of the initial
In 1996, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was amended by Public Law 104-235 to require that any state receiving the Basic State Grant work with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide specific data on child maltreatment, to the extent practicable. These provisions were retained and expanded upon in the 2010 reauthorization of CAPTA (Pub. L. 111-320). Item (17) below was enacted with the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-22). The law goes into effect in 2017 and it is anticipated that states will begin reporting with FFY 2018 data. Item (18) below was enacted with the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) (Pub. L. 114-198). The law goes into effect in 2017 and it is anticipated that states will begin reporting with FFY 2018 data. Each state to which a grant is made under this section shall annually work with the Secretary to provide, to the maximum extent practicable, a report that includes the following:
1. The number of children who were reported to the state during the year as victims of child abuse or neglect.
2. Of the number of children described in paragraph (1), the number with respect to whom such reports were—
A. substantiated;
B. unsubstantiated; or
C. determined to be false.
3. Of the number of children described in paragraph (2)—
A. the number that did not receive services during the year under the state program funded under this section or an equivalent state program;
B. the number that received services during the year under the state program funded under this section or an equivalent state program; and
C. the number that were removed from their families during the year by disposition of the case.
4. The number of families that received preventive services, including use of differential response, from the state during the year.
5. The number of deaths in the state during the year resulting from child abuse or neglect.
6. Of the number of children described in paragraph (5), the number of such children who were in foster care.
7.
A. The number of child protective service personnel responsible for the—
i. intake of reports filed in the previous year;
ii. screening of such reports;
iii. assessment of such reports; and
iv. investigation of such reports.
B. The average caseload for the workers described in subparagraph (A).
8. The agency response time with respect to each such report with respect to initial investigation of reports of child abuse or neglect.
9. The response time with respect to the provision of services to families and children where an allegation of child abuse or neglect has been made.
10. For child protective service personnel responsible for intake, screening, assessment, and investigation of child abuse and neglect reports in the state—
A. information on the education, qualifications, and training requirements established by the state for child protective service professionals, including for entry and advancement in the profession, including advancement to supervisory positions;
B. data of the education, qualifications, and training of such personnel;
C. demographic information of the child protective service personnel; and
D. information on caseload or workload requirements for such personnel, including requirements for average number and maximum number of cases per child protective service worker and supervisor.
11. The number of children reunited with their families or receiving family preservation services that, within five years, result in subsequent substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect, including the death of the child.
12. The number of children for whom individuals were appointed by the court to represent the best interests of such children and the average number of out of court contacts between such individuals and children.
13. The annual report containing the summary of activities of the citizen review panels of the state required by subsection (c)(6).
14. The number of children under the care of the state child protection system who are transferred into the custody of the state juvenile justice system.
15. The number of children referred to a child protective services system under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii).
16. The number of children determined to be eligible for referral, and the number of children referred, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxi), to agencies providing early intervention services under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431
17. The number of children determined to be victims described in subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv).
18. The number of infants—
(A) identified under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii);
(B) for whom a plan of safe care was developed under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and
(C) for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii).
The Children's Bureau proposes to continue collecting the NCANDS data through the two files of the Detailed Case Data Component, the Child File (the case-level component of NCANDS) and the Agency File (additional aggregate data, which cannot be collected at the case level). Technical assistance will be provided so that all states may provide the Child File and Agency File data to NCANDS.
The reauthorization of CAPTA, subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv), specifies for “requiring identification and assessment of all reports involving children known or suspected to be victims of sex trafficking (as defined in section 103(10) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102 (10)); and S. 178-38.” To comply with the new reporting requirements for item 17, NCANDS will use a new field in the Child File.
The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Child File by modifying the maltreatment fields.
• Add a new maltreatment type code, 7=sex trafficked, to the existing Fields 26, 28, 30, 32 (Maltreatment-1 Type, Maltreatment-2 Type, Maltreatment-3 Type, Maltreatment-4 Type).
The reauthorization of CAPTA, subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii), specifies collecting the number of (A) screened-in and screened-out referrals from healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of infants and who referred such infants born with and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; (B) of those screened-in, for whom a plan of safe care was developed, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and (C) of those screened-in, for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii). To comply with the new reporting requirements for item 18, NCANDS will use a combination of existing fields in the Child File and a new field in the Agency File.
The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Agency File by adding 1 new field, under Section 2, Referrals and Reports.
• 2.5. Number of screened-out referrals from healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of infants and who referred such infants born with and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Child File by adding two new fields.
• Field 151, Has A Safe Care Plan: The Safe Care Plan field will establish a flag as to whether a child has a safe care plan.
• Field 152, Referral to CARA-Related Services: The Referral to CARA-related Services field will establish a flag as to whether a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with the attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day Notice and request for comments; New Collection, 1601-NEW.
The DHS Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 18, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0055, at:
•
Mike Villano, (202) 447-5446,
Under 41 U.S.C. 3306, agencies are required to use advance procurement planning and conduct market research. Advance planning and market research is a means of developing the agency's acquisition requirements. As part of this process, companies frequently ask to meet with DHS representatives for numerous reasons including: sharing information on technologies and company capabilities or to ask how to do business with DHS. DHS needs the information being collected to prepare for productive meetings, share information across the enterprise about touchpoints the company has had at DHS, and to better track the frequency and number of meetings between DHS and companies. No personal information is being collected.
This is a means of improving the procurement process that is used to support the DHS mission. The above statute is implemented by 48 CFR (FAR) Part 10, Market Research. The information collection method the agency requests is not specifically mentioned in the regulation but it is nonetheless permissible because it reasonable and does not request more information than is necessary. Under 48 CFR (FAR) 1.102-4(e), Role of the Acquisition Team, agencies are allowed to implement a policy, procedure, strategy or practice if it is in the interest of the Government and is not otherwise prohibit.
The information is being used by DHS to help determine the department personnel who should be attending the meetings. It is also used by DHS representatives to better prepare for the meeting, so that it is productive for both DHS and the companies It is helpful for DHS to know background information about the company as well as whether they have met with DHS before and whether they currently support the Department. DHS also receives inquiries from oversight bodies, such as Congress, regarding with how many companies DHS has met with as well as whether DHS has met with specific companies. The meeting information provides source data for answering those inquiries in an accurate and timely manner. EngageDHS is a fillable form that will be used to collect vendor/industry meetings with DHS.
Upon a request for a meeting, DHS will ask companies to complete a request form and submit via email to the DHS Industry Liaison mailbox at
There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents for the collection of this information. The collection of information is covered by DHS/ALL/PIA-006 DHS General Contact Lists DHS/ALL-021 Department of Homeland Security Contractors and Consultants, October 23, 2008, 73 FR 63179.
This is a new information collection. OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
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,
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of a New System of Records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides public notice regarding its System of Records for the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Evaluation—Phase II. This evaluation will assess the implementation and effectiveness of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program for extremely low-income nonelderly adults with disabilities. Primary data collection will include interviews with grantees and program partners and stakeholders and surveys of Section 811 Project Rental Assistance and Project Rental Assistance Contract residents. Secondary (existing) datasets will include HUD administrative data, Medicare and Medicaid data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), state Medicaid data from six state Medicaid agencies, Project Rental Assistance and Project Rental Assistance Contract program documents, and neighborhood administrative data. A more detailed description of the proposed system of records is contained in the purpose section of this notice.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.
All submissions received
Helen Goff Foster, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, at 451 7th Street SW., Room 10139; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number 202-708-3054 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals who are hearing- or speech-impaired may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The new System of Records will encompass data collected by PD&R to evaluate the Section 811 HUD Project Rental Assistance program. The Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program funds a new model of housing assistance that provides funding to state housing agencies to work in partnership with state human services and Medicaid agencies to create community-based supportive housing for extremely low-income nonelderly adults with disabilities, including those who are currently in or at risk for residing in institutions or who are currently (or at risk for becoming) homeless. This study is the second phase of a multiphase evaluation. Phase I documented the implementation experience of the first 12 state housing agencies that were awarded the first round of Project Rental Assistance grants. In Phase II, the evaluation is focused on 6 states selected from 28 state grantees from the first and second rounds of Section 811 Project Rental Assistance funding: California, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Minneapolis, and Washington. The Phase II evaluation will continue to follow the implementation of the program but will also assess the impact of the program on participants' quality of life and care, housing and neighborhood, and utilization and access to health services and supports, as well as assess the cost-effectiveness of this supportive housing model compared to other models of supportive housing for persons with disabilities.
The new notice states the name and location of the record system, the authority for and manner of its operations, the categories of individuals that it covers, the type of records that it contains, the sources of the information for the records, the routine uses made of the records, and the types of exemptions in place for the records. The notice also includes the business address of the HUD officials who will inform interested persons of how they may gain access to and/or request amendments to records pertaining to themselves.
Publication of this notice allows the Department to provide new information about its system of records notices in a clear and cohesive format. The new system of records will incorporate Federal privacy requirements and Department's policy requirements. The Privacy Act places on Federal agencies principal responsibility for compliance with its provisions, by requiring Federal agencies to safeguard an individual's records against an invasion of personal privacy; protect the records contained in an agency system of records from unauthorized disclosure; ensure that the records collected are relevant, necessary, current, and collected only for their intended use; and adequately safeguard the records to prevent misuse of such information. In addition, this notice demonstrates the Department's focus on industry best practices to protect the personal privacy of the individuals covered by this SORN.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, a report of the amended system of records was submitted to OMB, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as instructed by paragraph 4c of Appendix l to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agencies Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” November 28, 2000.
This information will not be classified.
The records are maintained at the Abt Associates (contractor) offices at 55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 and 4550 Montgomery Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0001.
Carol S. Star, Program Evaluation Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-6139 (this is not a toll-free number).
Sec. 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-609), 12 U.S.C. 1701z-1, 1701z-2.
The purpose of the system is to allow the Department to collect, track, and study information gathered on Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program participants and to analyze the effectiveness of this rental assistance model compared to other supportive housing models for extremely low-income nonelderly adults with disabilities. This is the second of a multiphase evaluation. The evaluation is funded by the Program Evaluation Division in PD&R. The project will evaluate the implementation of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program, its impact on residents, and the cost-effectiveness of this new housing assistance model for persons with disabilities in six states: California, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Minneapolis, and Washington.
Phase II of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance evaluation will rely on both primary and secondary sources of data to inform the overall evaluation. Primary data collection includes interviews with grantees and program's partners and stakeholders, and surveys of Section 811 Project Rental Assistance and Project Rental Assistance Contract residents. Secondary (existing) datasets will include HUD administrative data, Medicare and Medicaid data from CMS, state Medicaid data from six state Medicaid agencies, Project Rental Assistance and Project Rental Assistance Contract program documents, and neighborhood administrative data.
Primary data collection with grantees, partnering agencies, and Project Rental Assistance and Project Rental Assistance Contract residents is necessary to describe the implementation of the Project Rental Assistance program, identify characteristics of successful program strategies, and assess the impact of the
This analysis will inform HUD leadership, policymakers, and HUD partners that implement supportive housing programs for nonelderly adults with disabilities. In addition, the records collected through this evaluation represent HUD's effort to assess and report to Congress on the implementation and effectiveness of this rental assistance approach. The data collected for Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Evaluation—Phase II will be used and stored solely for research purposes, and will not be used to identify individuals or make decisions that affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals. The data in this system will include location data, which will be used to analyze the neighborhoods in which Section 811 Project Rental Assistance and Project Rental Assistance Contract residents live. The data in the system will also include information about health, housing, and quality of life measures, which will be used to analyze the extent to which people's lives are being improved by the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program. The data in this system will be analyzed using statistical methods and only reported in the aggregate. Resulting reports will not disclose or identify any individuals or sensitive personal information. The Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Evaluation is in direct service of the mission of PD&R, which is to “inform policy development and implementation to improve life in American communities through conducting, supporting, and sharing research, surveys, demonstrations, program evaluations, and best practices.”
Data will be collected from households assisted by the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance and Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Contract programs, other extremely low-income households including a person with a disability served by other HUD-assisted housing programs, a sample of individuals receiving Medicaid or similar state plan services, Section 811 housing agency grantees, and partnering agencies (state Medicaid agencies, property owners, service providers, and public housing agencies). All individuals live in the states of California, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington.
The data sets will contain the following categories of records:
•
•
•
•
To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons to the extent that such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the records in this system were collected, as set forth by Appendix I1—HUD's Library of Routine Uses, published in the
1. To researchers for the purpose of producing a dataset to be used to support the Rent Reform Demonstration and Impact Evaluation of the Rent Reform Demonstration. The data collection will specifically provide data of the household's characteristics to describe the sample and ensure that the two study groups are random, and provide information that allows for the initial triennial calculations to be verified.
2. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) HUD suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in a system of records has been compromised; (b) HUD has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of systems or programs (whether maintained by HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is
Abt Associates provides all project staff with
All study team members will be made aware of the project-specific data regulations and best practices associated with handling data for the study. These practices are incorporated in the study protocol and will be detailed in training plans for interviewers, support staff, and data analytic staff. All staff who will have access to the data containing personally identifiable information (PII) or protected health information (PHI) will sign a confidentiality agreement pursuant to the requirements of all data use agreements, which will be attached to the data security plan. All staff will also receive an annual reminder of the terms of the agreement.
Abt will guarantee this level of restricted access by only using secure transfer mechanisms, such as Huddle, Abt's FedRAMP Moderate accredited file transfer service for moving data in and out of the system, or another secure file transfer system (SFTP) of the transferring agency's choice. Abt will also only access the data through its restricted access folder on the Analytic Computing Environment, ACE 3, which meets NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4 FISMA Moderate Standards and utilizes FedRAMP Moderate accredited services from Amazon as infrastructure. Abt Associates will retain all data collected over the life of the study and any analysis files generated with those data for as long as required and only under conditions specified in the study protocol. At the end of the contract, Abt will destroy records that do not need to be retained. Abt will destroy the remainder of the files after the contract ends, as is required in the contract. The retention and disposal procedures are in keeping with HUD's records management policies as described in 44 U.S.C. 3101 and 44 U.S.C. 3303 and with HUD's Records Disposition Schedule 67 PD&R, Item 6 (
The study's approved data security plan describes the safeguarding of any hardcopy, recorded, and electronic information on human subjects that will be a part of the study. All study team members are aware of the project-specific data regulations and best practices associated with handling data for the study. These practices are incorporated in the study protocol and will be detailed in training plans for interviewers, support staff, and data analytic staff. All staff who will have access to the data containing PII or PHI information sign a confidentiality agreement, per the requirements of all data use agreements.
Abt will guarantee this level of restricted access by only using secure transfer mechanisms, such as Huddle, Abt's FedRAMP Moderate accredited file transfer service for moving data in and out of the system, or another SFTP of the transferring agency's choice. Abt will also only access the data through its restricted access folder on the Analytic Computing Environment, ACE 3, which meets NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4 FISMA Moderate Standards and utilizes FedRAMP Moderate accredited services from Amazon as infrastructure.
For information, assistance, or inquiry about records, contact Helen Goff Foster, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, at 451 7th Street SW., Room 10139, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0001, telephone number 202-708-3054 (this is not a toll-free number). When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Housing and Urban Development (HUD) system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 24 CFR part 16. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made, under penalty of perjury, as a substitute for notarization. In addition, your request should:
a. Explain why you believe HUD would have information on you.
b. Identify which Office of HUD you believe has the records about you.
c. Specify when you believe the records would have been created.
d. Provide any other information that will help the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) staff determine which HUD office may have responsive records.
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying their agreement for you to access their records. Without the above information, the HUD FOIA Office may not conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with regulations.
The Department's rules for contesting contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR part 16, Procedures for Inquiries. Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting Helen Goff Foster, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, at 451 7th Street SW., Room 10139, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0001, or the HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals Officers; Office of General Counsel; Department of Housing and Urban Development; 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0001.
Individual wishing to determine to whether this system of records contains information about them may do so by contacting their lending institutions or contacting HUD's Privacy Officer or Freedom of Information Act Office at the addresses above.
None.
None.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of tribal consultations.
Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) will conduct a series of consultation sessions regarding its proposed strategic plan. The BIE will conduct five on-site tribal consultation sessions and one telephonic session. The on-site consultation sessions will be held at geographically diverse locations across the country to maximize Tribal input early in the process. The telephonic session will be held on December 14, 2017.
The BIE will conduct the following five on-site consultation sessions and one telephonic consultation. The on-site sessions will be held:
1. Wednesday November 15, 2017, in Salem, OR from 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. PST.
2. Tuesday November 28, 2017, in Anadarko, OK from 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. CST.
3. Tuesday December 5, 2017, in Bismarck, ND from 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. MDT.
4. Tuesday December 12, 2017, in Albuquerque, NM from 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. MDT.
The last session will be held telephonically and by webinar on Thursday December 14, 2017, by calling 631-992-3221 and entering the passcode 759-763-471. The Web site for the webinar is
The on-site sessions will be held at the following locations:
The draft strategic plan will be available at:
Ms. Paulina Bell, Bureau of Indian Education; telephone: (202) 208-3479.
The BIE is committed to improving and enhancing its service delivery and improving the education of Indian students served by BIE-funded schools. The BIE is developing a bureau-wide strategic plan to guide its work and service delivery to students, schools, and tribes. To that end, the BIE recently engaged its staff in a process of strategic performance planning with the intention of submitting the proposed
On March 8, 2017, April 11, 2017, June 14, 2017, July 18-20, 2017, and August 29-30, 2017, the BIE convened local, regional, and central office BIE personnel in order to formulate proposed strategic plan vision, mission, and organizational values statements as well as goals and strategies to implement the goals in the planning process.
In order to ensure that its strategic planning efforts result in a high quality, effective, and useful plan, BIE partnered with external subject matter expert organizations specializing in educational strategic performance planning, including the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the South Central Comprehensive Center located at the University of Oklahoma (SC3), and the Building State Capacity and Productivity Center (BSCPC). These organizations are providing BIE with valuable technical subject matter expertise and shared best practices in developing an effective, five-year strategic plan proposal with which to engage tribes in meaningful and timely consultation.
BIE emphasizes that it is early in the strategic planning process and views the proposed strategic plan as a useful
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the
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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Pickerel Island (47-VI-0197) in Vilas County, WI. The human remains are from multiple discoveries and excavations but collectively represent one adult male. They were originally found eroding out of a slope caused by ice expansion on the northwestern portion of the island in 1991 by the President of the Big St. Germain Lake Home Owners Association. In 1992, the WHS in conjunction with the Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company, the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources excavated the rest of the burial, which they determined to be in a secondary burial context. The human remains were then taken to the Wisconsin Historical Society that same year. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• 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), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal Land Tribes).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes and the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, National Museum of Health and Medicine, has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 National Museum of Health and Medicine. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 National Museum of Health and Medicine at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Mr. Brian F. Spatola, Curator of Anatomical Division, National Museum of Health and Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone (301) 319-3353, 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 National Museum of Health and Medicine, Silver Spring, MD. The human remains were removed from the Moundville site (1TU500) in Hale County, 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).
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the National Museum of Health and Medicine 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); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Quapaw Tribe of Indians; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (“The Tribes”).
In early 1905 and late 1906, human remains representing, at minimum, 28 individuals were removed from the Moundville Site (1TU500) in Hale County, AL. The remains were removed by Clarence B. Moore during an archeological investigation of burial mounds and cemeteries near Moundville, AL. Artifacts were present at the time of excavation, but were not retained with the human remains. The human remains were donated to the Army Medical Museum by Clarence B. Moore in 1906. The date of the site associated with the human remains is approximately A.D. 700 to 1540. The remains consist of partial skeletons or single bone elements. Age and sex could not be identified. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the National Museum of Health and Medicine have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on: Osteological evidence, collection history, artifacts, and association with prehistoric archeological sites.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 28 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• 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 any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and, if joined with the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
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 Mr. Brian F. Spatola, Curator of Anatomical Division, National Museum of Health and Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone (301) 319-3353, email
The National Museum of Health and Medicine is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society 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 associated funerary objects 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 objects should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects 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 objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Museum, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, 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 Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Island Village site in Manitowoc County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.
In 1989, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Island Village site (47-MN-0101) in Manitowoc County, WI. The site is located within the Kill Snake Marsh and Wildlife Area run by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Employees of the WDNR found human remains and associated funerary objects brought to the surface by plowing. Representatives from the Wisconsin Historical Society visited the site and were given the human remains and associated funerary objects. The human remains represent four individuals, including one young adult and three juveniles. No known individuals were identified. The four associated funerary objects are 1 decorated German silver brooch or hair plate, 1 lot of five copper bracelets, 1 copper picture frame mat, and 1 lot of beads.
The kinds of associated funerary objects recovered suggest a historic period date for the human remains, specifically the mid-1800s. Objects like the silver German brooch did not come into use in the Great Lakes until after the 1830s. The picture frame mat was of the type that would have been used to frame an ambrotype or daguerreotype suggesting a post-1850 date. The Island Village site was first recorded in written documents by archeologist Charles E. Brown in 1906 who stated that a Mr. Louis Falge identified the site as a Potawatomi village. Archival research conducted by the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin, identified the location as a historic village site that was led by Potawatomi chief Chaiconda. The site was described by Falge as being occupied and under cultivation until 1864, which corresponds with the estimated age of the associated funerary objects.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the four 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 Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi; and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi; and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Cancellation of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the September 21, 2017, meeting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory Commission previously announced in the
Further information concerning the meetings may be obtained from Karen Beck-Herzog, Site Manager, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, P.O. Box 700, Middletown, Virginia 22645, telephone (540) 868-9176, or visit the park Web site:
The 15-member Commission was designated by Congress to provide advice to the Secretary of the Interior in the preparation and implementation of the park's general management plan and in the identification of sites of significance outside the park boundary (16 U.S.C. 410iii-7).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, 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 Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains were removed from the Nekoosa Mound Group, Wood County, WI.
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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Nekoosa Mound Group (47-WO-0014) in Wood County, WI. Very fragmentary partially cremated human remains were collected by archeologist William M. Hurley from Mound 4, one of the site's conical mounds. An unknown individual donated the human remains to the Wisconsin Historical Society at an unknown date. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, and skeletal analysis.
• 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), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal Land Tribes).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes and the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin, and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society 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 no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary object and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary object to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, 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 Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from the Water Street Cemetery, Marinette County, WI.
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 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 Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the historic Water Street Cemetery (47-MT-0288) in Marinette County, WI. Human remains were discovered by a construction crew digging under an existing gas and sewer line. The human remains were taken to the City of Marinette Police Department, whose personnel went to the site and uncovered the burial again, but did not conduct further excavations. The Police Department subsequently contacted the Wisconsin Burial Site Preservation Office (BSPO). Representatives of the BSPO and the Neville Public Museum screened the back dirt and excavated the area of the burial where they recovered wood from a coffin and the partial remains of one adult male. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is an assemblage of coffin wood.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• 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(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), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary object were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal Land Tribes).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary object may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes and the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, 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 Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains were removed from the Paradise Valley site, Monroe County, WI.
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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Paradise Valley site (47-MO-0251) in Monroe County, WI. The human remains were recovered from a cranberry bog by unknown individuals and reported to the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS). Archeologists from the WHS took possession of the human remains and visited the site. They found no additional human remains or funerary objects that could be associated with the human remains. The site has since been reported as destroyed by cranberry operations. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• 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 any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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
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 Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, 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 Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains were removed from Dickensen Gravel Pit and Krainik Conical site in Juneau County, WI.
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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Dickensen Gravel Pit (47-JU-0101) in Juneau County, WI. The human remains represent a single adult of indeterminate sex and were donated to the WHS by the County Coroner Clarence R. Sorenson in 1939. A letter written by John Barr in June of 1939 states that the human remains were exhumed by a dentist from New Lisbon at an unstated date from a cultivated field. No known individuals were identified. Charcoal was found with the human remains, but there is no record of it being brought to the WHS. Therefore, no associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Krainik Conical site (47-JU-0203) in Juneau County, WI. In 1980, Dick Robinson, a local landowner, donated to the WHS a box of items that he and his father had collected from the site over several years. In a letter dated December of 1980, Robinson made no mention of having collected human remains, but WHS employees identified three human long bone fragments representing one adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• 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 any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is not the aboriginal land of any Indian Tribe, but is near the judicially established aboriginal lands of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, by November 16, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska may proceed.
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society 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 no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary
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 Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, 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 Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Potato Lake Mounds, Rusk County, WI.
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 was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1914, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from Potato Lake Mounds (47-RU-0013) in Rusk County, WI. The then landowner donated the remains to the Wisconsin Historical Society in 1916 and 1918, but there is no documentation as to where they were found at the site. The human remains represent six individuals—two juveniles, one adult female, one adult male, and two adults of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The four associated funerary objects are 2 ceramic sherds, 1 chert flake, and 1 lot of faunal remains.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the four 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.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal Land Tribes).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes and the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, National Museum of Health and Medicine, has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes 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 National Museum of Health and Medicine at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Mr. Brian F. Spatola, Curator of Anatomical Division, National Museum of Health and Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone (301) 319-3353, 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 National Museum of Health and Medicine, Silver Spring, MD. The human remains were removed from the Three Rivers Landing on the Tombigbee River (site 1WN76), Washington County, 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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the National Museum of Health and Medicine 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); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Quapaw Tribe of Indians; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (“The Tribes”).
In 1905, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Three Rivers Landing on the Tombigbee River (site 1WN76), Washington County, AL, by Clarence B. Moore, during an archeological investigation of burial mounds. Artifacts were present at the time of excavation, but were not retained with the human remains. The human remains were donated to the Army Medical Museum by Clarence B. Moore in 1905. The date of the site associated with the human remains is approximately A.D. 200 to 1540. The remains consist of a partial femur and an innominate bone. Age could not be identified. Sex is female based on morphological features of the innominate bone. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the National Museum of Health and Medicine have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on: Osteological evidence, collection history, artifacts, and association with prehistoric archeological sites.
• 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), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
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 Mr. Brian F. Spatola, Curator of Anatomical Division, National Museum of Health and Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone (301) 319-3353, email
The National Museum of Health and Medicine is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, 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 Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains were removed from an unknown location near Pembine and Red Arrow Park, Marinette County, WI.
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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1878, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in Marinette County, WI. The human remains, later identified as representing one adult female, were removed from a mound containing a number of other interments near the city of Pembine. The human remains were donated by the Milwaukee Chapter of the Wisconsin Archaeological Society to the Wisconsin Historical Society in 1908. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Red Arrow Park (47-MT-0289) in Marinette County, WI. A fisherman discovered a mandible from an adult male off the Sea Gull sand bar. He brought the mandible to the Marinette City Police, who revisited the site the day after the discovery but did not find any other human remains. The Wisconsin Historical Society Burial Site Preservation Office took possession of the remains in December of 1991. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• 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 any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal Land Tribes).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes and the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Cancellation of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the September 14, 2017, meeting of the Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission previously announced in the
Bill Justice, Acting Superintendent and Designated Federal Official, Gettysburg National Military Park, 1195 Baltimore Pike, Suite 100, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325, at (717) 334-1124 or via email
The Commission was established by Public Law 101-377 (16 U.S.C. 430g-8), to advise the Secretary of the Interior on the coordination of the management of the Gettysburg National Military Park and Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District with local jurisdictions.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 16, 2017.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St., Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, 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 Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains were removed from the Sikora Burial Site and an unknown location near Antigo in Langlade County, WI.
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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In August of 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Sikora Burial Site (47-LG-0115) in Langlade County, WI. The human remains of one adult male were found during basement construction for a cottage on the southern shore of Rolling Stone Lake in the Township of Ainsworth. No associated funerary objects were recovered. The homeowners contacted the Antigo Police Department the same day as the discovery, and the police subsequently contacted the Wisconsin Burial Site Preservation Office. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from an unknown location near Antigo in Langlade County, WI. It is not known who removed the human remains, who donated them to the Wisconsin Historical Society, or when they were donated. In 1996, the human remains were discovered in a box labeled “unaccessioned calvarium and representative parts of three mandibles, mound near Antigo, Langlade Co., Wisconsin.” They were later determined to represent two adults, two children, and a young adult. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• 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 any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereafter referred to as The Aboriginal Land Tribes).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
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 Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State St, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes and the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin;
United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (USIBWC).
Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA).
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Final Regulations; and the United States Section, Operational Procedures for Implementing Section 102 of NEPA, published in the
Please note all written and email comments received during the comment period will become part of the public record, including any personal information you may provide. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
Comments and requests for public hearings should be sent to: Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources Specialist, USIBWC, 4171 N. Mesa, C-100; El Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone: (915) 832-4701, Fax: (915) 493-2428, email:
The purpose is to construct sediment control structures on Thurman I and II arroyos with the following objectives:
(1) Control the inflow of sediment into the Rio Grande mainstem,
(2) Conduct a pilot study for channel maintenance alternatives, and
(3) Be accessible for maintenance and minimize operational costs.
This EA evaluates potential environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative and two alternatives. The Alternative A: No Action—Routine Sediment Excavation does not call for any construction but would require continued routine sediment excavation at the confluence of the arroyos and the Rio Grande. Alternative B: Mesh-Based Sediment Traps proposes to construct mesh and rebar sediment traps where each mesh would trap progressively smaller sediment particles. Alternative C: Sediment Basins is the Preferred Alternative, and calls for the construction of a sediment basin at each arroyo with a concrete end wall. Permits would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for dredge and fill of Waters of the United States, per the Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401.
Potential impacts on natural, cultural, and other resources were evaluated. Mitigation has been proposed for permits for construction. A Finding of No Significant Impact has been prepared for the Preferred Alternative based on a review of the facts and analyses contained in the EA.
Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources Specialist, USIBWC, 4171 N. Mesa, C-100; El Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone: (915) 832-4701, Fax: (915) 493-2428, email:
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint and motion for temporary relief entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
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, a motion for temporary relief, and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Aqua Connect, Inc. on October 11, 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 network personal computers and mobile devices. The complaint names as respondent Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, a cease and desist order and impose a bond upon respondent's alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondent, 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. 3265”) 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.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
The meeting will be held on November 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Conduent, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10170.
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at 703-414-2163.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at Conduent, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10170, on November 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.,
Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of cancellation of public hearing.
The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure has been canceled: Appellate Rules Hearing on November 9, 2017, in Washington, DC.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Announcement for this hearing was previously published in 82 FR 37610.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 18, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Digital Media Centre B.V., Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; IBM, Somers, NY; MNC Software, Inc., San Diego, CA; Real-Time Innovations (RTI), Sunnyvale, CA; SVT, Stockholm, SWEDEN; TransMedia Dynamics Ltd., Aylesbury, UNITED KINGDOM; Laurence Cook (individual member), Portland, OR; Gabor Fogacs (individual member), Budapest, HUNGARY; Laurance Hughes (individual member), Sydney, AUSTRALIA; Douglas McGee (individual member), Columbus, OH; Christiano Nuernberg (individual member), Cambridge, MA; and Joseph Spillman (individual member), Temecula, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 26, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 26, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 3, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and Competitive
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's Web site at
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's website, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust action to enjoin Showa Denko K.K.'s (“SDK”) proposed acquisition of SGL Carbon SE's (“SGL Carbon”) global graphite electrode business and to obtain other equitable relief. The United States alleges as follows:
1. On October 20, 2016, SDK announced an agreement to acquire SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business for approximately $264.5 million. SDK and SGL Carbon manufacture and sell large ultra-high power (“UHP”) graphite electrodes, a critical input needed to melt scrap steel in electric arc furnaces (“EAFs”) at steel mills. SDK and SGL Carbon are two of the three leading suppliers of large UHP graphite electrodes utilized in EAFs in the United States and have a combined market share of approximately 56 percent.
2. The proposed acquisition would eliminate vigorous head-to-head competition between SDK and SGL Carbon for the business of U.S. EAF customers. For a significant number of U.S. EAF steel mills, SDK and SGL Carbon are two of the top suppliers of large UHP graphite electrodes, and the competition between SDK and SGL Carbon has resulted in lower prices, higher quality electrodes, and better service. Notably, SDK and SGL Carbon are two of only three firms that operate manufacturing facilities in North America in an industry where a local manufacturing presence is important to customers to ensure reliability of supply at an affordable cost. The proposed acquisition likely would give SDK the ability to raise prices or decrease the quality of delivery and service provided to these customers.
3. As a result, the proposed acquisition likely would substantially lessen competition in the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to EAF steel mills in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and should be enjoined.
4. The United States brings this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
5. Defendants manufacture and sell large UHP graphite electrodes throughout the United States. They are engaged in a regular, continuous, and substantial flow of interstate commerce, and their activities in the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes have a substantial effect upon interstate commerce. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
6. Defendants have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in this district. This court has personal jurisdiction over each defendant and venue is proper in this district under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c).
7. Defendant SDK is a corporation organized under the laws of Japan and headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. SDK is one of Japan's leading chemical companies and graphite electrodes are a primary line of business. SDK, which operates in approximately 14 countries, had revenues of approximately $5.8 billion in 2016. SDK's worldwide revenues from sales of graphite electrodes in 2016 were $248 million, and its U.S. revenues from sales of graphite electrodes in 2016 were approximately $85 million.
8. Defendant SGL Carbon is a publicly-owned company organized under the laws of Germany and headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany. SGL Carbon is a leading manufacturer of carbon-based products, ranging from carbon and graphite products to carbon fibers and composites, and its operations extend to 34 countries. In 2016, SGL Carbon had global revenues of approximately $885 million. SGL Carbon's worldwide revenues from sales of graphite electrodes in 2016 were approximately $326.6 million, and its U.S. revenues from sales of graphite electrodes in 2016 were approximately $58.6 million.
9. Defendant SGL GE Carbon Holding LLC (USA) (“SGL US”), an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of SGL Carbon, is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. SGL US is the sole shareholder of SGL GE Carbon LLC, which owns the assets of SGL US's operations in the United States, including SGL's Hickman and Ozark graphite electrode plants.
10. Pursuant to an October 20, 2016 Sale and Purchase Agreement, SDK agreed to acquire all of the corporate entities comprising SGL Carbon's graphite electrodes global operations, including SGL US, for approximately $264.5 million.
11. Graphite electrodes are used as conductors of electricity to generate sufficient heat to melt scrap metal in EAFs or to refine steel in ladle
12. Graphite electrodes are consumed as they are used and continually need to be replaced with fresh electrodes. Electrodes are designed in a range of sizes to fit the characteristics of each furnace and are suited to the electrical properties of a specific EAF. In particular, the opening through which electrodes are inserted into the furnace is only wide enough to admit electrodes of a certain diameter.
13. Graphite electrodes are subdivided into three grades: low power, high power, and UHP, where grade refers to the level of current-carrying capacity of the graphite electrode. EAFs typically utilize large UHP graphite electrodes that are between 18 and 32 inches in diameter and are characterized by an ability to withstand high currents and significant thermal stasis. Given that they are the most sophisticated products used for the most demanding steelmaking applications, large UHP graphite electrodes are produced by a smaller number of manufacturers than low power and high power graphite electrodes.
14. EAF steel mills, which are part of a vital U.S. industry involved in the manufacture and sale of steel and steel products used for many applications, represent an average of 45 percent of all domestic steel production. Large UHP graphite electrodes constitute a material operational input cost to these EAF steel mills that affects their ability to compete vigorously with steel made in blast furnaces both domestically and internationally. Over the past three years, U.S. EAF steel mills collectively averaged $262 million in large UHP graphite electrode purchases, and that number is expected to increase in the coming years due to a recent increase in steel demand and a decrease in the volume of steel imported into the United States.
15. Large UHP graphite electrodes are purchased through an annual bid process where manufacturers are invited to bid for an entire year or partial year's supply. Manufacturers are qualified through a trialing process where graphite electrodes are evaluated based on both commercial risks and the total cost per ton of melted steel. EAF customers evaluate electrode suppliers based on the reliability and efficiency of their electrodes, the timeliness of electrode delivery, the supplier's commercial business practices, and ongoing technical service capabilities. Many customers prefer qualified suppliers with domestic manufacturing capability (which helps ensure reliable on-time delivery) and a robust local service operation (which enables prompt deployment of established technical expertise and support). EAF customers typically avoid suppliers that develop a reputation for graphite electrode breakages even when they offer electrodes at steep discounts because the costs of temporarily shutting down a furnace to remove broken electrode pieces can be significantly greater than the potential short-term savings from cheaper electrodes.
16. Large UHP graphite electrodes are priced by the pound, and quantities are described using metric tons. A typical U.S. EAF furnace operating at an average utilization rate may spend up to $4 million per year on electrodes for that furnace. Electrodes usually are ordered in advance and are expected to be shipped in a timely manner by truck to each steel mill, where they are stored until used, although some customers have consignment arrangements with manufacturers that keep inventories of graphite electrodes in the manufacturers' own warehouses.
17. There are no functional substitutes for large UHP graphite electrodes for U.S. EAF steel mills. Without large UHP graphite electrodes, an EAF steel mill cannot be operated and must be idled. Moreover, each EAF steel mill requires large UHP graphite electrodes of a specific diameter; a customer cannot substitute a different size graphite electrode than that for which its EAF is outfitted because the electrode would not fit and could not handle the level of current. Thus, it is likely that every individual size of large UHP graphite electrodes is a separate relevant product market. Because market participation by manufacturers is similar, and potential anticompetitive effects likely are similar across the entire range of sizes, all large UHP graphite electrodes can be grouped together in a single market for purposes of analysis.
18. A small but significant increase in the price of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to EAF steel mills would not cause customers of such electrodes to substitute a different kind of electrode or any other product, or to reduce purchases of such electrodes in volumes sufficient to make such a price increase unprofitable. Accordingly, the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to EAF steel mills is a line of commerce and relevant product market within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
19. Individual U.S. EAF customers solicit bids from large UHP graphite electrode producers and these producers develop individualized bids based on each U.S. EAF customer Request for Proposal (“RFP”). This bidding process enables large UHP graphite electrode producers to engage in “price discrimination,”
20. SDK and SGL Carbon have market shares of approximately 35 and 21 percent, respectively, in the relevant market. The third major seller of large UHP graphite electrodes to U.S. EAF customers has a market share of 22 percent. The remaining competitors combined account for only 22 percent of the market and are comprised of firms based in Japan, India, Russia, and China.
21. As articulated in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (the “Horizontal Merger Guidelines”), the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”), discussed in Appendix A, is a widely-used measure of market concentration. Market concentration is often a useful indicator of the level of competitive vigor in a market and the likely competitive effects of a merger. The more concentrated a market, the more likely it is that a transaction would result in a meaningful reduction in competition and harm consumers. Markets in which the HHI exceeds 2,500 points are considered highly concentrated, and transactions that result in highly concentrated markets and increase the HHI by more than 200 points are presumed to be likely to enhance market power.
22. In the market for the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes used in U.S. EAF steel mills, the pre-merger HHI is 2230 and the post-merger HHI is 3693, representing an increase in the HHI of 1,463. Under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, the proposed acquisition will result in a highly concentrated market and is thus presumed likely to enhance market power.
23. In addition to increasing concentration, SDK's acquisition of SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business would eliminate head-to-head competition between SDK and SGL Carbon to supply large UHP graphite electrodes to U.S. EAF steel mills. SDK and SGL Carbon both have a strong reputation for high-quality graphite electrodes, a robust local manufacturing presence, an established delivery infrastructure, and superior technical service capabilities and support, including proprietary software specifically designed to assist steel mills in the installation and efficient maintenance of electrodes within their EAFs. SDK and SGL Carbon compete directly on price, quality, delivery, and technical service, and the competition between them has directly benefitted U.S. EAF customers.
24. Only one other significant competitor besides SDK and SGL Carbon sells large UHP graphite electrodes in the U.S. and has a similar reputation for quality, shipment and delivery logistics, and local technical service. The transaction is likely to lead to higher prices because, for most customers, it will reduce the number of significant bidders from three to two.
25. Although other firms have participated in the U.S. market with limited sales, none of these firms individually or collectively are positioned to constrain a unilateral exercise of market power by SDK after the acquisition. The most significant of these firms, based in Japan, has a long history of sales of large UHP graphite electrodes in the United States, a good reputation for quality, and an enduring small presence in the market. However, it and the remaining small firms that have made sales to U.S. EAF steel mills are disadvantaged by their lack of domestic manufacturing capability, limited delivery and technical service infrastructure, and high costs. Some additionally are disadvantaged because of lower product quality. The response of other participants in the relevant market therefore would not be sufficient to constrain a unilateral exercise of market power by SDK after the acquisition.
26. For all of these reasons, the proposed transaction likely would substantially lessen competition in the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills and lead to higher prices and decreased quality of delivery and service.
27. Entry of additional competitors into the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills is unlikely to be timely, likely, or sufficient to prevent the harm to competition caused by the elimination of SGL Carbon as an independent supplier. Over the past two decades, several firms have attempted to make a meaningful entry into the U.S. market, notably from India and China, but have not been able to make substantial sales or become preferred suppliers.
28. Firms attempting to enter into the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills face significant entry barriers in terms of cost and time. First, a new entrant into this business must be able to construct a manufacturing facility, which entails substantial time and expense. Second, such an entrant must have the technical capabilities necessary to design and manufacture high quality graphite electrodes that meet customer requirements for performance and reliability. Third, both new entrants and graphite electrode manufacturers who do not currently participate in the U.S. market must typically demonstrate competence to EAF customers in the U.S. through a lengthy qualification and trial period during which the supplier must establish a strong performance record and avoid product breakages that can cause EAF outages. Fourth, an entrant must have a strong local infrastructure in place to assure customers of reliable delivery and the prompt deployment of qualified expertise, including technical services associated with installation and maintenance of the electrodes.
29. As a result of these barriers, entry into the market for the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to defeat the substantial lessening of competition that likely would result from SDK's acquisition of SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business.
30. The acquisition of SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business by SDK likely would substantially lessen competition for the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
31. Unless enjoined, the transaction likely would have the following anticompetitive effects, among others:
a. competition between SDK and SGL Carbon in the market for the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills would be eliminated; and
b. prices for large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills likely would be less favorable, and quality of delivery and service likely would decline.
32. The United States requests that this Court:
a. adjudge and decree SDK's proposed acquisition of SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business to be unlawful and in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
b. preliminarily and permanently enjoin and restrain defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from consummating the proposed acquisition or from entering into or carrying out any contract, agreement, plan, or understanding, the effect of which would be to combine SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business with the operations of SDK;
c. award the United States its costs of this action; and
d. award the United States such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The term “HHI” means the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, a commonly accepted measure of market concentration. The HHI is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the resulting numbers. For example, for a market consisting of four firms with shares of 30, 30, 20, and 20 percent, the HHI is 2,600 (30
Markets in which the HHI is between 1,500 and 2,500 points are considered to be moderately concentrated and markets in which the HHI is in excess of 2,500 points are considered to be highly concentrated.
Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
On October 20, 2016, defendants Showa Denko K.K. (“SDK”), SGL Carbon SE (“SGL Carbon”), and SGL GE Carbon Holding LLC (USA) (“SGL US”) entered into an agreement pursuant to which SDK agreed to acquire SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business for approximately $264.5 million.
The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on September 27, 2017 seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition. The Complaint alleges that the likely effect of this acquisition would be to lessen competition substantially for the manufacture and sale of large ultra-high power (“UHP”) graphite electrodes sold to electric arc furnace (EAF) steel mills in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. This loss of competition likely would give SDK the ability and incentive to increase prices or decrease the quality of delivery and service provided to U.S. EAF customers.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (“Hold Separate”) and proposed Final Judgment, which are designed to eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, defendants are required to divest SGL Carbon's entire U.S. graphite electrodes business (the “Divestiture Assets”) to Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd. (“Tokai”) or to an alternate Acquirer approved by the United States. Under the terms of the Hold Separate, defendants will take certain steps to ensure that the Divestiture Assets are operated as a competitive, independent, economically viable, and ongoing business concern, that the Divestiture Assets will remain independent and uninfluenced by the consummation of the acquisition, and that competition is maintained during the pendency of the ordered divestiture.
The United States and defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
SDK, a Japanese corporation headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, is one of Japan's leading chemical companies, and had global sales of approximately $5.8 billion in 2016. SDK is one of the world's largest providers of graphite electrodes, with global sales of $248 million in 2016, including approximately $85 million in U.S. revenues from graphite electrodes sales.
SGL Carbon is a German-based corporation headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany. SGL Carbon is a leading manufacturer of carbon-based products, ranging from carbon and graphite products to carbon fibers and composites, with operations in 34 countries. SGL Carbon is a leading global producer of graphite electrodes, with worldwide graphite electrode revenues of approximately $326.6 million in 2016, including approximately $58.6 million from sales of graphite electrodes in the United States.
SGL US, an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of SGL Carbon, is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. SGL US is the sole shareholder of SGL GE Carbon LLC, which owns the assets of SGL US's operations in the United States, including SGL Carbon's Hickman and Ozark graphite electrode plants.
Pursuant to an agreement dated October 20, 2016, SDK intends to acquire SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode operations, including SGL US, for approximately $264.5 million. The proposed acquisition, as initially agreed to by defendants, would lessen competition substantially in the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes to U.S. EAF customers. This acquisition is the subject of the Complaint and proposed Final Judgment filed today by the United States.
Graphite electrodes are used to conduct electricity to generate sufficient heat to melt scrap metal in EAFs or to refine steel in ladle metallurgical furnaces. In a typical EAF operation, a series of electrodes are attached to a steel arm with connecting pins to form columns that are suspended over a large bucket of scrap steel. Large amounts of electricity are sent through the electrodes and the resulting heat melts the scrap into liquid. Graphite electrodes are consumed as they are used and continually need to be replaced with fresh electrodes. Electrodes are designed in a range of sizes to fit the characteristics of each furnace and are suited to the electrical properties of a specific EAF.
Graphite electrodes are subdivided into three grades based on their level of current-carrying capacity: low power, high power, and UHP. EAFs typically utilize UHP graphite electrodes that are between 18 and 32 inches in diameter and are characterized by an ability to withstand high currents. Large UHP graphite electrodes are the most sophisticated products used for the most demanding steelmaking applications and, as a result, are produced by a smaller number of manufacturers than
EAF steel mills, which are a part of a vital U.S. industry involved in the manufacture and sale of steel and steel products used for many applications, represent an average of 45 percent of all domestic steel production. Over the past three years, U.S. EAF steel mills collectively averaged $262 million in large UHP graphite electrode purchases, and that number is expected to increase in the coming years due to a recent increase in steel demand and a decrease in the volume of steel imported into the United States.
Large UHP graphite electrodes are purchased through an annual bid process where manufacturers are invited to bid for an entire year or partial year's supply. EAF customers evaluate electrode suppliers based on the reliability and efficiency of their electrodes, the timeliness of electrode delivery, the supplier's commercial business practices, and ongoing technical service capabilities. Many U.S. customers prefer suppliers that have a domestic manufacturing capability and a robust local service operation. Given the high costs of temporarily shutting down a furnace to remove broken electrode pieces, EAF customers typically avoid suppliers that develop a reputation for graphite electrode breakages even if the supplier offers electrodes at steep discounts. Electrodes usually are ordered in advance and are expected to be shipped in a timely manner by truck to each steel mill, where they are stored until used, although some customers have consignment arrangements with manufacturers that keep inventories of graphite electrodes in the manufacturers' own warehouses.
As alleged in the Complaint, there are no functional substitutes for large UHP graphite electrodes for U.S. EAF steel mills. Without large UHP graphite electrodes, EAF steel mills cannot be operated and must be idled. Moreover, customers cannot substitute a different size graphite electrode for use in an EAF because the electrode size and current-carrying capacity is tailored to the specific facility. For these reasons, the Complaint alleges that it is likely that every individual size of large UHP graphite electrodes is a separate relevant product market. Because market participation by manufacturers is similar, and potential anticompetitive effects likely are similar across the entire range of sizes, all large UHP graphite electrodes can be grouped together in a single market for purposes of analysis. The Complaint alleges that a hypothetical profit-maximizing monopolist of large UHP graphite electrodes likely would impose a small but significant non-transitory increase in price (“SSNIP”) that would not be defeated by substitution to a different kind of electrode or any other product, or result in a reduction in purchases of such electrodes in volumes sufficient to make such a price increase unprofitable. Accordingly, the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills is a line of commerce and relevant market within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
As alleged in the Complaint, the United States is the relevant geographic market for the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills. In the United States, individual EAF customers solicit bids from producers of large UHP graphite electrodes, and these producers develop individualized bids based on each customer's Request for Proposal. The bidding process enables large UHP graphite electrode producers to engage in “price discrimination,”
According to the Complaint, the proposed acquisition would substantially increase concentration in the relevant market. SDK and SGL Carbon have market shares of approximately 35 and 21 percent, respectively, in the relevant market; a third major seller of large UHP graphite electrodes to U.S. EAF customers has a market share of 22 percent. The remaining competitors, which include firms from Japan, India, Russia, and China, have a combined 22 percent share. Under the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”), a widely-used measure of market concentration utilized in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (the “Horizontal Merger Guidelines”), the pre-merger HHI is 2230 and the post-merger HHI is 3693, representing an increase in the HHI of 1,463. As discussed in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines and alleged in the Complaint, these HHIs indicate that the proposed acquisition will result in a highly concentrated market and is presumed likely to enhance market power.
In addition to increasing concentration, the Complaint alleges that SDK's acquisition of SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business would eliminate head-to-head competition between SDK and SGL Carbon in the relevant market. Both SDK and SGL Carbon have a strong reputation for high-quality graphite electrodes, a robust local manufacturing presence, an established delivery infrastructure, and superior technical service capabilities and support, including proprietary software specifically designed to assist steel mills in the installation and efficient maintenance of electrodes within their EAFs. As alleged in the Complaint, SDK and SGL Carbon compete directly on price, quality, delivery, and technical service, and the competition between them has directly benefitted U.S. EAF customers.
The Complaint further alleges that the acquisition is likely to lead to higher prices because there is only one other significant competitor with a comparable reputation for product quality, shipment and delivery logistics, and local technical service, and therefore, for most customers, the transaction will reduce the number of significant bidders from three to two. According to the Complaint, the remaining market participants, each of which has participated in the U.S. market with only limited sales, are not in a position to constrain a unilateral exercise of market power by SDK after the acquisition. The most significant of these firms, based in Japan, has a long history of sales of large UHP graphite electrodes in the United States, a good reputation for quality, and an enduring small presence in the market. However, this firm and the other remaining firms that have made limited sales to U.S. EAF steel mills are each disadvantaged by a lack of domestic manufacturing capability, limited delivery and technical service infrastructure, and high costs. As a result, none of these firms will be able to replace the competition lost as a result of SDK's acquisition of SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business.
As alleged in the Complaint, entry of additional competitors into the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills is unlikely to be timely, likely, or sufficient to prevent the harm to competition caused by the elimination of SGL Carbon as an independent supplier. New entrants face significant entry barriers in terms of cost and time, including the substantial time and expense required to construct a manufacturing facility, the need to build technical capabilities sufficient to meet customer expectations, the requirement that a new supplier demonstrate competence to U.S. customers through a lengthy qualification and trialing period, and the need to create a strong local infrastructure to ensure reliable and prompt delivery and technical service.
The divestiture requirement of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition by establishing an independent and economically viable competitor in the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes in the relevant market.
Pursuant to the proposed Final Judgment, defendants must divest SGL Carbon's entire U.S. graphite electrodes business, which is defined in Paragraph II(F) to include SGL Carbon's manufacturing facilities located in Ozark, Arkansas and Hickman, Kentucky and all tangible and intangible assets used in connection with SGL Carbon's U.S. graphite electrodes business. Among the assets to be divested is SGL Carbon's CEDIS® EAF performance monitoring system, proprietary software specifically designed to assist steel mills in the installation and efficient maintenance of electrodes within their EAFs.
Paragraph IV(A) of the proposed Final Judgment provides that defendants must divest the Divestiture Assets to Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd., or to an alternative acquirer acceptable to the United States within 45 days of the Court's signing of the Hold Separate. The Divestiture Assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the operations can and will be operated by Tokai or an alternate purchaser as a viable, ongoing business that can compete effectively in the relevant market. Defendants must take all reasonable steps necessary to accomplish the divestiture quickly and shall cooperate with Tokai or any other prospective purchaser.
The proposed Final Judgment contains several provisions designed to facilitate the Acquirer's immediate use of the Divestiture Assets. Paragraph IV(J) provides the Acquirer with the option to enter into a transition services agreement with SGL Carbon to obtain back office and information technology services and support for the Divestiture Assets for a period of up to one year. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions of this agreement for a total of up to an additional 12 months. Paragraph IV(K) provides the Acquirer with the option to enter into a supply contract with SDK for connecting pins sufficient to meet all or part of the Acquirer's needs for a period of up to three years. Connecting pins are a component used to connect graphite electrodes in an EAF, and the inclusion of a supply option in the proposed Final Judgment will enable Tokai or an alternate acquirer to devote additional capacity to the manufacture of large UHP graphite electrodes if it so chooses. The proposed Final Judgment provides that the United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions of this supply contract for a total of up to an additional 12 months.
The proposed Final Judgment also contains provisions intended to facilitate the Acquirer's efforts to hire the employees involved in SGL Carbon's U.S. graphite electrode business. Paragraph IV(D) of the proposed Final Judgment requires defendants to provide the Acquirer with organization charts and information relating to these employees and make them available for interviews, and provides that defendants will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer to hire them. In addition, Paragraph IV(E) provides that for employees who elect employment with the Acquirer, defendants, subject to exceptions, shall waive all noncompete and nondisclosure agreements, vest all unvested pension and other equity rights, and provide all benefits to which the employees would generally be provided if transferred to a buyer of an ongoing business. The paragraph further provides, that for a period of 12 months from the filing of the Complaint, defendants may not solicit to hire, or hire any such person who was hired by the Acquirer, unless such individual is terminated or laid off by the Acquirer or the Acquirer agrees in writing that defendants may solicit or hire that individual.
In the event that defendants do not accomplish the divestiture within the period provided in the proposed Final Judgment, Paragraph V(A) provides that the Court will appoint a trustee selected by the United States to effect the divestitures. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that defendants will pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The trustee's commission will be structured so as to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After its appointment becomes effective, the trustee will file monthly reports with the Court and the United States setting forth its efforts to accomplish the divestiture. At the end of six months, if the divestiture has not been accomplished, the trustee and the United States will make recommendations to the Court, which shall enter such orders as appropriate, in order to carry out the purpose of the trust, including extending the trust or the term of the trustee's appointment.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against defendants.
The United States and defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
Written comments should be submitted to: Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against defendants. The United States could have continued the litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against SDK's acquisition of SGL Carbon's global graphite electrode business. The United States is satisfied, however, that the divestiture of assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition for the manufacture and sale of large UHP graphite electrodes sold to U.S. EAF steel mills. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would achieve all or substantially all of the relief the United States would have obtained through litigation, but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits of the Complaint.
The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the Court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In considering these statutory factors, the Court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the government is entitled to “broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.”
As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties.
Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the
Moreover, the Court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the Court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2);
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on September 27, 2017, the United States and defendants, Showa Denko K.K., SGL Carbon SE, and SGL GE Carbon Holding LLC (USA), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;
AND WHEREAS, defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of certain rights or assets by the defendants to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;
AND WHEREAS, the United States requires defendants to make certain divestitures for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;
AND WHEREAS, defendants have represented to the United States that the divestitures required below can and will be made and that defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained below;
NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 18).
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Acquirer” means Tokai or another entity to which defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
B. “SDK” means defendant Showa Denko K.K., a Japanese corporation headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. “SGL” means defendant SGL Carbon SE, a German corporation headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees, including defendant SGL GE Carbon Holding LLC (USA), a Delaware limited liability company that is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of SGL Carbon SE, and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
D. “Tokai” means Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
E. “Divestiture Assets” means SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business.
F. “SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business” means SGL GE Carbon Holding LLC (USA), all of its subsidiaries, and all additional operations of SGL related to the production, distribution, engineering, development, sale, and servicing of graphite electrodes manufactured in the United States, including, but not limited to:
1. The manufacturing facility located at 3931 Carbon Plant Rd., Ozark, Arkansas 72949 (the “Ozark Facility”);
2. The manufacturing facility located at 2320 Myron Cory Dr., Hickman, Kentucky 42050 (the “Hickman Facility”);
3. All tangible assets used in connection with SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business, including research and development activities; all manufacturing equipment, tooling and fixed assets, personal property, inventory, office furniture, materials, supplies, and other tangible property and all assets used exclusively in connection with SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business; all licenses, permits, and authorizations issued by any governmental organization relating to SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business; all contracts, teaming arrangements, agreements, leases, commitments, certifications, and understandings, including supply agreements relating to SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business; all customer lists, contracts, accounts, and credit records relating to SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business; all repair and performance records and all other records relating to SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business; and
4. All intangible assets used in connection with SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business, including, but not limited to, all patents, licenses and sublicenses, intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks, service names (excluding any trademark, trade name, service mark, or service name containing the name “SGL”), technical information, computer software (including, but not limited to, SGL's CEDIS® EAF performance monitoring system) and related documentation, know-how, trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, designs, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts and devices, safety procedures for the handling of materials and substances, quality assurance and control procedures, design tools and simulation capability, all manuals and technical information SGL provides to its own employees, customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees, and all research data concerning historic and current research and development efforts relating to SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business, including, but not limited to, designs of experiments, and the results of successful and unsuccessful designs and experiments.
G. “Relevant Employees” means all SGL personnel involved in the production, distribution, engineering, development, sale, or servicing of graphite electrodes for SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business.
A. This Final Judgment applies to SDK and SGL, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
B. If, prior to complying with Section IV and Section V of this Final Judgment, defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the Divestiture Assets, they shall require the purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the acquirers of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment.
A. Defendants are ordered and directed, within 45 calendar days after the Court's signing of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order in this matter, to divest the Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to Tokai or an alternative Acquirer acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. Defendants agree to use their best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible.
B. In the event defendants are attempting to divest the Divestiture Assets to an Acquirer other than Tokai, defendants promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means (to the extent defendants have not already done so), the availability of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall inform any person making an inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment.
C. In accomplishing the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment, defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client privileges or work-product doctrine. Defendants shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.
D. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer and the United States with organization charts and information relating to Relevant Employees, including name, job title, past experience relating to SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business, responsibilities, training and educational history, relevant certifications, and to the extent permissible by law, job performance evaluations, and current salary and benefits information, to enable the Acquirer to make offers of employment. Upon request, defendants shall make Relevant Employees available for interviews with the Acquirer during normal business hours at a mutually agreeable location and will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer to employ any Relevant Employees. Interference with respect to this paragraph includes, but is not limited to, offering to increase the salary or benefits of Relevant Employees other than as part of a company-wide increase in salary or benefits granted in the ordinary course of business.
E. For any Relevant Employees who elect employment with the Acquirer, defendants shall waive all noncompete and nondisclosure agreements, vest all unvested pension and other equity rights, and provide all benefits to which
F. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.
G. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer that each asset will be operational on the date of sale.
H. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
I. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning, or other permits pertaining to the operation of each asset, and that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
J. At the option of the Acquirer, SGL shall enter a transition services agreement to provide back office and information technology services and support for SGL's U.S. Graphite Electrodes Business for a period of up to one (1) year. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions of this agreement for a total of up to an additional twelve (12) months. If the Acquirer seeks an extension of the term of this transition services agreement, it shall so notify the United States in writing at least three (3) months prior to the date the transition services contract expires. If the United States approves such an extension, it shall so notify the Acquirer in writing at least two (2) months prior to the date the transition services contract expires. The terms and conditions of any contractual arrangement intended to satisfy this provision must be reasonably related to the market value of the expertise of the personnel providing any needed assistance. The SGL employee(s) tasked with providing these transition services may not share any competitively sensitive information of the Acquirer with any other SGL or SDK employee.
K. At the option of the Acquirer, SDK shall enter into a supply contract for connecting pins sufficient to meet all or part of the Acquirer's needs for a period of up to three (3) years. The terms and conditions of any contractual arrangement meant to satisfy this provision must be reasonably related to market conditions for connecting pins. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions of this supply contract for a total of up to an additional twelve (12) months. If the Acquirer seeks an extension of the term of this supply contract, it shall so notify the United States in writing at least three (3) months prior to the date the supply contract expires. If the United States approves such an extension, it shall so notify the Acquirer in writing at least two (2) months prior to the date the supply contract expires.
L. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant to Section IV, or by Divestiture Trustee appointed pursuant to Section V, of this Final Judgment, shall include the entire Divestiture Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer as part of a viable, ongoing business of the production, distribution, engineering, development, sale, or servicing of large diameter ultra-high power graphite electrodes in the United States. The divestitures, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment,
1) shall be made to an Acquirer that, in the United States' sole judgment, has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability) of competing effectively in the production, distribution, engineering, development, sale, or servicing of large diameter ultra-high power graphite electrodes in the United States; and
2) shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer and defendants give defendants the ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer to compete effectively.
A. If defendants have not divested the Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Paragraph IV(A), defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a Divestiture Trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
B. After the appointment of a Divestiture Trustee becomes effective, only the Divestiture Trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The Divestiture Trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the Divestiture Trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Paragraph V(D) of this Final Judgment, the Divestiture Trustee may hire at the cost and expense of defendants any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the Divestiture Trustee, reasonably necessary in the Divestiture Trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture. Any such investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents shall serve on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications.
C. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the Divestiture Trustee on any ground other than the Divestiture Trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the Divestiture Trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the Divestiture Trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.
D. The Divestiture Trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of defendants pursuant to a written agreement, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications. The Divestiture Trustee shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the assets sold by the Divestiture Trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the Divestiture Trustee's accounting, including fees for its services yet unpaid and those of any professionals and agents retained by the Divestiture
E. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the Divestiture Trustee in accomplishing the required divestiture. The Divestiture Trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other agents retained by the Divestiture Trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and defendants shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the Divestiture Trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or any applicable privileges. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the Divestiture Trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture.
F. After its appointment, the Divestiture Trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and, as appropriate, the Court setting forth the Divestiture Trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the Divestiture Trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The Divestiture Trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets.
G. If the Divestiture Trustee has not accomplished the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment within six months after its appointment, the Divestiture Trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) the Divestiture Trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture, (2) the reasons, in the Divestiture Trustee's judgment, why the required divestiture has not been accomplished, and (3) the Divestiture Trustee's recommendations. To the extent such reports contain information that the Divestiture Trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The Divestiture Trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States which shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the Divestiture Trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
H. If the United States determines that the Divestiture Trustee has ceased to act or failed to act diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective manner, it may recommend the Court appoint a substitute Divestiture Trustee.
A. In the event defendants are divesting the Divestiture Assets to an Acquirer other than Tokai, within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, defendants or the Divestiture Trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment. If the Divestiture Trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full details of the same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States may request from defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any other third party, or the Divestiture Trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and any other potential Acquirer. Defendants and the Divestiture Trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any third party, and the Divestiture Trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to defendants and the Divestiture Trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Paragraph V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by defendants under Paragraph V(C), a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment.
Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestiture ordered by this Court.
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under Section IV or Section V, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30)
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions defendants have taken and all steps defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
C. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestiture has been completed.
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of any related orders such as any Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally-recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice, including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to defendants, be permitted:
1) access during defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require defendants to provide hard copy or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of defendants, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2) to interview, either informally or on the record, defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by defendants.
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, defendants shall submit written reports or response to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by defendants to the United States, defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give defendants ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
Defendants may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Assets during the term of this Final Judgment.
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States' responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and BSTC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 30, 2012, BSTC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 8, 2017. A notice was published in the
Department of Justice.
Notice of Department of Justice's standing members of the Senior Executive Service Performance Review Boards.
The Department of Justice. announces the membership of its 2017 Senior Executive Service (SES) Standing Performance Review Boards (PRBs). The purpose of a PRB is to provide fair and impartial review of SES performance appraisals, bonus recommendations and pay adjustments. The PRBs will make recommendations regarding the final performance ratings to be assigned, SES bonuses and/or pay adjustments to be awarded.
Mary A. Lamary, Director, Human Resources, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (202) 514-4350.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Arts will be held. Open to the public on a space available basis.
See the
Russell Senate Building, Room #SR-485, 2 Constitution Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Victoria Hutter, Office of Public Affairs, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5570.
If, in the course of the open session discussion, it becomes necessary for the Council to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of intrinsic value, the Council will go into closed session pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and in accordance with the July 5, 2016 determination of the Chairman. Additionally, discussion concerning purely personal information about individuals, such as personal biographical and salary data or medical information, may be conducted by the Council in closed session in accordance with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Any interested persons may attend, as observers, to Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of Accessibility, National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5733, Voice/T.T.Y. 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
The upcoming meeting is:
This meeting will be open.
From 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.—Opening remarks and voting on recommendations for grant funding and rejection, followed by updates from the Chairman. There also will be the following presentations (times are approximate): from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.—
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a June 29, 2017, request from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) from certain regulatory requirements. The exemption would allow, as a minimum, a certified fuel handler (CFH), in addition to a licensed senior operator, to approve the suspension of security measures for Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather after the certifications of permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel are docketed.
The exemption was issued on October 11, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0207 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Scott P. Wall, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2855; email:
Entergy is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 for Palisades. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. The Palisades facility consists of a pressurized-water reactor located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
By letter dated January 4, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17004A062), the licensee submitted a Notification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations for Palisades. In this letter, Entergy provided notification to the NRC of its intent to permanently cease power operations at Palisades no later than October 1, 2018.
In accordance with §§ 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii), and 50.82(a)(2) of title 10 of the
By letter dated August 21, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17151A350), the NRC approved the CFH Training and Retraining Program for Palisades.
By letter dated June 29, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17180A004), the licensee requested an exemption from § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii), pursuant to § 73.5, “Specific exemptions.” Section 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) requires, in part, that the suspension of security measures during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather be approved as a minimum by a licensed senior operator before taking this action. Entergy requested an exemption from these rules to allow as a minimum either a licensed senior operator or a CFH to approve the suspension of security measures at Palisades after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted. There is no need for an exemption from these rules for a licensed senior operator to approve the suspension of security measures because the current regulation allows this. However, the exemption is needed to also allow, as a minimum, a CFH to provide this approval after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted.
The NRC's security rules have long recognized the potential need to suspend security or safeguards measures under certain conditions. Accordingly, § 50.54(x) and (y), first published in 1983, allow a licensee to take reasonable actions in an emergency that depart from license conditions or technical specifications when those actions are immediately “needed to protect the public health and safety,” and no actions consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection are immediately apparent (48 FR 13970; April 1, 1983). This departure from license conditions or technical specifications must be approved, as a minimum, by a licensed senior operator. In 1986, in its final rule, “Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning the Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants” (51 FR 27817; August 4, 1986), the Commission issued § 73.55(a), which provided, in part, that, in accordance with § 50.54(x) and (y), the licensee may suspend any safeguards measures pursuant to § 73.55 in an emergency when this action is immediately needed to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is immediately apparent. The regulation further requires that this suspension be approved as a minimum by a licensed senior operator prior to taking the action.
In 1996, the NRC made a number of regulatory changes to address decommissioning. One of the changes was to amend § 50.54(x) and (y) to authorize a non-licensed operator called a “Certified Fuel Handler,” in addition to a licensed senior operator, to approve such protective actions in an emergency situation. In addressing the role of the CFH during emergencies in § 50.54(y),
In the final rule (61 FR 39298; July 29, 1996), the NRC added “certified fuel handler” to the definitions in § 50.2 and defined it to mean, for a nuclear power reactor facility, a non-licensed operator who has qualified in accordance with a fuel handler training program approved by the Commission. However, the decommissioning rule did not propose or make parallel changes to § 73.55(a), and did not discuss the role of a non-licensed CFH.
In the final rule, “Power Reactor Security Requirements” (74 FR 13926; March 27, 2009), the NRC relocated the security suspension requirements from § 73.55(a) to § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii). The role of a CFH was not discussed in this rulemaking; therefore, the suspension of security measures in accordance with § 73.55(p) continued to require approval as a minimum by a licensed senior operator, even for a facility that had permanently ceased operations and permanently defueled.
However, pursuant to § 73.5, the Commission may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of part 73, as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.
The requested exemption from § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) would allow, as a minimum, a CFH, in addition to a licensed senior operator, to approve the suspension of security measures for Palisades during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted. The licensee's intent with the requested exemption is to align the requirements of § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) with the requirements of § 50.54(y).
Per § 73.5, the Commission may grant exemptions from the regulations in part 73, as are authorized by law. The NRC staff has determined that granting the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or other laws. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
Relaxing the requirement to allow a CFH, in addition to a licensed senior operator, to approve the suspension of security measures for Palisades during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security for the reasons described in this section.
First, § 73.55(p)(2) will continue to require that “[s]uspended security measures must be reinstated as soon as conditions permit.”
Second, the suspension for non-weather emergency conditions under § 73.55(p)(1)(i) will continue to be invoked only “when this action is immediately needed to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is immediately apparent.” Thus, the exemption would not prevent the licensee from meeting the underlying purpose of § 73.55(p)(1)(i) to protect the public health and safety.
Third, the suspension for severe weather under § 73.55(p)(1)(ii) will continue to be used only when “the suspension of affected security measures is immediately needed to protect the personal health and safety of security force personnel and no other immediately apparent action consistent with the license conditions and technical specifications can provide adequate or equivalent protection.” The requirement to receive input from the security supervisor or manager will remain. Thus, the exemption would not prevent the licensee from meeting the underlying purpose of § 73.55(p)(1)(ii) to protect the health and safety of the security force.
Additionally, by letter dated August 21, 2017, the NRC approved Entergy's CFH Training and Retraining Program for Palisades. The NRC staff found that, among other things, the program addresses the safe conduct of decommissioning activities, the safe handling and storage of spent fuel, and the appropriate response to plant emergencies. Because a CFH at Palisades will be sufficiently trained and qualified under an NRC-approved program, the NRC staff considers the CFH to have sufficient knowledge of operational and safety concerns, such that allowing the CFH to suspend security measures during emergencies or severe weather will not result in undue risk to the public health and safety.
Finally, the exemption does not reduce the overall effectiveness of the Palisades physical security plan and has no adverse impacts to Entergy's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material at Palisades, and thus would not have an effect on the common defense and security. The NRC staff has determined that the exemption would not reduce security measures currently in place to protect against radiological sabotage. Instead, the exemption would align the requirements of § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) with the existing requirements of § 50.54(y).
For these reasons, the NRC staff concludes that relaxing the requirement to allow a CFH, in addition to a licensed senior operator, to approve the suspension of security measures for Palisades in an emergency or during severe weather after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.
Entergy's proposed exemption would relax the current requirements by allowing a CFH, in addition to a licensed senior operator, to approve the suspension of security measures for Palisades in an emergency when “immediately needed to protect the public health and safety” or during severe weather when “immediately needed to protect the personal health and safety of security force personnel” after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted. Without the exemption, the licensee cannot implement changes to its security plan to authorize a CFH to approve the temporary suspension of security measures during an emergency or severe weather, comparable to the authority given to the CFH by the NRC when it promulgated § 50.54(y). Instead, the regulations would continue to
This exemption is in the public interest for two reasons. First, the exemption would allow the licensee to make decisions pursuant to § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) without having to maintain a staff of licensed senior operators at a nuclear power reactor that has permanently ceased operations and permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel. The exemption would also allow the licensee to have an established procedure in place to allow a trained CFH to suspend security measures in the event of an emergency or severe weather after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted. Second, the consistent and efficient regulation of nuclear power plants serves the public interest. This exemption would assure consistency between the regulations in § 73.55(p) and § 50.54(y), and the requirements concerning licensed operators in 10 CFR part 55. The NRC staff has determined that granting the licensee's proposed exemption would allow the licensee to designate a CFH, with qualifications appropriate for a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, to approve the suspension of security measures during an emergency to protect the public health and safety, and during severe weather to protect the personal health and safety of the security force, consistent with the similar authority provided by § 50.54(y) after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted. For these reasons, the exemption is in the public interest.
The NRC's approval of the requested exemption belongs to a category of actions that the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion, after first finding that the category of actions does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the NRC's approval of the requested exemption is categorically excluded from further environmental analysis under § 51.22(c)(25).
Under § 51.22(c)(25), the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation of Chapter I to 10 CFR is a categorical exclusion provided that: (i) There is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought involve: Safeguard plans, and materials control and accounting inventory scheduling requirements; or involve other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature.
The NRC staff has determined that the approval of the requested exemption involves no significant hazards consideration because allowing a CFH, in addition to a licensed senior operator, to approve the security suspension at a permanently shutdown and defueled power plant does 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 requested exemption is unrelated to any operational restriction. Accordingly, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The requested exemption is not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The requested exemption does not concern the source term (
Therefore, pursuant to § 51.22(b) and (c)(25), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to § 73.5, the exemption is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee's request for an exemption from the requirements of § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii), to authorize, after the certifications required by § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been submitted, that the suspension of security measures for Palisades during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather must be approved as a minimum by either a licensed senior operator or a CFH before taking this action.
The exemption is effective upon receipt.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of October 16, 23, 30, November 6, 13, 20, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
By a vote of 3-0 on October 10 and 11, 2017, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that the above referenced Affirmation Session be held with less than one week notice to the public. The meeting is scheduled on October 16, 2017
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 30, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 6, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 13, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 20, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material.”
Submit comments by December 18, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB approval number 3150-0123), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0263 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:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted 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.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Commission Programs.”
Submit comments by November 17, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (NRC-2017-0133), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0133 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:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, 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.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “10 CFR part 4, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Commission Programs.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory analysis; request for comment and public meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting comment on the draft regulatory analysis, “Draft Regulatory Analysis for Final Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” and seeking specific cost and benefit information to better inform the updated draft regulatory analysis.
Submit comments by November 16, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Gregory Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6445; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0012 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-2011-0012 in your 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 posts 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
The NRC's licensing requirements for the disposal of commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) in near-surface disposal facilities can be found in part 61 of title 10 of the
On March 26, 2015, the NRC published a proposed rule, “Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” for an initial 120-day comment period in the
• Technical analyses for demonstrating compliance with the public dose limits;
• Technical analyses for demonstrating compliance with dose limits for protection of inadvertent intruders;
• Identification and description of defense-in-depth protections that, taken together with the technical analyses, constitute the safety case;
• Development of site-specific WAC; and
• Implementation of current dosimetry in the technical analyses.
As a result of the comments received on the proposed rule, the NRC staff drafted a final rule package for Commission review, “SECY-16-0106, FINAL RULE: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal (10 CFR part 61) (RIN 3150-AI92),” dated September 15, 2016. The draft final rule package is available for review under ADAMS Accession No. ML16188A290 and includes a draft
In response to SECY-16-0106, the Commission issued a staff requirements memorandum (SRM), SRM-SECY-16-0106 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17251B147), dated September 8, 2017, which directed the NRC staff to publish a supplemental proposed rule for public comment that is revised to include Commission-directed rule changes. The Commission directed changes that are pertinent to this public comment request are stated in table 1.
In addition to specified rule language changes, the Commission, in SRM-SECY-16-0106, also directed the NRC staff to “be informed by broader and more fully integrated, but reasonably foreseeable costs and benefits to the U.S. waste disposal system resulting from the proposed rule changes, including pass-through costs to waste generators and processors.” To support development of the new supplemental proposed rule as directed by the Commission in SRM-SECY-16-0106, the NRC staff is seeking comment on how to improve the approach/methodology and actual cost data currently used in the draft final rule regulatory analysis to provide more accurate cost and benefit data in the final regulatory analysis. In particular, the NRC is seeking information on any cost changes that should be incorporated into the regulatory analysis in light of the Commission's changes to the draft final rule identified in table 1.
All comments provided will be considered in improving the regulatory analysis to ensure that it is sufficiently informed by broader and more fully integrated, but reasonably foreseeable, costs and benefits to the U.S. waste disposal system; however, the NRC staff does not plan to provide responses to these comments. In addition, the NRC staff is requesting that comments be limited to focus on the regulatory analysis itself—the NRC plans to issue a separate notice and comment period on the changes being proposed in the supplemental proposed rule in 2018. At that time, members of the public will also be provided another opportunity to provide comments on the revised regulatory analysis, which will be updated based on comments from this action.
During the comment period for this action, the NRC will conduct a public meeting at the NRC's Headquarters that will explain the cost and benefit information it is seeking in this notice and to address questions. Information regarding the public meeting is posted on the NRC's public meeting Web site. The NRC's public meeting Web site is located at
The NRC has also posted the meeting notice on the Federal rulemaking Web site at
This section provides specific questions associated with the draft regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML16189A050). These questions will also be discussed at the public meeting. The NRC staff will consider the responses to these questions as it revises the regulatory analysis.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service notice of inflation-based rate adjustments affecting market dominant domestic and international products and services, along with numerous proposed classification changes. The adjustments and other changes are scheduled to take effect January 21, 2018. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On October 6, 2017, the Postal Service filed a notice of inflation-based rate adjustments affecting market dominant domestic and international products and services, along with related product description changes to the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS).
Attachment A presents the proposed price and related product description changes to the MCS.
Several library references present supporting financial documentation for the five classes of mail and for First-Class Mail International. Notice at 6 n.9. The First-Class Mail International library reference was filed under seal.
Price adjustments for products within classes vary from the average.
The Commission hereby provides public notice of the Postal Service's filing and pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.11 establishes Docket No. R2018-1 to consider the planned price adjustments in rates and fees for market dominant postal products and services, as well as the related classification changes, identified in the Postal Service's October 6, 2017 Notice. The Commission invites comments from interested persons on whether the Notice is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3622 and the requirements of 39 CFR part 3010. Comments are due no later than October 26, 2017.
The Commission has posted the public portions of the Postal Service's filing on its Web site at
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lee McFarland to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this proceeding.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. R2018-1 to consider planned price adjustments in rates and fees for market dominant postal products and services and related changes identified in the Postal Service's October 6, 2017 Notice.
2. Comments on the planned price adjustments and related classification changes are due no later than October 26, 2017.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lee McFarland is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
4. The Commission directs the Secretary of the Commission to arrange for prompt publication of this notice in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently filed Postal Service notice of rate adjustments affecting competitive domestic and international products and services. The adjustments are scheduled to take effect January 21, 2018. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On October 6, 2017, the Postal Service filed notice with the Commission concerning changes in rates of general applicability for competitive products.
Attached to the Notice are Governors' Decisions Nos. 16-10 and 16-8, which state the new prices are in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3632 and 3633 and 39 CFR 3015.2.
The Governors' Decisions include two additional attachments:
• A partially redacted table showing FY 2017 projected volumes, revenues, attributable costs, contribution, and cost coverage for each product, assuming implementation of the new prices on January 21, 2018.
• A partially redacted table showing FY 2017 projected volumes, revenues, attributable costs, contribution, and cost coverage for each product, assuming a hypothetical implementation of the new prices on October 1, 2017.
The Notice also includes an application for non-public treatment of the attributable costs, contribution, and cost coverage data in the unredacted version of the annex to the Governors' Decisions, as well as the supporting materials for the data.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2018-8 to consider the Postal Service's Notice. Interested persons may express views and offer comments on whether the planned changes are consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, and 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR 3020 subparts B and E. Comments are due no later than October 24, 2017. For specific details of the planned price changes, interested persons are encouraged to review the Notice, which is available on the Commission's Web site,
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2018-8 to provide interested persons an opportunity to express views and offer comments on whether the planned changes are consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, and 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR 3020 subparts B and E.
2. Comments are due no later than October 24, 2017.
3. The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would revise the Fee Schedule
Participants
After reviewing its cost structure relating to eligibility processing, DTC has determined that due to the development of enhanced systemic and processing efficiencies over time, the Two-Day Surcharge is no longer necessary to be charged in order to cover the cost of processing an eligibility request for a new Issue submitted two days prior to Closing Date. Therefore, DTC proposes to eliminate the Two-Day Surcharge and revise the Fee Schedule accordingly. The Closing Date and One-Day Surcharges would remain unchanged and continue to be charged to Participants to offset costs associated with more manually intensive processing associated with the timely processing of eligibility requests submitted on or one day before Closing Date, as applicable.
The proposed rule change would be effective on October 2, 2017.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act
The proposed rule change is also designed to be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23) of the Act.
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on competition, because the Two-Day Surcharge is a minimal amount and its elimination should not have a material effect on (i) a determination by an underwriter on whether to submit an eligibility request for a new Issue or (ii) costs incurred by Participants in using DTC's eligibility services.
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 8, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 23, 2017, each of Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), and Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) (each, an “Exchange” and collectively, “Exchanges”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On December 16, 2016, the Commission approved proposed rule changes relating to a corporate transaction (“Transaction”) in which CBOE Holdings became the ultimate
Each Exchange represents that its Proposed Certificate and Proposed Bylaws reflect the expectation that the Exchange will be operated with a governance structure similar to that of CBOE and C2.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes, as modified by Amendments No. 1, are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that the Proposed Certificates and Proposed Bylaws are substantially similar to the CBOE Certificate and CBOE Bylaws, with limited exceptions as discussed below. The Commission further notes that it received no comments on the proposed rule changes.
BYX's and BZX's Proposed Certificates each specify that Bats Global Markets Holdings, Inc. (“Bats Global Markets Holdings”) will be the sole owner of the common stock of the Exchange and that any sale, transfer, or assignment by Bats Global Markets Holdings of any shares of common stock of the Exchange will be subject to prior approval by the Commission pursuant to a rule filing.
The Commission believes that specifying the sole owner of each Exchange as either Bats Global Markets Holdings or Direct Edge and the
In connection with the proposal to adopt the Proposed Certificates and Proposed Bylaws, each Exchange is proposing to replace certain provisions pertaining to governance of the Exchange with related provisions that are based on provisions currently in the CBOE Certificate and CBOE Bylaws. For each Exchange, these changes include, among others, provisions governing: The composition of the Exchange's board of directors (“Board” and each member of the Board, a “Director”); the process for nominating, electing, removing, and filling vacancies of Directors; the Board committee structure; the authorization to create an Advisory Board; and the regulatory independence of the Exchange.
Under the Proposed Bylaws, each Exchange's Board will consist of at least five Directors. Each Exchange's Board will determine, by resolution, the total number of Directors and the number of Non-Industry Directors and Industry Directors, if any.
Directors will serve one-year terms ending on the annual meeting following the meeting at which such Directors were elected or at such time as their successors are elected or appointed and qualified, except in the event of earlier death, resignation, disqualification, or removal.
The Representative Director Nominating Body will provide a mechanism for Exchange Members to provide input with respect to nominees for the Representative Directors. The Representative Director Nominating Body will issue a circular to Exchange Members identifying nominees selected by the Representative Director Nominating Body. Exchange Members may nominate alternative candidates for election to be Representative Directors by submitting a petition signed by individuals representing not less than 10% of the Exchange Members at the time, with a run-off election held if one or more valid petitions are received.
The Commission believes that the proposed composition of each Exchange's Board satisfies the requirements in Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,
The Commission also believes that the proposed requirement that at least 20% of the Directors be Representative Directors, and the means by which they will be chosen by Exchange Members, is consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,
Under the Proposed Bylaws, each Exchange will establish certain committees that consist solely of Directors. These Board committees will include an Executive Committee, a Regulatory Oversight Committee, a Nominating and Governance Committee, and such other standing and
The Proposed Bylaws require that each Exchange maintain an Executive Committee.
Each Exchange proposes to eliminate its current Nominating and Member Nominating Committees and prescribe that their duties be performed by its newly formed Nominating and Governance Committee.
Each Exchange proposes to modify the required composition, appointment procedures, and duties of its Regulatory Oversight Committee.
Each Exchange proposes to eliminate its Compensation Committee. The Exchanges explain that the responsibilities of their Compensation Committees largely are duplicative of those of the Compensation Committee of their parent company, CBOE Holdings, other than to the extent that the Exchange Compensation Committees recommend the compensation of executive officers whose compensation is not already determined by the CBOE Holdings Compensation Committee.
Each Exchange also proposes to eliminate its Audit Committee because the Audit Committees' functions are duplicative of the functions of the Audit Committee of CBOE Holdings. The Exchanges state that CBOE Holdings' Audit Committee is composed of at least three CBOE Holdings Directors, all of whom must be independent within the meaning given to that term in the CBOE Holdings Bylaws and Corporate Governance Guidelines and Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
Each Exchange proposes to eliminate its Appeals Committee, which is a Board-level committee that presides over all appeals related to disciplinary and adverse action determinations in accordance with Exchange rules. The Exchanges state that while they are proposing to eliminate the Appeals Committee as a specified Board-level committee, each Exchange would have the ability to appoint a Board-level or an Exchange-level Appeals Committee pursuant to Article IV, Section 4.1 of the Proposed Bylaws. According to the Exchanges, they would prefer not to have to maintain and staff a standing Appeals Committee, but rather would like to provide their Boards with the flexibility to determine whether to establish a Board-level or Exchange-level Appeals Committee.
Further, each Exchange proposes to eliminate a provision of its Current Bylaws that allows the Chairman, with approval of the Board, to appoint a Finance Committee to advise the Board with respect to the oversight of the financial operations and conditions of the Exchange.
The Commission believes that each Exchange's proposed committees, which are similar to the committees maintained by CBOE and C2,
With respect to the proposal to eliminate each Exchange's Compensation Committee and Audit Committee, the Commission notes that this change is comparable to the governing structures of other exchanges, including CBOE and C2, which the Commission has previously approved.
Each Exchange proposes to adopt Article VI, Section 6.1 of the Proposed Bylaws, which provides that the Board may establish an Advisory Board which will advise the Board and management regarding matters of interest to Exchange Members. If established, the Board would set the number of members of the Advisory Board, and at least two members would be Exchange Members or persons associated with Exchange Members. The Nominating and Governance Committee would recommend members of the Advisory Board for approval by the Board.
The Commission believes that each Exchange's proposal to authorize an Advisory Board to advise the Board and management with respect to matters of interest to Exchange Members is consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that the Advisory Board will be advisory in nature and will not be vested with decision-making authority or the authority to act on behalf of the Exchange. Nevertheless, if established, the Advisory Board could serve as a supplementary adjunct advisory body that can provide an additional forum for Exchange Members to be heard and provide input to Exchange management above and beyond the formal role played by Representative Directors, as discussed
The Proposed Certificates and Proposed Bylaws, as well as proposed Exchange rules, include provisions designed to help maintain the independence of the regulatory functions of each Exchange,
• In discharging his or her responsibilities as a member of the Board, each Director shall take into consideration the effect that his or her actions would have on the ability of the Exchange to carry out the Exchange's responsibilities under the Act and on the ability of the Exchange: To engage in conduct that fosters and does not interfere with the Exchange's ability to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and equitable principles of trade; to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities; to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In discharging his or her responsibilities as a member of the Board or as an officer or employee of the Exchange, each Director, officer or employee shall comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder and shall cooperate with the Commission, and the Exchange pursuant to its regulatory authority.
• All confidential information pertaining to the self-regulatory function of the Exchange (including but not limited to disciplinary matters, trading data, trading practices, and audit information) contained in the books and records of the Exchange shall: (1) Not be made available to any persons other than to those officers, Directors, employees, and agents of the Exchange that have a reasonable need to know the contents thereof; (2) be retained in confidence by the Exchange and its officers, Directors, employees, and agents; and (3) not be used for any commercial purposes.
• Under the Proposed Bylaws, as is the case under the Current Bylaws, the books and records of each Exchange must be maintained in the United States.
• Under the Proposed Certificates and Proposed Bylaws, any amendments to those documents will not become effective until filed with, or filed with and approved by, the Commission, as required under Section 19 of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.
• Additionally, each Exchange proposes a rule that would prohibit the Exchange from using any revenues received by the Exchange from fees derived from its regulatory function or regulatory fines for non-regulatory purposes or to make distributions to the stockholder.
The Commission believes that the provisions discussed in this section, which are designed to help ensure the independence of each Exchange's regulatory function and facilitate the ability of each Exchange to carry out its responsibility and operate in a manner consistent with the Act, are appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly with Section 6(b)(1), which requires, in part, an exchange to be so organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act.
The Commission believes that the proposed provisions relating to the books and records of each Exchange are designed to maintain the independence of the Exchanges' self-regulatory function, and are consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that these provisions are substantially similar to those the Commission has previously found to be consistent with the Act in the context of the corporate governance structures of other exchanges.
The Commission finds that the proposed process regarding amendments to the Proposed Certificates and Proposed Bylaws is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, because it reflects the obligation of the Board to ensure compliance with the rule filing requirements under the Act. Additionally, the Commission finds these changes to be consistent with Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,
The Commission also finds that the prohibition on the use of regulatory fees or fines to fund non-regulatory purposes or to make distributions to the stockholder is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
Each Exchange proposes to amend its rules in conjunction with the changes in the Proposed Bylaws.
The Commission finds that these proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act in that they are necessary to update cross-references and certain defined terms in the rules and would assist Exchange Members and the public in understanding the Exchanges' rules.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 26, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange has proposed to adopt initial and continued listing standards for the listing of Subscription Receipts. In its proposal, NYSE generally described the structure of Subscription Receipts and noted that Subscriptions Receipts have been used as a financing technique by Canadian public companies.
The Exchange stated in its proposal that Subscription Receipts provide a contingent form of financing for an issuer that only becomes permanent if the specified acquisition is completed.
The Exchange has proposed the following initial listing standards for Subscription Receipts:
(a) At the time of initial listing, the Subscription Receipts must have a price per share of at least $4.00, a minimum total market value of publicly-held shares of $100 million, 1,100,000 publicly-held shares,
(b) The issuer must be an NYSE listed company that is not currently non-compliant with any applicable continued listing standard.
(c) The proceeds of the Subscription Receipts offering must be designated solely for use in connection with the consummation of a specified acquisition that is the subject of a binding acquisition agreement (the “Specified Acquisition”).
(d) The proceeds of the Subscription Receipts offering must be held in an interest-bearing custody account by an independent custodian.
(e) The Subscription Receipts must promptly be redeemable for cash (i) at any time the Specified Acquisition is terminated, or (ii) if the Specified Acquisition does not close within twelve months from the date of issuance of the Subscription Receipts, or such earlier time as is specified in the operative agreements. If the Subscription Receipts are redeemed, the holders must receive cash payments equal to their proportionate share of the funds in the custody account, including any interest earned on those funds.
(f) If the Specified Acquisition is consummated, the holders of the Subscription Receipts must receive the shares of common stock for which their Subscription Receipts are exchangeable.
(g) The sale of the Subscription Receipts and the issuance of the common stock of the issuer in exchange for the Subscription Receipts must both be registered under the Securities Act of 1933.
The Exchange has also proposed to amend Section 802.01B of the Manual to include continued listing standards applicable to Subscription Receipts listed under proposed Section 102.08 of the Manual. In its filing, as modified by Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed to immediately initiate suspension and delisting procedures when: (i) The number of publicly-held shares is less than 100,000; (ii) the number of public holders is less than 100;
An issuer of Subscription Receipts will not be eligible to follow the procedures outlined in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual with respect to these criteria,
The Exchange also has proposed to amend Section 202.06 of the Manual to provide that whenever it halts trading in a security of a listed company pending dissemination of material news or implements any other required regulatory trading halt, the Exchange will also halt trading in any listed Subscription Receipt that is exchangeable by its terms into the common stock of such company.
The Exchange represented that it will monitor activity in Subscription Receipts to identify and deter any potential improper trading activity in such securities and will adopt enhanced surveillance procedures to enable it to monitor Subscription Receipts alongside the common equity securities into which they are convertible.
Finally, the Exchange has proposed to apply the listing fees for “short-term” securities (
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act and the rules and regulations
The development and enforcement of adequate standards governing the initial and continued listing of securities on an exchange is an activity of critical importance to financial markets and the investing public. Listing standards, among other things, serve as a means for an exchange to screen issuers and to provide listed status only to bona fide companies that have or will have sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly markets. Adequate standards are especially important given the expectations of investors regarding exchange trading and the imprimatur of listing on a particular market. Once a security has been approved for initial listing, maintenance criteria allow an exchange to monitor the status and trading characteristics of that issue to ensure that it continues to meet the exchange's standards for market depth and liquidity so that fair and orderly markets can be maintained.
Subscription Receipts, as discussed by the Exchange in its proposal, are a financing technique to fund a Specified Acquisition. As NYSE noted in its filing, an issuer could sell equity securities to fund an acquisition, but if the acquisition doesn't close, investors will still experience dilution in their holdings. Subscription Receipts allow investors the right to invest in the common stock of the listed company upon consummation of a Specified Acquisition. If the deal is not consummated within a short time frame of 12 months or less, the Subscription Receipt holders receive their pro rata share of the offering proceeds plus interest. In this sense, Subscription Receipts could be viewed as a security with characteristics of both equity and debt and are similar, but not identical to, other contingent securities with a right to receive common stock, such as warrants. At the time investors purchase a Subscription Receipt they will also have information about the Specified Acquisition and are making a decision to purchase stock in the listed post-acquisition company.
To address these unique characteristics, as discussed in more detail below, the Exchange has proposed to adopt new Section 102.08 to list Subscription Receipts, and specified continued listing standards. The proposed standards would permit NYSE to list, and continue to list, Subscription Receipts that meet specific criteria, including market value, distribution, and price requirements, which should help to ensure that the Subscription Receipts have sufficient public float, investor base, and liquidity to promote fair and orderly markets. In addition, issuers of Subscription Receipts would have to comply with other investor protection criteria in order to list Subscription Receipts, such as, among others, holding proceeds in a custodial account controlled by an independent custodian and providing shareholders with cash redemption rights should the Specified Acquisition be terminated or not close within 12 months.
The Commission believes that the proposed initial and continued listing standards for Subscription Receipts are consistent with the requirements of the Act, including the protection of investors and the promotion of fair and orderly markets.
At the time of initial listing, the Subscription Receipts must have a price per share of at least $4.00, a minimum total market value of publicly-held shares of $100 million, 1,100,000 publicly-held shares,
Similarly, the Commission believes the Exchange's proposed continued listing standards for Subscription Receipts are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the protection of investors. Under the amended proposal, the Exchange will immediately initiate suspension and delisting procedures when (i) the number of publicly-held shares is less than 100,000, (ii) the number of public holders is less than 100,
The Commission believes that these standards, taken together, should help ensure that a sufficient market, with adequate depth and liquidity, exists for the continued listing of Subscription Receipts and are similar to the continued listing standards for other securities that have similar characteristics.
In addition to the quantitative listing requirements proposed for Subscription Receipts, the proposed initial and continued listing standards also include additional protections for Subscription Receipt holders. For example, the issuer of Subscription Receipts must be an NYSE listed company that is not currently non-compliant with any applicable continued listing standard and must continue to be listed on the Exchange throughout the time the Subscription Receipts are traded on the Exchange. The proposed rules also provide that whenever the Exchange halts trading in a security of a listed company pending dissemination of material news or implements any other required regulatory trading halt, the Exchange will also halt trading in any listed Subscription Receipt that is exchangeable by its terms into the common stock of such company.
The Commission believes that these additional requirements should protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, by assuring that information with respect to the listed company issuing the Subscription Receipts is publicly available and that the issuing company is meeting all continued listing standards, including corporate governance requirements, of the Exchange. In addition, these requirements should help assure that the Exchange has a listing relationship with, and direct access to information from, the issuer of the Subscription Receipts. Among other things, this direct relationship the Exchange has with the listed company issuing the Subscription Receipts will help to ensure that the Exchange will receive information in a timely manner to halt trading in the Subscription Receipts when there is a material news, or other regulatory, trading halt imposed on the common stock, and other securities, of the listed company.
There are additional protections for investors in the proposed standards. These include that all the proceeds of the Subscription Receipts offering must be designated solely for use in connection with the consummation of a Specified Acquisition pursuant to a definitive acquisition agreement, the material terms of which would be subject to disclosure. Additionally, the proceeds of the Subscription Receipts offering must also be held in an interest-bearing custody account by an independent custodian and holders will promptly redeem the Subscription Receipts for cash, equal to the holder's proportionate share of the funds in the custody account plus any interest earned, at any time the Specified Acquisition is terminated or if the Specified Acquisition does not close within twelve months from the date of issuance of the Subscription Receipts (or such earlier time as specified in the operative agreements). If the Specified Acquisition is consummated, the holders of the Subscription Receipts will receive the shares of common stock for which their Subscription Receipts are exchangeable. Finally, the listing standards specifically state and remind issuers that the sale of Subscription Receipts and the issuance of the common stock of the issuer in exchange for the Subscription Receipts must both be registered under the Securities Act of 1933.
The Exchange will also monitor activity in Subscription Receipts to identify and deter any potential improper trading activity in such securities and will adopt enhanced surveillance procedures to enable it to monitor Subscription Receipts alongside the common equity securities into which they are convertible. Since the Subscription Receipts are related to, and represent an interest in, the common stock of the post-acquisition listed company, this enhanced surveillance should help to monitor the trading activity in both the issuer's listed common stock and the Subscription Receipts.
The Commission believes that these safeguards and standards should help to ensure that the listing, and continued listing, of any Subscription Receipts on NYSE will be consistent with investor protection, the public interest, and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. In this regard, the Commission expects NYSE to thoroughly review any potential listing of Subscription Receipts to ensure that its listing standards have been met and continue to be met, as well as to monitor trading in the Subscription Receipts and related common stock of the issuer. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed initial and continued listing standards are consistent with the Act.
Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed fees set forth in Section 902.06 of the Manual are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
Based on the above, the Commission believes the proposed rule change, as amended, is reasonable and should provide for the listing of Subscription Receipts, with baseline investor protection and other standards. The Commission believes, as discussed above, that NYSE has developed sufficient standards to allow the listing of Subscription Receipts on the Exchange, and finds the proposal consistent with the requirements set forth under the Act, and in particular, Sections (6)(b)(4) and 6(b)(5).
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
The Commission notes that the revisions in Amendment No. 1 provide additional clarity and specificity to the proposal and do not raise any novel regulatory concerns. In addition, the changes to the continued listing standards strengthen the proposal and are consistent with investor protection. Finally, the Commission notes that the majority of the original proposal was not modified and was subject to a full notice-and-comment period, and no comments were received. Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists to approve the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 15, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to postpone implementation of a new attribute for designated retail orders
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.
On July 7, 2017, the Commission approved the Exchange's new Extended Life Priority Order Attribute (“ELO”).
In proposing ELO, the Exchange anticipated a progressive rollout of the ELO functionality, beginning with a small set of symbols and gradually expanding further. The Exchange also committed to publish the symbols eligible for ELO on its Web site. The Exchange noted that it intended to implement the initial set of symbols for ELO in the third quarter of 2017, with the exact implementation date being reliant on several factors, such as the results of extensive testing and industry events and initiatives.
The Exchange has encountered unforeseen issues in developing ELO, which have delayed its implementation. These issues concern the complexity of programming the System to account for ELO priority over other Orders on the Nasdaq Book. The issues will require additional thoughtful and methodical development efforts to ensure that risks are adequately addressed, and the System will accurately account for the new ELO priority. As a consequence, the Exchange is proposing to implement ELO in the second half of 2018. As it originally committed to do, the Exchange will notify market participants via an Equity Trader Alert once a specific date for the initial rollout is determined.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Delaying the implementation of ELO will allow the Exchange to adequately analyze issues, as well as to further develop and test Nasdaq systems to ensure that ELO functions as proposed. Ensuring that the Exchange has adequate time to do so does not place a burden on competition whatsoever, since ELO has not been implemented and market participants have not yet begun to program their systems to accept ELO. Thus market participants will not be affected by the delay in its implementation.
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 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on October 2, 2017. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX to establish monthly and daily fee caps for certain manual transactions fees on the BOX open-outcry Trading Floor (“Trading Floor”). Manual transactions consist of Qualified Open Outcry (“QOO”) Orders.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add Section II.D “Strategy QOO Fee Cap” where manual transactions fees will be capped at $700 for all reversal, conversion, jelly roll, and box spread strategies
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed Strategy QOO Order fee cap is reasonable and appropriate. The proposed fee cap of $700 per day for certain strategies executed on the same trading day in the same option class; and $25,000 per month per Participant are the same amount strategy fee caps at a competing exchanges with an open outcry trading floor.
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. Further, the Exchange does not believe that capping the fees for certain Strategy QOO Orders will impose an undue burned on intra-market competition because all Floor Participants are eligible for the fee cap. Further, the Exchange believes that the fee cap will promote competition by allowing the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges with open outcry trading floors.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule [sic] to amend the Fee Schedule to update certain fees assessed under Section VI.A (Connectivity Fees). While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on October 2, 2017. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX to update the connectivity fees that are assessed on market participants.
Section VI.A. of the BOX Fee Schedule “Connectivity Fees”, was created to detail the fees applicable to market participants who connect to the BOX market network at Point of Presence (“PoP”) sites. These sites are owned and operated by third-party external vendors, and the fees listed in this section are meant to encompass the fees that could be charged based on each market participant's particular configuration. BOX does not assess Connectivity Fees; these fees are assessed by the datacenters and are billed directly to the market participant. Connectivity fees can include one-time set-up fees and monthly fees charged by the third-party vendor in exchange for the services provided to the market participant.
The Exchange proposes to update the fees applicable for the datacenters where market participants may connect to the BOX network: NY4, owned and operated by Equinix; and 65 Broadway, owned and operated by 365 Main; and the connectivity fees applicable, depending upon connection type. Market participants are currently assessed the following fees when connecting to the BOX network:
The Exchange proposes to remove the Extended Cross Connection Type for NY4 datacenter. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the T1 monthly fee at NY4 from $100 to $245. As such, the fees will be as follows:
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to state that connectivity fees are assessed on all market participants that establish connections to BOX through a third-party and that these fees will be billed directly to the market participant. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Section VI.A. of the Fee Schedule are reasonable as they simply reflect the fee changes made by the datacenters, changes which the Exchange has no control over.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Connectivity Fees constitute an equitable allocation of fees, and are not unfairly discriminatory, as all similarly situated market participants are charged the same amount depending on the services they receive.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Fee Schedule will not impose a burden on competition among various Exchange Participants. The proposed change is designed to provide greater specificity and clarity within the Fee Schedule and does not place any Participants at a disadvantage compared to other Participants. Further, the Exchange does not believe this rule change will have an impact on intermarket competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P., One North Franklin Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60606, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity security financing to Estate Cheese Group, LLC (d/b/a Sonoma Creamery), 21750th Street East, Sonoma, CA 95476 (“Sonoma”).
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a) and (d) of the Regulations because Svoboda Capital Fund IV, L.P., an Associate of Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P., owns more than ten percent of Sonoma, and therefore this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of South Carolina dated 10/05/2017.
Issued on 10/05/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15340 8 and for economic injury is 15341 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are South Carolina, Georgia.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “The Arch of Titus—from Jerusalem to Rome, and Back,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Yeshiva University Museum, New York, New York, from on
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Painted in Mexico, 1700-1790: Pinxit Mexici,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, from on or about November 19, 2017, until on or about March 18, 2018, at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about April 24, 2018, until on or about July 22, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Department of State gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This Committee will meet on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time in the American Institute of Architects Board Room at 1735 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006.
Any member of the public interested in providing input to the meeting should contact Ms. Shereece Robinson, whose contact information is listed below (see the “for further information” section of this notice). Each individual providing oral input is requested to limit his or her comments to five minutes. Requests to be added to the speakers list must be received in writing (letter or email) prior to the close of business on Wednesday, October 25, 2017; written comments from members of the public for distribution at this meeting must reach Ms. Robinson by letter or email on this same date. A member of the public requesting reasonable accommodation should also make his/her request to Ms. Robinson by October 25. Requests received after that date will be considered but might not be able to be fulfilled.
The agenda of the meeting will include Universal Postal Union Postal Operations Council and Council of Administration fall session outcomes and implementation of the Integrated Product Plan to modernize and integrate the UPU's international mail product categories and associated remuneration systems.
Please contact Ms. Shereece Robinson of the Office of Specialized and Technical Agencies (IO/STA), Bureau of International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at tel. (202) 663-2649, by email at
Department of State.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. 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 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to November 16, 2017.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
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 Chanel Wallace, who may be reached on (202) 647-7730 or 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.
The Office of Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service (EDCS) manages the solicitation and acceptance of gifts to the U.S. Department of State. The information requested via donor letters is a necessary first step to accepting donations. The information is sought pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2697, 5 U.S.C. 7324 and 22 CFR, Part 3) and will be used by EDCS's Gift Fund Coordinator to demonstrate the donor's intention to donate either an in-kind or monetary gift to the Department. This information is mandatory and must be completed before the gift is received by the Department.
The information collection forms are available upon request. Donors can complete hard copies of the form, and mail to EDCS.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Murillo: The Self-Portraits,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Frick Collection, New York, New York, from on or about November 1, 2017, until on or about February 4, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object to be included in the exhibition “Laura Owens,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, New York, from on or about November 10, 2017, until on or about February 4, 2018, at the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, Texas, from on or about March 25, 2018, until on or about July 29, 2018, at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, in Los Angeles, California, from on or about November 1, 2018, until on or about March 31, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including information identifying the object, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat.
Department of State.
Notice of availability; solicitation of comments.
The U.S. Department of State (Department) announces availability for public review and comment of the
The public comment period starts on October 13, 2017, and will end November 13, 2017.
Comments on the Draft EA and Preliminary FONSI may be submitted at
The Department invites the public, governmental agencies, tribal governments, and all other interested parties to provide comments on the Draft EA and Preliminary FONSI during the 30-day public comment period. All comments received during the review period may be made public, no matter how initially submitted. Comments are not private and will not be edited to remove identifying or contact information. Commenters are cautioned against including any information that they would not want publicly disclosed.
Any party soliciting or aggregating comments from other persons is further requested to direct those persons not to include any identifying or contact information, or information they would not want publicly disclosed, in their comments.
Jill Reilly, (202) 647-9798,
The Department reviews Presidential permit applications under Executive Order (E.O.) 13337 and E.O. 14432. E.O. 13337 delegates to the Secretary of State the President's authority to receive applications for permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal, or other fuels (except for natural gas), at the borders of the United States, and to issue or deny such Presidential permits upon a national interest determination.
On August 12, 2016, Borrego submitted an application to the Department. The application requests a new Presidential permit that would authorize the construction, connection, operation and maintenance of facilities at the United States-Mexico border (border facilities) for the export to Mexico of refined petroleum products (including gasoline, premium gasoline, ultra-low sulfur diesel [ULSD] and jet fuels). The petroleum products would be transported through the new pipeline between a terminal in Laredo, Texas, and the existing Nuevo Laredo Terminal in Tamaulipas, Mexico.
The Draft EA and Preliminary FONSI were prepared consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Section 4321,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that three objects to be included in the exhibition “Caravaggio: Masterpieces from the Galleria Borghese,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, from on or about November 21, 2017, until on or about February 18, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made
On September 27, 2017, Buckeye East Chicago Railroad LLC (BECR) and Landisville Railroad, LLC (Landisville) (collectively, Petitioners) jointly filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon and discontinue, respectively, approximately 1.34 miles of rail line located within the East Chicago Transload Facility (Facility) at or near 400 East Columbus Drive in East Chicago, Lake County, Ind. (the Line). The Line traverses United States Postal Service ZIP Code 46312. Petitioners state the Line does not include stations other than the Facility and does not have milepost designations.
According to Petitioners, Landisville exclusively provides transloading and interchange services on behalf of BECR to a connection with the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (IHBR). Petitioners state that Buckeye Terminals, LLC, the operator of the Facility, is the only shipper on the Line. Upon consummation of the proposed transaction, Petitioners state that IHBR would continue to pick up and deliver traffic to the Facility as a common carrier. Petitioners also state that Buckeye Terminals, which will be BECR's successor as owner of the Line, or Landisville, as a private contract operator to Buckeye Terminals, will move cars around the Facility and provide the transload services, but would do so over private track that would no longer be subject to the Board's jurisdiction. Petitioners state that no other customers have requested common carrier service from either BECR or Landisville.
The parties state that Buckeye Partners, as the parent of both BECR and Buckeye Terminals, has consented to and supports the proposed abandonment and discontinuance. Petitioners state that Landisville is also willing to accommodate the abandonment of the Line by seeking discontinuance of its common carrier operating right over the Line.
According to the Petitioners, the Line is stub-ended and therefore may not accommodate overhead traffic. The Petitioners state that, based on information in BECR's and Buckeye Terminals' possession, the Line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in their possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by January 12, 2018.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,800 filing fee.
All interested persons should be aware that, following discontinuance and abandonment, the Line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for interim trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than November 6, 2017. Each interim trail use request must be accompanied by a $300 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket Nos. AB 1247 and AB 1248 and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; (2) Charles A. Spitulnik, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036; and (3) Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19102. Replies to the petition are due on or before November 6, 2017.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment or discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by OEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who comment during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact OEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA generally will be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
On September 27, 2017, Buckeye Hammond Railroad LLC (BHRR) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon approximately 1.29 miles of rail line located within the Hammond Transload Facility (Facility) in Hammond, Lake County, Ind., traversing United States Postal Service Zip Codes 46320 and 46312 (the Line). BHRR states that the Line does not include stations other than the Facility and does not have milepost designations.
According to BHRR, Buckeye Terminals, LLC, is the only shipper on the Line, which is used exclusively for
According to BHRR, the Line is stub-ended and therefore may not accommodate overhead traffic. BHRR states that, based on information in its and Buckeye Terminals' possession, the Line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in their possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by January 12, 2018.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,800 filing fee.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment, the Line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for interim trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than November 6, 2017. Each interim trail use request must be accompanied by a $300 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket No. AB 1249 and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Charles A. Spitulnik, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036. Replies to the petition are due on or before November 6, 2017.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by OEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who comment during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact OEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA generally will be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before October 27, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0968 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors Meeting.
The meeting will be held on October 26, 2017, from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in this meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and, to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public workshop.
On September 12, 2017, NHTSA published
NHTSA will hold the public workshop on October 20, 2017, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Check-in will begin at 9 a.m. Attendees should arrive early enough to enable them to go through security by 9:50 a.m. The formal docket comment period will close on December 18, 2017, but the Agency will continue to accept comments to the docket.
The public workshop will be held at DOT Headquarters, located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Green Line Metro station at Navy Yard) in the [Oklahoma City Conference Room]. This facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
If you have questions about the public workshop, please contact NHTSA staff at
Registration is necessary for all attendees. Attendees should register online at
On September 20, 2016, NHTSA released and published for comment the
NHTSA offers the Voluntary Guidance to help designers of ADSs analyze, identify, and resolve safety considerations prior to deployment using their own industry and other best practices. The Voluntary Guidance outlines 12 safety elements which the Agency believes represent the consensus across the industry, that are generally considered to be the most salient design aspects to consider and address when developing, testing, and deploying ADSs on public roadways. Among these elements are vehicle cybersecurity, human machine interface, crashworthiness, consumer education and training, and post-crash ADS behavior. Within each safety design element, entities are encouraged to consider and document their use of industry standards, best practices, company policies, or other methods they have employed to provide for increased system safety in real-world conditions.
In addition, the Voluntary Guidance encourages entities engaged in testing and deployment to prepare and publicly disclose Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments of their systems demonstrating their varied approaches to achieving safety. The Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment is intended to communicate to the public (particularly States and consumers) that entities are:
(1) Considering the safety aspects of ADSs;
(2) communicating and collaborating with DOT;
(3) encouraging the self-establishment of industry safety norms for ADSs; and
(4) building public trust, acceptance, and confidence through transparent testing and deployment of ADSs.
It also allows companies an opportunity to showcase their approach to safety, without needing to reveal proprietary intellectual property. NHTSA expects much of the work associated with the consideration of the 12 safety elements in the Voluntary Guidance to be an extension of good and safe engineering practices already in place within an entity, therefore entities will have access to all the information needed to craft a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment if they so choose. NHTSA envisions the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments would contain concise summary information on these practices.
With new information in the safety elements and a new means for disclosing an assessment summary to the public provided in
The public workshop will include representatives from entities developing a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment, States looking to review Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments, members of the public interested in reading the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments to understand the steps taken to address the safety of ADSs, and other Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment users. The open discussion among these interested parties will serve to assist in the development of the most broadly beneficial Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment. Discussion at the workshop will include:
(1) How entities might summarize efforts they already undertake in addressing the safety elements provided in the
(2) challenges entities face in developing their summary statements for the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment and the means to overcome them;
(3) information helpful to stakeholders looking to use the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment; and
(4) methods by which an entity may publicly disclose the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment.
A template of the types of summary information an entity might provide in a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment is provided below. The example is being provided as an effort to offer assistance in the development of a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment and to guide discussion during the public workshop. This template illustrates the type of summary information that may be provided for the safety element of Crashworthiness, just one of the 12 safety elements presented in the Voluntary Guidance. The details in the template are based on a fictitious vehicle and provided for illustration, guidance, and discussion purposes only. This fictitious vehicle is one that has received necessary exemptions from NHTSA. It is a Level 4 ride-share vehicle with four seats and two large doors. We are providing one safety element example for the template, however all safety elements are open for discussion at the public workshop. Stakeholders are encouraged to review this information and determine how this aligns with their ideas regarding the development of a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment.
• Summary of crash simulation scenarios, component testing, and physical tests.
• Summary of bench marks for testing.
• Summary information about how the vehicle design leverages industry best practices and internal standards for crashworthiness.
• If the vehicle contains a non-traditional seating configuration, include summary information related to the following:
○ Protection for the occupants expected to use the vehicle.
○ Testing and countermeasures related to crash impact protection and the impact directions considered.
○ If appropriate, discussion of methods related to rollover protection.
• If the vehicle will transport children (those under age 12), a summary of child passenger safety measures to address:
○ Child occupant detection and accommodations;
○ Car seat use: Anchors, tethers, designated seat locations; and
○ Booster seat use and designated seat locations.
• Summary information of how the vehicle considers crash forces from other road vehicles or the infrastructure.
• Summary information of how the vehicle seeks to mitigate injuries to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
The public workshop is formatted for active participation and open discussion. The intention is to seek input from stakeholders to provide the greatest assistance to entities to develop a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment. NHTSA will begin the workshop with a presentation of the safety elements included in the
NHTSA will conduct the public workshop informally; thus, technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the workshop. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter. The transcript will also be posted in the docket when it becomes available.
Should it be necessary to cancel the workshop due to inclement weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take all available measures to notify registered participants.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated by 49 CFR 1.95.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, 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 continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments should be received on or before December 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment. Requests for additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact Elaine Christophe, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on these continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The burden for the reporting requirements is reflected in the burden of Forms W-8BEN, W-8ECI, W-8EXP, W-8IMY, 1042, 1042S, 8233, 8833, and the income tax return of a foreign person filed for purposes of claiming a refund of tax.
6.
7.
The estimated annual burden per respondent varies from 2 hours to 8 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 5 hours.
8.
9.
10.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Friday, November 17, 2017.
Gretchen Swayzer at 1-888-912-1227 or 469-801-0769.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Friday, November 17, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact: Gretchen Swayzer at 1-888-912-1227 or 469-801-0769, TAP Office, 4050 Alpha Rd., Farmers Branch, TX 75244, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. The public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the methods to determine taxable income in connection with a cost sharing arrangement, IRC section 482.
Written comments should be received on or before December 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the application process for determination of employee stock ownership plans.
Written comments should be received on or before December 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, 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 continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the monthly tax return for wagers.
Written comments should be received on or before December 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the application process for determination of employee stock ownership plans.
Written comments should be received on or before December 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to Passive Activity Loss Limitations.
Written comments should be received on or before December 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Taquesha Cain, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Approved: October 12, 2017.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 16, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue, Floor 5, Area 368, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
38 U.S.C. 102, 38 U.S.C. 1315.
VA Form 21P-509 is used by VBA to gather income and dependency information from claimants who are seeking payment of benefits as, or for, a dependent parent. This information is necessary to determine dependency of the parent and make determinations which affect the payment of monetary benefits. The form is used by a veteran seeking to establish his/her parent(s) as dependent(s), and by a surviving parent seeking death compensation.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 16, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Department Clearance Officer (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., (Floor 5, area 368), Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
Public Law 107-103 and Public Law 110-181; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the VA New Hampshire Vision 2025 Task Force, which is a subcommittee of the Special Medical Advisory Group (SMAG), will meet October 31, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET and November 1, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. ET at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Manchester VA Medical Center, 718 Smyth Road Manchester, NH 03104, Building 1, 1st Floor, Training & Education Room. The meeting is open to the public. No video or audio recording will be authorized without prior permission from the Designated Federal Officer.
The purpose of the Subcommittee is to develop a comprehensive set of options and recommendations to develop a future vision of what VA must do to best meet the needs of New Hampshire Veterans. The recommendations will be reviewed by the SMAG and then those final recommendations will be forwarded to the Secretary and Under Secretary for Health for decision and action.
The agenda may include updates regarding focus groups, data review, and health care delivery research for various service lines and greater New Hampshire health care market. No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Subcommittee's review to Brenda Faas, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs at
Because the meeting will be held in a federal government building, anyone attending must be prepared to show a valid photo government issued ID. Please allow 15 minutes before the meeting begins for this process.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee will meet on November 1-2, 2017. The meeting will be held at 333 John Carlyle St., 4th Floor Conference Room, in Alexandria, VA 22314 on November 1-2; both meeting sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. (EST) each day and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. (EST). The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on rural health care issues affecting Veterans. The Committee examines Programs and policies that impact the delivery of VA rural health care to Veterans and discusses ways to improve and enhance VA access to rural health care services for Veterans.
The agenda will include updates from Department leadership, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services, Director Office of Rural Health and Committee Chairman, as well as presentations on general health care access.
Public comments will be received at 4:30 p.m. on November 1, 2017. Interested parties should contact Ms. Judy Bowie, via email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a partial approval of the 2009 Texas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission and a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Texas to address certain outstanding requirements. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing determinations regarding best available retrofit technology (BART) for electric generating units (EGUs) in the State of Texas. To address the BART requirement for sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on November 16, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michael Feldman at
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area and emit PM
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the average visual range
CAA requirements to address the problem of visibility impairment are continuing to be addressed and implemented. In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 1999.
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often under-controlled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources
Under section 110(c) of the CAA, whenever we disapprove a mandatory SIP submission in whole or in part, we are required to promulgate a FIP within two years unless the state corrects the deficiency and we approve the new SIP submittal.
Section 110(a) of the CAA directs states to submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS, which is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP. Among other things, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs contain adequate provisions to prohibit interference with measures required to protect visibility in other states. This is referred to as “interstate visibility transport.” SIPs addressing interstate visibility transport are due to the EPA within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or within such shorter period as we may prescribe). A state's failure to submit a complete, approvable SIP for interstate visibility transport creates an obligation for the EPA to promulgate a FIP to address this requirement.
On March 31, 2009, Texas submitted a regional haze SIP to the EPA that included reliance on Texas' participation in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) as an alternative to BART for SO
In the same action that EPA determined that states could rely on CSAPR to address the BART requirements for EGUs, EPA issued a limited disapproval of a number of states' regional haze SIPs, including the 2009 SIP submittal from Texas, due to the states' reliance on CAIR, which had been replaced by CSAPR.
On October 26, 2016, the EPA finalized an update to CSAPR to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).
On November 10, 2016, in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of Texas's CSAPR SO
On January 4, 2017, we proposed a FIP to address the BART requirements for Texas' EGUs. In that action, we proposed to replace Texas' reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the NO
Also as noted in section I.C, as part of our November 10, 2016 proposed action in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of Texas' SO
In our January 5, 2016 final action
When we finalized a limited disapproval of Texas' 2009 regional haze SIP for its reliance on CAIR participation as a BART alternative, we did not immediately finalize a CSAPR-better-than-BART FIP for Texas, as we had proposed for Texas and ultimately finalized for twelve other states. Instead of finalizing a CSAPR-better-than-BART FIP for Texas, the EPA acknowledged that we needed more time to assess the Texas regional haze SIP in regard to aspects other than its reliance on CAIR as an alternative to BART.
After assessing how we should address BART for Texas EGUs, we believe that our initial 2011 proposal, to treat Texas like other similarly situated CSAPR states, was an appropriate and regionally consistent approach. As discussed above, in 2014, we proposed that CSAPR would satisfy the NO
Specifically, the BART alternative is justified “based on the clear weight of the evidence” that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through BART.
The Regional Haze Rule requires that SIP or FIP measures be in place to ensure that BART is satisfied for all subject-to-BART EGUs and all haze-causing pollutants. For ease of summarization, we will detail the relevant final decisions for each of the haze-causing pollutants: PM, NO
BART-eligible sources are those sources which have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of a visibility-impairing air pollutant, which were “in existence” on August 7, 1977 but not “in operation” before August 7, 1962, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories.
As discussed elsewhere, it is unnecessary to finalize the subject-to-BART determinations for BART-eligible sources that are covered by the BART alternatives for SO
For those BART-eligible EGUs that are not covered by the BART alternative for SO
The following sources are determined to be BART-eligible, but not subject-to-BART:
The BART alternative will achieve SO
The combination of the source coverage for this program, the total allocations for EGUs covered by the program, and recent and foreseeable emissions from EGUs not covered by the program will result in future EGU emissions in Texas that are similar to the SO
This BART alternative includes all BART-eligible coal-fired units in Texas, additional coal-fired EGUs, and some additional BART-eligible gas and gas/fuel oil-fired units. Moreover, we believe that the differences in source coverage between CSAPR and this BART alternative are either not significant or, in fact, work to demonstrate the relative stringency of the BART alternative as compared to CSAPR (See Section V of this preamble for detailed information). This relative stringency can be understood in reference to the following points:
A. Covered sources under the BART alternative in this FIP represent 89%
B. The remaining 11% (100 minus 89) of 2016 emissions from sources not covered by the BART alternative come from gas units that rarely burn fuel oil or coal-fired units that on average are better controlled for SO
C. Furthermore, the non-inclusion of a large number of gas-fired units that rarely burn fuel oil reduces the amount of available allowances for units that would typically and collectively be expected to use only a fraction of CSAPR emissions allowances. Many of these sources typically emit at levels much lower than their allocation level. Sources not participating in the program may choose to opt in, thereby increasing the number of available allowances. This will serve to make the program more closely resemble CSAPR.
D. The BART alternative does not allow purchasing of allowances from out-of-state sources. Emission projections under CAIR and CSAPR showed that Texas sources were anticipated to purchase allowances from out-of-state sources.
Based on these points, and borrowing to the greatest extent possible from the rules and program design of CSAPR, but applying them for Texas only, we are proceeding with the commenters', including the State of Texas', suggested consideration for SO
In 2014 we had originally proposed that CSAPR would satisfy the SO
The Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) requires that the emission reductions from BART alternatives occur “during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze.” The SO
In promulgating the regulatory terms and rules for implementing the BART alternative, we are mindful of the minimally required elements for a BART alternative emissions trading program that are specified in the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)-(L). In general, these types of provisions are foundational, in a generic sense, to the establishment of allowance markets. CSAPR is a prominent example of such an allowance market, and by transferring and generally incorporating program rules and terms from the well-tested provisions of CSAPR we have ensured that the BART alternative will conform in detail and coverage to the breadth of provisions that are needed for an emissions trading program covered by a cap (See Section V of this preamble for additional discussion). To the extent that Texas would submit a future SIP revision under its SIP authority to implement SO
In our January 2017 proposal, we proposed to disapprove Texas' technical evaluation and determination that PM BART emission limits are not required for any of Texas' EGUs. The Texas Regional Haze SIP included a pollutant-specific screening analysis for PM to demonstrate that Texas EGUs were not subject to BART for PM. This approach was consistent with a 2006 guidance document
As we explained in the January 2017 proposal, the Texas Regional Haze SIP did not evaluate PM impacts from all BART-eligible EGUs. We have evaluated and determined this omission does not affect Texas' conclusion that no BART-eligible EGUs should be subject-to-BART for PM emissions. In our proposal, we identified several facilities as BART-eligible that Texas did not identify as BART eligible in the Texas Regional Haze SIP. Specifically, we identified the following additional BART-eligible sources: Coleto Creek Unit 1 (Dynegy), Dansby Unit 1 (City of Bryan), Greens Bayou Unit 5 (NRG), Handley Units 3,4, and 5 (Excelon), Lake Hubbard Units 1 and 2 (Luminant), Plant X Unit 4 (Xcel), Powerlane Units ST1, ST2, and ST3 (City of Greenville), R W Miller Units 1, 2, and 3 (Brazos Elec.), Spencer Units 4 and 5 (City of Garland), and Stryker Creek Unit ST2 (Luminant). In our proposal, we used CALPUFF modeling and a model-plant analysis and found that all of these facilities except Coleto Creek and Stryker Creek had impacts from NO
We also evaluated the potential visibility impact of PM emissions from Coleto Creek Unit 1 using the CAMx modeling that Texas used for PM BART screening of its EGU sources in its SIP.
In finalizing an approval of Texas' determinations regarding PM BART, we offer one additional note. We originally proposed to approve Texas' screening approach in 2014,
We are finalizing our proposed determination that Texas EGUs' continued participation in the CSAPR program for interstate transport for ozone will serve as a BART alternative for NO
We note that Texas may opt to use its SIP planning authority, as was noted in its 2009 Regional Haze SIP in a similar context, to address the NO
We are finalizing our proposal to disapprove Texas' SIP revisions addressing interstate visibility transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for six NAAQS. As explained further in our proposal, Texas' infrastructure SIPs for these six NAAQS relied on the 2009 Regional Haze SIP, including its reliance on CAIR as an alternative to EGU BART for SO
An EPA guidance document (2013 Guidance) on infrastructure SIP elements states that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)'s interstate visibility transport requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that the EPA has found to adequately address a state's contribution to visibility impairment in other states.
To develop its 2009 Regional Haze SIP, TCEQ worked through its RPO, the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP), to develop strategies to address regional haze, which at that time were based on emissions reductions from CAIR. To help states in establishing reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas, the CENRAP modeled future visibility conditions based on the mutually agreed emissions reductions from each state. The CENRAP states then relied on this modeling in setting their respective reasonable progress goals.
This FIP is adequate to ensure that emissions from Texas do not interfere with measures to protect visibility in nearby states because the BART FIP emission reductions are consistent with the level of emissions reductions relied upon by other states during consultation. The 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP relied on CAIR to meet SO
This final action is part of the long-term strategy for Texas and will contribute to making reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions at Texas' and downwind Class I areas. However, the EPA is not determining at this time that this final action fully resolves the EPA's outstanding obligations with respect to reasonable progress that resulted from the Fifth Circuit's remand of our reasonable progress FIP. We intend to take future action to address the Fifth Circuit's remand.
We received both written and oral comments at the public hearings we held in Austin. We also received comments by the internet and the mail. The full text of comments received from these commenters, except what was claimed as CBI, is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at
We received a comment from American Electric Power (AEP) stating that in the proposed Texas BART FIP, EPA states that it encourages Texas to consider adopting SIP provisions that would allow EPA to fully approve the Regional Haze SIP with respect to Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport. AEP also suggests that alternatively, Texas may also elect to satisfy its obligations by demonstrating an alternative. Although AEP views the most expeditious resolution for satisfying BART is finalization of CSAPR as a better-than-BART alternative, AEP would also welcome and support working with the State and EPA to develop a satisfactory BART compliance alternative. For example, AEP is open to consideration of a cap and trade program or other option for BART compliance. AEP is prepared to engage in such discussions as soon as possible.
We also received a comment from Luminant stating that the EPA can and should address BART for Texas, not through EPA-mandated controls on individual units but through one of several available BART alternatives that will ensure equivalent or greater benefits at far less costs, as demonstrated by EPA's own prior analyses of Texas EGUs' emissions. Among those available alternatives is EPA's original proposed BART plan for EGUs in Texas—reliance on Texas EGUs' participation in the CSAPR annual SO
We received comments addressing EPA's authority to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), the use of CSAPR as a better-than-BART alternative, cooperative federalism, deference to the State, the new Administration's policies, Executive Orders, and litigation. These comments, and the response to comments, can be found in the document titled Legal RTC in the docket for this action. Below is a summary of some of the more significant comments we received. For a detailed review of all legal comments and responses, we refer the reader to this separate document.
After challenging the state's inclusion in CSAPR for years, industry has done an about face in response to EPA's Texas BART Proposal and now opposes EPA's withdrawal of Texas from CSAPR. But EPA has gone on record that the agency does not currently have an analytical basis to support new CSAPR budgets for Texas. As EPA has noted, there was no such thing as a legally compliant CSAPR budget for Texas following the remand. Texas has had many years to submit a state SIP equivalent to CSAPR or other BART alternative to avoid source-specific BART, but Texas has taken no action to address its contribution to interstate pollution or regional haze.
With the exception of a BART alternative approved for the Navajo Generating Station, which relied on the Tribal Authority Rule to provide additional flexibility, EPA has never proposed or approved a BART alternative that would allow the necessary emission reductions to be delayed past 2018. In
We note that the BART alternative is projected to be implemented before any of the earlier-proposed compliance dates for source-specific SO
The last year for which Texas EGUs must meet CSAPR requirements for SO
To satisfy the requirements for a BART “alternative,” an emissions trading program must make a technical demonstration that the trading program “will achieve greater reasonable progress [towards natural visibility] than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART.”
We acknowledge that other requirements of § 51.308(e)(2) would still need to be satisfied, such as monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and provisions for emission trading programs. While the CSAPR option is specifically listed at § 51.308(e)(4), the EPA's Regional Haze rules do not prohibit a state from relying on EPA's modeling demonstration that CSAPR resulted in greater reasonable progress when using an alternative under § 51.308(e)(2). If a state-only program is more stringent than CSAPR, for example a program based on CSAPR allocations but without interstate trading, requiring a state to conduct extensive modeling to demonstrate what the EPA has already demonstrated for a less stringent program is illogical and places an unnecessary and wasteful burden on states.
We interpret the comment as supporting this action, even as it appears to criticize our reference to another proposed action, which has since been finalized, as part of the proposal for the NO
EPA compared CSAPR to BART in the Better-than-BART Rule by using CSAPR allocations that are more stringent than now required as well as by using presumptive BART limits that are less stringent than are actually required under the statute. Even under EPA's skewed 2012 comparison, CSAPR achieves barely more visibility improvement than BART at Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. The NO
If it were assumed that the CSAPR-Better-than-BART Rule were valid in 2012, it is based on assumptions for both CSAPR and BART emissions which are now woefully outdated. The CSAPR-Better-than-BART Rule's reliance on presumptive BART emission limits is now outdated, given that EPA has issued or approved source-specific BART determinations for dozens of sources since 2012. In particular, for Texas sources, EPA has proposed SO
Similarly, the CSAPR-Better-than-BART Rule is based on a version of CSAPR that no longer exists. Accordingly, any conclusion that EPA made in the 2012 Better than BART rule regarding whether CSAPR achieves greater reasonable progress than BART is no longer valid. Since 2012, EPA has significantly changed the allocations and the compliance deadlines for CSAPR. Of particular relevance here, after 2012, EPA dramatically increased the CSAPR allocations for every covered EGU in Texas. EPA later withdrew the February 21, 2012 rule revision, but issued a new rule that included both the changes in the February 21, 2012 rule as well as additional changes to state budgets.
By the time EPA finalized the Better-than-BART-Rule in June 2012, EPA had changed the state emissions budgets by tens of thousands of tons, yet EPA proceeded to finalize the Better-than-BART Rule based solely on the emissions budgets in the original, 2011 CSAPR rule. EPA also extended the compliance deadlines by three years, such that the phase 1 emissions budgets take effect in 2015-2016 and the phase 2 emissions budgets take effect in 2017 and beyond. Even more changes to CSAPR have occurred as a result of the D.C. Circuit's decision in
To demonstrate that CSAPR makes greater reasonable progress than BART, EPA must show that (1) visibility does not decline in any Class I area under CSAPR, and (2) there is an overall improvement in visibility, based on comparing the average differences between CSAPR and BART across all affected Class I areas. EPA's analysis falls well short of making such a
EPA's 2016 analysis is markedly different from the CSAPR-Better-than-BART Rule, which relied on quantitative modeling of electric power section emissions, using the Integrated Planning Model, and quantitative modeling of visibility at all affected Class I areas, using CAMx. Instead of updating that modeling, EPA's 2016 analysis consists of a back-of-the-envelope, qualitative discussion. This is wholly insufficient. There have been enormous changes in the electric power sector since EPA issued the Better-than-BART Rule in 2012, including changes in regulatory requirements (
EPA's failure to update the modeling upon which it relied in the 2012 Better than BART Rule is even more arbitrary given EPA's assumption, in the 2016 Sensitivity Analysis, that no trading of CSAPR allowances would occur across state lines. The Sensitivity Analysis uses “emissions that would occur if the state budgets are increased as proposed assuming that all of the additional allowances are used by sources in the respective state (
Similarly, EPA failed to account for intra-state trading under CSAPR. Even assuming all changes in budgets would apply only within the affected state—that is, assuming interstate emissions trading did not change at all—EPA has not accounted for trading within the states. A 20% reduction in statewide emissions does not imply that each unit will reduce its emissions by 20%; indeed, some units could increase emissions while statewide emissions went down. EPA does not seem to have accounted for this in its analysis. Thus, even within EPA's scenario whereby no changes to reflect current conditions need to be made, EPA's
In addition, EPA cannot simply assume that the visibility improvement averaged across all Class I areas, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(ii), will still be better under the updated CSAPR than under BART. Without updated visibility modeling, EPA has no data to demonstrate that the second prong of the BART alternative test will be met in spite of the substantial changes in coverage and budgets under CSAPR.
CSAPR was issued to replace CAIR and because of EPA's action on CAIR, EPA subsequently withdrew reliance on CAIR as a BART alternative and finalized the demonstration that compliance with CSAPR is better than application of BART. This action occurred after Texas had submitted its SIP.
On December 16, 2014, EPA published a proposed FIP program to “replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR as an alternative to BART for SO
EPA's Proposed FIP and the imposition of source-specific BART relies on the EPA's proposed rulemaking for the withdrawal of Texas from the CSAPR Phase 2 trading budgets for SO
EPA's proposed withdrawal of Texas from the Phase 2 CSAPR program for SO
EPA also noted that “[n]o changes to the Regional Haze Rule are proposed as part of the rulemaking.”
The D.C. Circuit had remanded without vacatur the Phase 2 budgets in
The D.C. Circuit requires EPA to propose acceptable budgets consistent and confirm that those budgets are a BART alternative and allow Texas to remain in the CSAPR trading program. Source specific controls, then, would no longer be necessary since CSAPR as a BART alternative would provide a more cost-effective, less burdensome and flexible program for compliance with Texas' visibility obligations.
By EPA's reliance on the proposed withdrawal of Texas from the CSAPR trading program for SO
We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion that we were not open to the consideration of comments in our proposed action or in any related actions in violation of the APA. Moreover, the assertion that EPA had made up its mind that any proposal would be finalized as proposed regardless of comments that might be offered is not correct. For efficiency and because of time constraints, our proposal for the NO
We anticipate that EPA may respond that a September 9, 2017 Consent Decree deadline (derived from a case in which the EGUs were not party) did not permit time to consider comments before proposing the Texas BART FIP.
Additionally, EPA's attempt to comply with a court deadline does not justify noncompliance with the APA. With its current proposal (Texas BART FIP), EPA has done nothing but create further uncertainty and violate the APA. EPA could have requested an extension of the deadline to revise the budgets, but did not. Consistent with the Administration's Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, EPA could revise the CSAPR budgets adhere to CSAPR is better-than-BART, as they have in many other states, and remove two proposed regulations in doing so without the promulgation of another rule (proposed withdrawal of Texas from the CSAPR Phase 2 program and proposed source-specific BART for Texas source.) EPA should update the Phase 2 SO
Among those available alternatives is EPA's original proposed BART action for EGUs in Texas—reliance on Texas EGUs' participation in CSAPR's annual SO
As an alternative to finalizing a CSAPR-for-BART FIP in September 2017, EPA could seek an extension of the consent decree deadline and proceed to work cooperatively with the State of Texas and Texas EGU operators to develop and propose for comment a different BART alternative for Texas, as it has done in other states. Such an alternative could, for example, establish SO
Promulgation of a CSAPR-for-BART FIP is EPA's only lawful option for meeting the September 9, 2017 consent decree deadline. If EPA believes that it must finalize a BART rule for Texas EGUs by September 2017, EPA's only valid legal option is to finalize its 2014 proposed CSAPR-for-BART FIP. In that proposal, EPA specifically stated that it was proposing “a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR as an alternative to BART for SO
EPA's consent decree with Sierra Club does not prevent EPA from finalizing its original CSAPR-for-BART proposal in Texas. The consent decree that EPA entered into with Sierra Club was revised in December 2015 to provide two alternative deadlines for issuing a final rule that implements BART for Texas. First, the revised consent decree provides that by “[n]o later than December 9, 2016,” EPA was to promulgate a final BART FIP for Texas, unless EPA had approved Texas's SIP or promulgated “a partial SIP” meeting the BART requirements under the regional haze program. Alternatively, the December 2016 deadline would be “extended to September 9, 2017,” if EPA signed a new proposed rule for BART by December 9, 2016. EPA signed the Proposed Texas BART FIP on December 9, 2016, thereby triggering the extension in the consent decree.
The consent decree, however, does not (and cannot) dictate the substance of EPA's final BART rulemaking under the extended deadline of September 9, 2017; the only prerequisite to invoking this extension is the signing of a proposal by December 9, 2016. EPA is not bound by the consent decree to finalize the terms of the current proposal or any similar source-specific BART rule; in fact, established principles of administrative law require EPA to remain open-minded during the rulemaking process. The consent decree merely established deadlines for EPA's pending course of action. Accordingly, for purposes of meeting the upcoming deadline of September 9, 2017, EPA is not prohibited by the consent decree from reverting to its 2014 proposal to finalize CSAPR as a BART alternative for Texas EGUs.
EPA's sensitivity analyses for Texas's SO
Recent emissions data confirm EPA's prior determination—
Texas has maintained its emissions well below the budgets established by CSAPR. The record establishes that BART for these units can be no more stringent than current emission levels, which are well below CSAPR budgets. In 2012, EPA concluded that “[CSAPR] achieves greater reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions than source-specific BART.” EPA confirmed this determination in subsequent sensitivity analyses. So long as Texas's emissions remain below the CSAPR budgets, the operation of Texas EGUs in such a manner will continue to be better-than-BART.
Thus, the Proposed Texas BART FIP is based on a fundamental flaw by EPA—that BART for Texas EGUs must be “more emission reductions than projected under CAIR or CSAPR.” To the contrary, because Texas validly remains in the annual CSAPR programs for SO
First, EPA's claim that there is an “absence of CSAPR coverage for SO
Second, regardless of when EPA responds to the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA's own sensitivity analyses confirm that were EPA to properly respond to the remand by increasing Texas's annual SO
Since 2009, Texas EGUs have been subject to federal regulatory programs that have resulted in substantial reductions in the NO
As a result, EPA may not proceed with the disapproval of Texas' reliance on CSAPR as “better than BART” until such time that the proposal is legally finalized in compliance with the Court decision that remanded that rule to EPA. Once that rule is legally finalized, then Texas should be given an opportunity to address whether and how that affects the state's regional haze program before a FIP is considered.
What does “in existence on August 7, 1977” mean?
2. The regional haze rule defines “in existence” to mean that: “the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of the facility or (2) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be canceled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time.” 40 CFR 51.301.
The owner of Coleto Creek Unit 1 provided information that onsite construction began prior to August 7, 1977. Thus, Coleto Creek Unit 1 satisfies the above criteria as being “in existence on August 7, 1977.” Therefore, we disagree with the commenter and continue to find that Coleto Creek Unit 1 is BART-eligible. The NO
We previously proposed to disapprove the SIP's subject-to-BART determinations for PM, on the grounds that the SIP had based these determinations on reliance on a BART alternative for SO
Also, as explained above, we have identified additional sources as BART-eligible that were not considered in the
Although we are not finalizing the MATS-based PM limits proposed as PM BART for the coal-fired EGUs, this regional haze action does not affect the existing MATS requirements for these units. We are also not finalizing the fuel oil sulfur percentage limits that we proposed for gas/fuel oil-fired EGUs; the same limits in existing permits for these sources are not affected by our action.
The Lower Colorado River Authority disagrees with the disapproval of the Texas PM BART demonstration.
The TCEQ and the Public Utilities Commission of Texas stated that our reliance on language in a guidance memo
The TCEQ states that our CAMx modeling supports the conclusions from the screening modeling conducted by it that shows these same units did not meet the 0.5 deciview (dv) threshold.
Luminant provided comments similar to those above. Luminant added that it believes that Texas remains in CSAPR so there is no basis for us to deviate from our prior proposal to approve Texas's PM BART determination. Luminant also stated that our reliance on a Ninth Circuit Court decision to support our rejection of pollutant-specific BART screening is incorrect because the case in point relied upon the BART de minimis exemption, which does not apply in this instance.
In particular, TCEQ's comments are correct that the BART Guidelines do not prohibit pollutant-specific screening. The July 19, 2006 guidance memo states that EPA does not generally recommend a pollutant-specific screening approach, however, such a screening approach may be appropriate for PM in certain situations. The memo provides the situation of a state relying on CAIR for NO
Yet Texas ultimately concluded that no BART-eligible source is subject to BART. Texas's determination is based in part on the unsupported selection of 0.5 dv as the threshold for contribution to visibility impairment. EPA must disapprove Texas's determination as to the sources subject to BART. Texas adopted 0.5 dv as the threshold for “contribution” to visibility impairment. Texas provided no justification for using a 0.5 dv threshold. There is no documentation in the record as to how or why Texas selected this threshold, and there is no legal support for such threshold. EPA's BART Guidelines do not authorize states automatically to use a 0.5 dv contribution threshold. Instead, the BART Guidelines state only that “any threshold that you use for determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. In the next sentence, the Guidelines instruct each state that it “should consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts.” There is no evidence in the record that Texas ever conducted this analysis. Furthermore, the Guidelines conclude that “a larger number of sources causing impacts in a Class I area may warrant a lower contribution threshold.” As Texas's list of 126 BART eligible sources indicates, a large number of sources impact the Class I areas in Texas and in neighboring states. Indeed, the subset of sources that screened out of BART based on individual modeling have a combined, baseline impact of nearly 10 deciviews. Thus, the situation in Texas is exactly what EPA had in mind when it noted that a contribution threshold lower than 0.5 dv may be appropriate. Had Texas followed the BART Guidelines, it may well have selected a threshold lower than 0.5 dv. Using a lower contribution threshold would change Texas's conclusion as to which
We also received comments from environmental groups stating that we should have required the gas-fired units that occasionally burn fuel oil to minimally switch to Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) in lieu of our proposed BART determination that these units be limited to 0.7% fuel oil by weight. These commenters argued that our estimate of the price per gallon for ULSD was too high and that in any case, the total annual cost to make the switch is very low. They also argue that requiring the Stryker and Graham units to switch to ultra-low-sulfur diesel would significantly improve visibility.
In considering the comment that we should use a more recent version of CALPUFF (6.4) or an earlier version 6.112, we considered the regulatory status of CALPUFF for visibility analyses and what analyses are needed to utilize an updated CALPUFF modeling system. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality Models (GAQM) and the BART Guidelines which refers to GAQM as the authority for using CALPUFF, provide the framework for determining the appropriate model platforms and versions and inputs to be used. Because of concern with CALPUFF's treatment of chemical transformations, which affect AQRVs, EPA has not approved the chemistry of CALPUFF's model as a “preferred” model. The use of the regulatory version is approved for increment and NAAQS analysis of primary pollutants only. Currently, CALPUFF Version 5.8, is subject to the requirements of GAQM 3.0(b) and as a screening model, GAQM 4. CALPUFF Versions 6.112 and 6.4 have not been approved by EPA for even this limited purpose. The versions of CALPUFF, version 6.112 or 6.4, that the commenter recommended could be used to provide modeling analyses of BART eligible sources that have not gone through a full regulatory review in accordance with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W Section 3.2.2. Furthermore, the currently available information does not support the approval of these versions of the CALPUFF model for use in making BART determinations. In addition, if these versions of the model
Other commenters indicated that we should use the modeling results from CALPUFF for BART screening at ranges much greater than 400 km. They stated that CALPUFF over-predicts visibility impacts at distances greater than 300 km; therefore, CALPUFF is an acceptable and conservative tool for screening BART sources at large distances from Class I areas. We received comments from several different companies (NRG, LCRA, Coleto Creek, and Luminant) that provided contractor (AECOM) analysis with opinions on the acceptable range of CALPUFF. AECOM's report for LCRA included CALPUFF modeling results for 14 Class I areas with distances out to more than 1000 km and asserted that TCEQ and EPA had utilized CALPUFF previously in screening out sources from being subject to a full BART analysis in the 2009 Texas regional haze SIP submission, our 2014 proposal, and our 2015 final action. Some comments were supportive of using CALPUFF results at distances of 400-1000 + km,
A number of commenters also raised concerns with the accuracy of the CALPUFF model and several uncertainty issues related to the CALPUFF model and results from the model. We also received the comment that CALPUFF's regulatory status as a preferred model recently changed and that this change raises a question of whether CALPUFF should have been used for the Proposed Texas BART FIP.
It has been asserted by the commenters that CALPUFF overestimates visibility impacts at greater distances (greater than 300/400 km) and therefore some commenters claimed that use of CALPUFF is conservative and acceptable for screening BART sources. We disagree with this comment. EPA has seen situations of both under-prediction and over-prediction at these greater distances. EPA has indicated historically that use of CALPUFF was generally acceptable at 300 km and for larger emissions sources with elevated stacks. We and FLM representatives have also allowed or supported the use of CALPUFF results beyond 400 km in some cases other than the Texas actions as pointed out by commenters.
We note that we also had direct CALPUFF screening of some coal-fired plants out to 412 km with NO
Due to the comments we received requesting a BART alternative in lieu of source-specific EGU BART determinations, we are finalizing a SO
We disagree with the commenter's characterization of uncertainties raised that invalidate the CALPUFF modeling results. We respond to comments raised briefly here and in our Modeling RTC. We have also responded to a number of these issues in our past FIP actions.
In response to the court's 2002 finding in
In promulgating the 2005 BART guidelines, we responded to comments concerning the limitations and appropriateness of using CALPUFF.
In the 2003 revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models, CALPUFF was added as an approved model for long range transport of primary pollutants. At that time, we considered approving CALPUFF for assessing the impact from secondary pollutants but determined that it was not appropriate in the context of a PSD review because the impact results could be used as the sole determinant in denying a permit.
We disagree with the commenter's general statement that there is an acknowledged over-prediction of the CALPUFF model or an acknowledged inaccuracy at low impact levels, and that the actual visibility impacts from the BART sources are lower. The CALPUFF model can both under-predict and over-predict visibility impacts when compared to predicted visibility impacts from photochemical grid models. See our Modeling RTC for more detailed response.
CALPUFF visibility modeling, performed using the regulatory CALPUFF model version and following all applicable guidance and EPA/FLM recommendations, provides a consistent tool for comparison with the 0.5 dv subject-to-BART threshold. The CALPUFF model, as recommended in the BART guidelines, has been used for almost every single-source BART analysis in the country and has provided a consistent basis for assessing the degree of visibility benefit anticipated from controls as one of the factors under consideration in a five factor BART analysis. Since almost all states have completed their BART analyses and have either approved SIPs or FIPs in place, there is a large set of available data on modeled visibility impacts and benefits for comparison with, and this data illuminates how those model results were utilized to screen out sources and as part of the five-factor analysis in making BART control determinations.
The regulatory status of CALPUFF was changed in the recent revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models (GAQM) as far as the classification of CALPUFF as a preferred model for transport of pollutants for primary impacts, not impacts based on chemistry. The recent GAQM changes do not alter the original status of CALPUFF as discussed and approved for use in the 2005 BART guidelines. The GAQM changes indicated that the change in model preferred status had no impact on the use of CALPUFF for BART.
We also received comments that doubling the annual emissions of PM was conservative and we should have potentially used maximum heat input to estimate PM emission rates for subject to BART modeling. We also received comments that the values we modeled based on CEM data may have included emission rates during upset conditions, thus the emission rates used may be larger than normal operations.
We disagree with the commenter and believe using emissions from the 2000-2004 period is appropriate for determining if a source is subject to BART. Our analysis for facilities followed the BART Guidelines and was consistent with the BART analyses done for all BART-eligible sources. The BART Guidelines recommend that for the
We are not aware of any newly installed controls or limitations on emissions that have been put in place between the 2000-2004 baseline period and now for any of the BART-eligible sources not participating in the SO
The overall concern of the commenters was that the emissions used in the modeling resulted in some facilities being subject to a full BART analysis, but, as discussed elsewhere, we are not finalizing subject to BART determinations for the sources participating in the SO
Concerning the inclusion of NO
BART screening modeling would also include the PM emissions. BART screening is meant to be a conservative and inclusive test. We have always considered combined NO
As previously discussed the commenter's primary concern with regard to the inclusion of NO
In this final action the only CAMx modeling we are relying upon is CAMx modeling performed for TCEQ in screening of EGU emissions of PM that was included in TCEQ's 2009 SIP. Our approval of the CAMx PM screening of EGUs is based on the original CENRAP modeling datasets, agreed modeling protocols and Texas' use of the 0.5 del-dv to screen sources as agreed upon by TCEQ in 2007. Any potential concerns with CAMx bias were considered in 2007 and TCEQ, EPA and FLM representatives agreed to the approach of using 0.5 del-dv to screen groups of sources using CAMx modeling. We note that the BART guidelines specifically state that “as a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source “contributes” to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.”
The Regional Haze Rule provides each state with the flexibility to adopt an allowance trading program or other alternative measure instead of requiring source-specific BART controls, so long as the alternative measure is demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress than BART. As discussed in Section III.A.3 above, based principally on comments submitted by the State of Texas during the comment period urging us to consider as a BART alternative the concept of system-wide emission caps using CSAPR allocations as part of an intrastate trading program,
In 2012, the EPA amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.
For purposes of the 2012 analytic demonstration that CSAPR as finalized and amended in 2011 and 2012 provides for greater reasonable progress than BART, the analysis included Texas EGUs as subject to CSAPR for SO
As introduced in Section I.C, in the EPA's final response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of certain CSAPR budgets, we finalized the withdrawal of the requirements for Texas' EGUs to participate in the annual SO
Texas is no longer in the CSAPR program for annual SO
Under 51.308(e)(2), a State may opt to implement or require participation in an emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. Such an emissions trading program or other alternative measure must achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. At the same time, the Texas trading program should be designed so as not to interfere with the validity of existing SIPs in other states that have relied on reductions from sources in Texas. As discussed elsewhere, the Texas trading program is designed to provide the measures that are needed to address interstate visibility transport requirements for several NAAQS and to be part of the long-term strategy needed to meet the reasonable progress requirements of the
The identification of EGUs in the trading program necessarily begins with the list of BART-eligible EGUs for which we intend to address the BART requirements through a BART alternative. As discussed elsewhere, we determined that several BART-eligible gas-fired and gas/oil-fired EGUs are not subject-to-BART for NO
For a BART alternative that includes an emissions trading program, the applicability provisions must be designed to prevent any significant potential shifting within the state of production and emissions from sources in the program to sources outside the program. Shifting would be logistically simplest among units in the same facility, because they are under common management and have access to the same transmission lines. In addition, since a coal-fired EGU to which electricity production could shift would have a relatively high SO
In addition to these sources, we also evaluated other EGUs for inclusion in the trading program based on their potential to impact visibility at Class I areas. Addressing emissions from sources with the largest potential to impact visibility is required to make progress towards the goal of natural visibility conditions and to address emissions that may otherwise interfere
1. Q is the annual emissions in tons per year (tpy), and
2. D is the nearest distance to a Class I Area in kilometers (km).
We used a Q/D value of 10 as a threshold for identification of facilities that may impact air visibility at Class I areas and could be included in the trading program in order to meet the goals of achieving greater reasonable progress than BART and limiting visibility transport. We selected this value of 10 based on guidance contained in the BART Guidelines, which states:
Based on our analyses, we believe that a State that has established 0.5 deciviews as a contribution threshold could reasonably exempt from the BART review process sources that emit less than 500 tpy of NO
The approach described above corresponds to a Q/D threshold of 10. This approach has also been recommended by the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG)
We considered the results of an available Q/D analysis based on 2009 emissions to identify facilities that may impact air visibility at Class I areas.
Based on the above Q/D analysis, we identified additional coal-fired EGUs for participation in the SO
As discussed in more detail below, the inclusion of all of these identified sources (Tables 4, 5, and 7 above) in an intrastate SO
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) contains the required plan elements and analyses for an emissions trading program or alternative measure designed as a BART alternative.
As discussed above, consistent with our proposal, we are finalizing our list of all BART-eligible sources, in Texas, which serves to satisfy § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).
This action includes a list of all EGUs covered by the trading program, satisfying the first requirement of § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). All BART-eligible coal-fired units, some additional coal-fired EGUs, and some BART-eligible gas-fired and oil-and-gas-fired units are covered by the alternative program.
Regarding the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), we are not making determinations of BART for each source subject to BART and covered by the program. The demonstration for a BART alternative does not need to include determinations of BART for each source subject to BART and covered by the program when the “alternative measure has been designed to meet a requirement other than BART.” The Texas trading program meets this condition, as discussed elsewhere, because it has been designed to meet multiple requirements other than BART. This BART alternative extends beyond all BART-eligible coal-fired units to include a number of additional coal-fired EGUs, and some BART-eligible gas-fired and oil-and-gas-fired units, capturing the majority of emissions from EGUs in the State and is designed to provide the measures that are needed to address interstate visibility transport requirements for several NAAQS. This is because for all sources covered by the Texas SO
Regarding the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), our analysis is that the Texas trading program will effectively limit the aggregate annual SO
Regarding the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the BART alternative being finalized today is supported by our determination that the clear weight of the evidence is that the trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the covered sources. The 2012 demonstration showed that CSAPR as finalized and amended in 2011 and 2012 meets the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for a demonstration of greater reasonable progress than BART. This 2012 demonstration is the primary evidence that the Texas trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. However, the states participating in CSAPR are now slightly different than the geographic scope of CSAPR assumed in the 2012 analytic demonstration. The changes to states participating in both CSAPR NO
The differences in Texas EGU participation in CSAPR and this BART alternative are either not significant or, in some cases, work to demonstrate the relative stringency of the BART alternative as compared to CSAPR. If Texas EGUs were still required to participate in CSAPR's SO
Table 8 below identifies the participating units and their unit-level allocations under the Texas SO
The total annual allocation for all sources in the Texas SO
The remaining 11% of the total 2016 emissions due to sources not covered by the program come from coal-fired units that on average are better controlled for SO
The exclusion of a large number of gas-fired units that occasionally burn fuel oil further limits allowances in the program as compared to CSAPR because CSAPR allocated these units allowances that are higher than their recent and current emissions. In 2016, these units emitted 651 tons of SO
Finally, the Texas SO
We also note that state-wide EGU emissions in Texas have decreased considerably since the 2002 baseline period, reflecting market changes and reductions due to requirements such as CAIR/CSAPR. In 2002, Texas EGU emissions were 560,860 tons of SO
The Texas SO
The Texas SO
Pursuant to the requirements of § 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the applicability of the Texas SO
As previously discussed, the EPA modeled the Texas SO
We are finalizing our identification of BART-eligible EGUs. We are approving the portion of the Texas Regional Haze SIP that addresses the BART requirement for EGUs for PM. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are replacing Texas' reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the NO
In our January 5, 2016 final action
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action imposes a collection burden that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Therefore, the EPA will obtain a valid OMB control number unless OMB determines that these collection activities are covered under an existing information collection request (ICR) and associated OMB control number. If the EPA obtains a new OMB control number or amends an existing ICR with a valid OMB control number, the EPA will provide notice in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This FIP action under Section 110 of the CAA will not create any new requirement with which small entities must comply. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various consequences (
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
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 rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to use the applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement System (PBMS), part 75 sets forth performance criteria that allow the use of alternative methods to the ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. At this time, EPA is not recommending any revisions to part 75; however, EPA periodically revises the test procedures set forth in part 75. When EPA revises the test procedures set forth in part 75 in the future, EPA will address the use of any new voluntary consensus standards that are equivalent. Currently, even if a test procedure is not set forth in part 75, EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified; however, any alternative methods must be approved through the petition process under 40 CFR 75.66 before they are used.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). We have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. The rule limits emissions of SO
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides.
40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(f)
(2) The deficiencies associated with SO
(a) The Texas SO
(b) The provisions of subpart FFFFF of part 97 of this chapter apply to sources in Texas but not sources in Indian country located within the
42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651,
This subpart sets forth the general, designated representative, allowance, and monitoring provisions for the Texas SO
The terms used in this subpart shall have the meanings set forth in this section as follows:
(1) A flow monitoring system, consisting of a stack flow rate monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of stack gas volumetric flow rate, in standard cubic feet per hour (scfh);
(2) A SO
(3) A moisture monitoring system, as defined in § 75.11(b)(2) of this chapter and providing a permanent, continuous record of the stack gas moisture content, in percent H
(4) A CO
(5) An O
(1) In accordance with this subpart; and
(2) With regard to a period before the unit or source is required to measure, record, and report such air pollutants in accordance with this subpart, in accordance with part 75 of this chapter.
(1) For the life of the unit;
(2) For a cumulative term of no less than 30 years, including contracts that permit an election for early termination; or
(3) For a period no less than 25 years or 70 percent of the economic useful life of the unit determined as of the time the unit is built, with option rights to purchase or release some portion of the nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by the unit at the end of the period.
(1) Any holder of any portion of the legal or equitable title in a Texas SO
(2) Any holder of a leasehold interest in a Texas SO
(3) Any purchaser of power from a Texas SO
(1) In person;
(2) By United States Postal Service; or
(3) By other means of dispatch or transmission and delivery;
(4) Provided that compliance with any “submission” or “service” deadline shall be determined by the date of dispatch, transmission, or mailing and not the date of receipt.
(1) Have been recorded by the Administrator in the account or transferred into the account by a correctly submitted, but not yet recorded, Texas SO
(2) Have not been transferred out of the account by a correctly submitted, but not yet recorded, Texas SO
Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
(a) Each of the units in Texas listed in the table in § 97.911(a)(1) shall be a Texas SO
(b)
(i) Is listed in the table entitled “Unit Level Allocations under the CSAPR FIPs after Tolling,” EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-5028, available at
(ii) Is not a Texas SO
(iii) Has not received a determination of non-applicability under 40 CFR 97.404(c), 97.504(c), 97.704(c), or 97.804(c).
(2) The designated representative of a unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may submit an opt-in application seeking authorization for the unit to participate in the Texas SO
(3) The Administrator shall review applications for opt-in units and respond in writing to the designated representative within 30 business days. The Administrator will authorize the unit to participate in the Texas SO
(4) Following submission of an opt-in application and authorization in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, the unit shall be a Texas SO
(5) Opt-in units shall receive allowance allocations as provided in § 97.911(b). These allocations shall be recorded into a source's compliance account per the recordation schedule in § 97.921.
(6) The Administrator will maintain a publicly accessible record of all units that become Texas SO
(a)(1) Any Texas SO
(2) The exemption under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall become effective the day on which the Texas SO
(b)
(2) For a period of 5 years from the date the records are created, the owners and operators of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall retain, at the source that includes the unit, records demonstrating that the unit is permanently retired. The 5-year period for keeping records may be extended for cause, at any time before the end of the period, in writing by the Administrator. The owners and operators bear the burden of proof that the unit is permanently retired.
(3) The owners and operators and, to the extent applicable, the designated representative of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with the requirements of the Texas SO
(4) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall lose its exemption on the first date on which the unit resumes operation. A retired unit that resumes operation will not receive an allowance allocation under § 97.911. The unit may receive allowances from the Supplemental Allowance Pool pursuant to § 97.912. All other provisions of Subpart FFFFF regarding monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and compliance will apply on the first date on which the unit resumes operation.
(a)
(b)
(2) The emissions data determined in accordance with §§ 97.930 through 97.935 shall be used to calculate allocations of Texas SO
(c)
(ii) If total SO
(A) The owners and operators of the source and each Texas SO
(B) The owners and operators of the source and each Texas SO
(2)
(3)
(ii) A Texas SO
(4)
(5)
(i) Such authorization shall only be used in accordance with the Texas SO
(ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, the Administrator has the authority to terminate or limit the use and duration of such authorization to the extent the Administrator determines is necessary or appropriate to implement any provision of the Clean Air Act.
(6)
(d)
(2) A description of whether a unit is required to monitor and report SO
(e)
(i) The certificate of representation under § 97.916 for the designated representative for the source and each Texas SO
(ii) All emissions monitoring information, in accordance with this subpart.
(iii) Copies of all reports, compliance certifications, and other submissions and all records made or required under, or to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of, the Texas SO
(2) The designated representative of a Texas SO
(f)
(2) Any provision of the Texas SO
(g)
(a) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the Texas SO
(b) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the Texas SO
(c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final day of any time period, under the Texas SO
The administrative appeal procedures for decisions of the Administrator under the Texas SO
(a) The budgets for the Texas SO
(1) The Texas SO
(2) The Texas SO
(b) [reserved]
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, Texas SO
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if a unit provided an allocation pursuant to the table in paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not operate, starting after 2018, during the control period in two consecutive years, such unit will not be allocated the Texas SO
(b)(1) A unit that becomes a Texas SO
(2) If a unit that becomes a Texas SO
(c)
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) or (4) of this section, the Administrator will not record such Texas SO
(3) If the Administrator already recorded such Texas SO
(4) If the Administrator already recorded such Texas SO
(5) With regard to the Texas SO
(a) For each control period in 2019 and thereafter, the Administrator will allocate Texas SO
(1) No later than February 15, 2020 and each subsequent February 15, the Administrator will review all the quarterly SO
(2) For each Texas SO
(3)(i) For Coleto Creek (ORIS 6178), if the source is identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Administrator will allocate and record in the source's compliance account an amount of allowances from the Supplemental Allowance Pool equal to the lesser of the amount calculated for the source under paragraph (a)(2) of this section or the total number of allowances in the Supplemental Allowance Pool available for allocation under paragraph (b) of this section.
(ii) For any Texas SO
(A) If the total for all such sources of the amounts calculated under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is less than or equal to the total number of allowances in the Supplemental Allowance Pool available for allocation under paragraph (b) of this section that remain after any allocation under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate and record in the compliance account for each such source an amount of allowances from the Supplemental Allowance Pool equal to the amount calculated for the source under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(B) If the total for all such sources of the amounts calculated under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is greater than the total number of allowances in the Supplemental Allowance Pool available for allocation under paragraph (b) of this section that remain after any allocation under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, then the Administrator will calculate each such source's allocation of allowances from the Supplemental Allowance Pool by dividing the amount calculated under paragraph (a)(2) of this section for the source by the sum of the amounts calculated under paragraph (a)(2) of this section for all such sources, then multiplying by the number of allowances in the Supplemental Allowance Pool available for allocation under paragraph (b) of this section that remain after any allocation under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section and rounding to the nearest allowance. The Administrator will then record the calculated allocations of allowances in the applicable compliance accounts.
(iii) Any unallocated allowances remaining in the Supplemental Allowance Pool after the allocations determined under paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
(4) The Administrator will notify the designated representative of each Texas SO
(b) The total amount of allowances in the Texas SO
(a) Except as provided under § 97.915, each Texas SO
(1) The designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all Texas SO
(2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under § 97.916:
(i) The designated representative shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each owner and operator of the source and each Texas SO
(ii) The owners and operators of the source and each Texas SO
(b) Except as provided under § 97.915, each Texas SO
(1) The alternate designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all Texas SO
(2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under § 97.916,
(i) The alternate designated representative shall be authorized;
(ii) Any representation, action, inaction, or submission by the alternate designated representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the designated representative; and
(iii) The owners and operators of the source and each Texas SO
(c) Except in this section, § 97.902, and §§ 97.914 through 97.918, whenever the term “designated representative” is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the designated representative or any alternate designated representative.
(a) Except as provided under § 97.918 concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission under the Texas SO
(b) The Administrator will accept or act on a submission made for a Texas SO
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Within 30 days after any change in the owners and operators of a Texas SO
(d)
(1) If the change is the addition of a unit (see § 97.904(b)) that operated (other than for purposes of testing by the manufacturer before initial installation) before being located at the source, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity from whom the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became located at the source.
(2) If the change is the removal of a unit, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity to which the unit was sold or that otherwise obtained the unit (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the unit was sold or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became no longer located at the source.
(a) A complete certificate of representation for a designated representative or an alternate designated representative shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator:
(1) Identification of the Texas SO
(2) The name, address, email address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative.
(3) A list of the owners and operators of the Texas SO
(4) The following certification statements by the designated representative and any alternate designated representative—
(i) “I certify that I was selected as the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as applicable, by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and each Texas SO
(ii) “I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the Texas SO
(iii) “Where there are multiple holders of a legal or equitable title to, or a leasehold interest in, a Texas SO
(5) The signature of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative and the dates signed.
(b) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the certificate of representation shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The Administrator shall not be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted.
(a) Once a complete certificate of representation under § 97.916 has been submitted and received, the Administrator will rely on the certificate of representation unless and until a superseding complete certificate of representation under § 97.916 is received by the Administrator.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no objection or other communication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission, of a designated representative or alternate designated representative shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the designated representative or alternate designated representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the Texas SO
(c) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of any designated representative or alternate designated representative, including private legal disputes concerning the proceeds of Texas SO
(a) A designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart.
(b) An alternate designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart.
(c) In order to delegate authority to a natural person to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that includes the following elements:
(1) The name, address, email address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such designated representative or alternate designated representative;
(2) The name, address, email address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of each such natural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”);
(3) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her; and
(4) The following certification statements by such designated representative or alternate designated representative:
(i) “I agree that any electronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am a designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.918(d) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.”
(ii) “Until this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.918(d), I agree to maintain an email account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my email address unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.918 is terminated.”
(d) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph (c) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the designated representative or alternate designated representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Administrator and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authority.
(e) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph (d) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the designated representative or alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegation.
(a)
(b)
(A) The authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the persons who have an ownership interest with respect to Texas SO
(B) The agreement by which the alternate authorized account representative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate authorized account representative to act in lieu of the authorized account representative.
(ii) A complete application for a general account shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator:
(A) Name, mailing address, email address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative;
(B) An identifying name for the general account;
(C) A list of all persons subject to a binding agreement for the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative to represent their ownership interest with respect to the Texas SO
(D) The following certification statement by the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative: “I certify that I was selected as the authorized account representative or the alternate authorized account representative, as applicable, by an agreement that is binding on all persons who have an ownership interest with respect to Texas SO
(E) The signature of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative and the dates signed.
(iii) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the application for a general account shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The Administrator shall not be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted.
(2)
(A) The authorized account representative of the general account shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each person who has an ownership interest with respect to Texas SO
(B) Any alternate authorized account representative shall be authorized, and any representation, action, inaction, or submission by any alternate authorized account representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the authorized account representative.
(C) Each person who has an ownership interest with respect to Texas SO
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission concerning the general account shall be made, signed, and certified by the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative for the persons having an ownership interest with respect to Texas SO
(iii) Except in this section, whenever the term “authorized account representative” is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative.
(3)
(ii) The alternate authorized account representative of a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous alternate authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new alternate authorized account representative, the authorized account representative, and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the Texas SO
(iii)(A) In the event a person having an ownership interest with respect to Texas SO
(B) Within 30 days after any change in the persons having an ownership interest with respect to Texas SO
(4)
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, no objection or other communication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the Texas SO
(iii) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account, including private legal disputes concerning the proceeds of Texas SO
(5)
(ii) An alternate authorized account representative of a general account may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart.
(iii) In order to delegate authority to a natural person to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, the authorized
(A) The name, address, email address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative;
(B) The name, address, email address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of each such natural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”);
(C) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph (b)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her;
(D) The following certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative: “I agree that any electronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am an authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.920(b)(5)(iv) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.”; and
(E) The following certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative: “Until this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.920(b)(5)(iv), I agree to maintain an email account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my email address unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.920(b)(5) is terminated.”
(iv) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Administrator and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authority.
(v) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(D) of this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative submitting such notice of delegation.
(6)
(ii) If a general account has no Texas SO
(c)
(d)
(a) By November 1, 2018, the Administrator will record in each Texas SO
(b) By July 1, 2019 and July 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each Texas SO
(c) By February 15, 2020, and February 15 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each Texas SO
(d) By July 1, 2019 and July 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each Texas SO
(e) When recording the allocation of Texas SO
(a) An authorized account representative seeking recordation of a Texas SO
(b) A Texas SO
(1) The transfer includes the following elements, in a format prescribed by the Administrator:
(i) The account numbers established by the Administrator for both the transferor and transferee accounts;
(ii) The serial number of each Texas SO
(iii) The name and signature of the authorized account representative of the transferor account and the date signed; and
(2) When the Administrator attempts to record the transfer, the transferor account includes each Texas SO
(a) Within 5 business days (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section) of receiving a Texas SO
(b) A Texas SO
(c) Where a Texas SO
(d) Within 5 business days of recordation of a Texas SO
(e) Within 10 business days of receipt of a Texas SO
(1) A decision not to record the transfer, and
(2) The reasons for such non-recordation.
(a)
(1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and
(2) Are held in the source's compliance account as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period.
(b)
(1) Until the amount of Texas SO
(2) If there are insufficient Texas SO
(c)(1)
(2)
(i) Any Texas SO
(ii) Any other Texas SO
(d)
(e)
(a) A Texas SO
(b) Any Texas SO
The Administrator may, at his or her sole discretion and on his or her own motion, correct any error in any Allowance Management System account. Within 10 business days of
(a) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits concerning any submission under the Texas SO
(b) The Administrator may deduct Texas SO
The owners and operators, and to the extent applicable, the designated representative, of a Texas SO
(a)
(1) Install all monitoring systems required under this subpart for monitoring SO
(2) Successfully complete all certification tests required under § 97.931 and meet all other requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter applicable to the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and
(3) Record, report, and quality-assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b)
(1) For a Texas SO
(2) For a Texas SO
(3) The owner or operator of a Texas SO
(i) Such requirements shall apply to the monitoring systems required under § 97.930 through § 97.935, rather than the monitoring systems required under part 75 of this chapter;
(ii) SO
(iii) Any petition for another procedure under § 75.4(e)(2) of this chapter shall be submitted under § 97.935, rather than § 75.66 of this chapter.
(c)
(d)
(2) No owner or operator of a Texas SO
(3) No owner or operator of a Texas SO
(4) No owner or operator of a Texas SO
(i) During the period that the unit is covered by an exemption under § 97.905 that is in effect;
(ii) The owner or operator is monitoring emissions from the unit with another certified monitoring system approved, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, by the Administrator for use at that unit that provides emission data for the same pollutant or parameter as the retired or discontinued monitoring system; or
(iii) The designated representative submits notification of the date of certification testing of a replacement monitoring system for the retired or discontinued monitoring system in accordance with § 97.931(d)(3)(i).
(e)
(a) The owner or operator of a Texas SO
(1) The monitoring system has been previously certified in accordance with part 75 of this chapter; and
(2) The applicable quality-assurance and quality-control requirements of § 75.21 of this chapter and appendices B and D to part 75 of this chapter are fully met for the certified monitoring system described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) The recertification provisions of this section shall apply to a monitoring system under § 97.930(a)(1) that is exempt from initial certification requirements under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a Texas SO
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(v)
(A) The owner or operator shall substitute the following values, for each disapproved monitoring system, for each hour of unit operation during the period of invalid data specified under § 75.20(a)(4)(iii), § 75.20(g)(7), or § 75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing until the applicable date and hour specified under § 75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7) of this chapter:
(B) The designated representative shall submit a notification of certification retest dates and a new certification application in accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(C) The owner or operator shall repeat all certification tests or other requirements that were failed by the monitoring system, as indicated in the Administrator's notice of disapproval, no later than 30 unit operating days after the date of issuance of the notice of disapproval.
(e) The owner or operator of a unit qualified to use the low mass emissions (LME) excepted methodology under § 75.19 of this chapter shall meet the applicable certification and recertification requirements in §§ 75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this chapter. If the owner or operator of such a unit elects to certify a fuel flowmeter system for heat input determination, the owner or operator shall also meet the certification and recertification requirements in § 75.20(g) of this chapter.
(f) The designated representative of each unit for which the owner or operator intends to use an alternative monitoring system approved by the Administrator under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall comply with the applicable notification and application procedures of § 75.20(f) of this chapter.
(a)
(b)
The designated representative of a Texas SO
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The designated representative shall report the SO
(i) The calendar quarter covering January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019; or
(ii) The calendar quarter corresponding to the earlier of the date of provisional certification or the applicable deadline for initial certification under § 97.930(b).
(2) The designated representative shall submit each quarterly report to the Administrator within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter covered by the report. Quarterly reports shall be submitted in the manner specified in § 75.64 of this chapter.
(3) For Texas SO
(4) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits of any quarterly report in order to determine whether the quarterly report meets the requirements of this subpart and part 75
(i) The Administrator will notify the designated representative of any determination that the quarterly report fails to meet any such requirements and specify in such notification any corrections that the Administrator believes are necessary to make through resubmission of the quarterly report and a reasonable time period within which the designated representative must respond. Upon request by the designated representative, the Administrator may specify reasonable extensions of such time period. Within the time period (including any such extensions) specified by the Administrator, the designated representative shall resubmit the quarterly report with the corrections specified by the Administrator, except to the extent the designated representative provides information demonstrating that a specified correction is not necessary because the quarterly report already meets the requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter that are relevant to the specified correction.
(ii) Any resubmission of a quarterly report shall meet the requirements applicable to the submission of a quarterly report under this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, except for the deadline set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(e)
(1) The monitoring data submitted were recorded in accordance with the applicable requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the quality assurance procedures and specifications; and
(2) For a unit with add-on SO
(a) The designated representative of a Texas SO
(b) A petition submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall include sufficient information for the evaluation of the petition, including, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) Identification of each unit and source covered by the petition;
(2) A detailed explanation of why the proposed alternative is being suggested in lieu of the requirement;
(3) A description and diagram of any equipment and procedures used in the proposed alternative;
(4) A demonstration that the proposed alternative is consistent with the purposes of the requirement for which the alternative is proposed and with the purposes of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter and that any adverse effect of approving the alternative will be
(5) Any other relevant information that the Administrator may require.
(c) Use of an alternative to any requirement referenced in paragraph (a) of this section is in accordance with this subpart only to the extent that the petition is approved in writing by the Administrator and that such use is in accordance with such approval.
(b) Among the myriad areas where current regulations limit choice and competition, my Administration will prioritize three areas for improvement in the near term: association health plans (AHPs), short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI), and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).
(c) My Administration will also continue to focus on promoting competition in healthcare markets and limiting excessive consolidation throughout the healthcare system. To the extent consistent with law, government rules and guidelines affecting the United States healthcare system should:
(a) details the extent to which existing State and Federal laws, regulations, guidance, requirements, and policies fail to conform to the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and
(b) identifies actions that States or the Federal Government could take in furtherance of the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Category | Regulatory Information | |
Collection | Federal Register | |
sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |