| Page Range | 9127-9341 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 9263 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 11.26 Regarding the Data Collection Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 9339 - Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs | |
| 82 FR 9333 - Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees | |
| 82 FR 9242 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 9204 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
| 82 FR 9220 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Northwest Oregon Resource Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 9272 - Jersey Marine Rail, LLC-Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 82 FR 9192 - Approval of Subzone Status; AGFA Corporation; Branchburg, New Jersey | |
| 82 FR 9192 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 277-Western Maricopa County, Arizona; Authorization of Production Activity; IRIS USA, Inc. (Plastic Household Storage/Organizational Containers); Surprise, Arizona | |
| 82 FR 9192 - Approval of Subzone Status CGT U.S. Limited New Braunfels, Texas | |
| 82 FR 9198 - Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 9197 - Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015 | |
| 82 FR 9216 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request; Form No. G-146; Non-Immigrants Checkout Letter; OMB Control No. 1653-0020 | |
| 82 FR 9189 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit Reduction for Spanish Mackerel | |
| 82 FR 9203 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
| 82 FR 9193 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews | |
| 82 FR 9231 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Evaluation of Round 4 of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program | |
| 82 FR 9239 - Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9223 - Glycine From China; Determination | |
| 82 FR 9212 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 82 FR 9214 - Recertification of Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 9215 - Random Drug Testing Rate for Covered Crewmembers for 2017 | |
| 82 FR 9243 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station | |
| 82 FR 9226 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 82 FR 9202 - Procurement List; Additions | |
| 82 FR 9212 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 9210 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 9207 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 9240 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 9136 - Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment | |
| 82 FR 9226 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Bureau of Justice Assistance Application Form: Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance | |
| 82 FR 9202 - Tactical Encryption and Key Management Workshop | |
| 82 FR 9216 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Changes, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request; OMB Control No. 1653-0048 | |
| 82 FR 9224 - Janet Carol Dean, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 82 FR 9223 - Richard W. Walker, Jr., M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 82 FR 9233 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Job Corps Application Data | |
| 82 FR 9228 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
| 82 FR 9230 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Occupational Noise Exposure Standard | |
| 82 FR 9241 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 9232 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Asbestos in General Industry Standard | |
| 82 FR 9230 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Employment and Training Administration Quick Turnaround Surveys | |
| 82 FR 9229 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Regulations Governing the Administration of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act | |
| 82 FR 9191 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 9279 - National Research Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9127 - Natural Gas Pipelines; Project Cost and Annual Limits | |
| 82 FR 9128 - Annual Update of Filing Fees | |
| 82 FR 9200 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex Fishery; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping Process; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 9247 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 9278 - Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee February 15, 2017, Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9220 - Notice of Public Meeting, Dakotas Resource Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 9220 - Utah Resource Advisory Council Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9174 - Annual Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment | |
| 82 FR 9192 - Honey From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 9246 - Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors | |
| 82 FR 9234 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 82 FR 9199 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 9204 - Notice of Availability of Invention for Licensing; Government-Owned Invention | |
| 82 FR 9238 - Notice of Intent To Audit | |
| 82 FR 9271 - Itawamba Mississippian Railroad, LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-Itawamba County Railroad Authority | |
| 82 FR 9271 - Itawamba County Railroad Authority-Acquisition Exemption-Mississippian Railway | |
| 82 FR 9209 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 82 FR 9209 - Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013; Notice of Workshop | |
| 82 FR 9206 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 9211 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 9211 - Total Gas & Power North America, Aaron Hall and Therese Tran; Updated Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional | |
| 82 FR 9204 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 9166 - Aquatic Life Criteria for Cadmium in Oregon | |
| 82 FR 9205 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2017-18 National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS 2017-18) | |
| 82 FR 9206 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2008/18 Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B:08/18) Field Test | |
| 82 FR 9278 - Agency Information Collection Activity: (Statement of Purchaser or Owner Assuming Seller's Loan) | |
| 82 FR 9221 - Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; and Granting a Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 9249 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 9277 - Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended: Computer Matching Program | |
| 82 FR 9250 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment to the Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail To Add MIAX PEARL, LLC as a Participant | |
| 82 FR 9263 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options To Add MIAX PEARL, LLC as a Plan Sponsor | |
| 82 FR 9264 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan To Add MIAX PEARL, LLC as a Participant | |
| 82 FR 9270 - Destra Capital Advisors LLC, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 9258 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, in Connection With a Proposed Acquisition of the Exchange by NYSE Group, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 9251 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes, Each as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, in Connection With the Proposed Acquisition of National Stock Exchange, Inc. by the NYSE Group, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 9265 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7150 (The Price Improvement Period (“PIP”)) | |
| 82 FR 9267 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; 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 CBOE Rule 6.53C | |
| 82 FR 9256 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 900.3NY, Rule 961NY, Make a Conforming Change to Rule 935NY, and Eliminate Section 910-AEMI of the AEMI Rules, and Sections 910 and 910-AEMI of the NYSE MKT Company Guide | |
| 82 FR 9259 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Listing and Trading of P.M.-Settled NASDAQ-100 Index® Options on a Pilot Basis | |
| 82 FR 9308 - Amendments to the Capital Plan and Stress Test Rules; Regulations Y and YY | |
| 82 FR 9273 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of an Approved Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act | |
| 82 FR 9248 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 9212 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 9272 - 2017 Special 301 Review: Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974; Request for Public Comment and Notice of Public Hearing; Correction | |
| 82 FR 9195 - Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination | |
| 82 FR 9236 - Request for Letters of Intent To Apply for 2017 Technology Initiative Grant Funding | |
| 82 FR 9215 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the M/V TURTLE | |
| 82 FR 9213 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9213 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9223 - Large Residential Washers From China | |
| 82 FR 9227 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 9129 - Availability of Records | |
| 82 FR 9282 - Possible Revision or Elimination of Rules | |
| 82 FR 9142 - Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Wyoming | |
| 82 FR 9164 - Approval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements To Address Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS | |
| 82 FR 9138 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to Nonattainment Permitting Regulations | |
| 82 FR 9158 - Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) | |
| 82 FR 9155 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Utah | |
| 82 FR 9191 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 9217 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Finance Agency Risk-Sharing Program | |
| 82 FR 9218 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
| 82 FR 9131 - Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment for 2017 |
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Comptroller of the Currency
United States Mint
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 Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Final rule.
Pursuant to the authority delegated by the Commission's regulations, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) computes and publishes the project cost and annual limits for natural gas pipelines blanket construction certificates for each calendar year.
This final rule is effective February 3, 2017 and establishes cost limits applicable from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
Marsha K. Palazzi, Chief, Certificates Branch 2, Division of Pipeline Certificates, (202) 502-6785.
Section 157.208(d) of the Commission's Regulations provides for project cost limits applicable to construction, acquisition, operation and miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities (Table I) authorized under the blanket certificate procedure (Order No. 234, 19 FERC ¶ 61,216). Section 157.215(a) specifies the calendar year dollar limit which may be expended on underground storage testing and development (Table II) authorized under the blanket certificate. Section 157.208(d) requires that the “limits specified in Tables I and II shall be adjusted each calendar year to reflect the 'GDP implicit price deflator' published by the Department of Commerce for the previous calendar year.”
Pursuant to § 375.308(x)(1) of the Commission's Regulations, the authority for the publication of such cost limits, as adjusted for inflation, is delegated to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects. The cost limits for calendar year 2017, as published in Table I of § 157.208(d) and Table II of 157.215(a), are hereby issued.
This final rule is effective February 3, 2017. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804 regarding Congressional review of Final Rules does not apply to the Final Rule because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. The Final Rule merely updates amounts published in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the Department of Commerce's latest annual determination of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) implicit price deflator, a mathematical updating required by the Commission's existing regulations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural Gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 18 CFR part 157 is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(d) * * *
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; annual update of Commission filing fees.
In accordance with the Commission regulations, the Commission issues this update of its filing fees. This document provides the yearly update using data in the Commission's Financial System to calculate the new fees. The purpose of updating is to adjust the fees on the basis of the Commission's costs for Fiscal Year 2016.
Raymond D. Johnson Jr., Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 42-66, Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-8402.
From FERC's Web site on the Internet, this information is available in the eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field and follow other directions on the search page.
User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing this document to update filing fees that the Commission assesses for specific services and benefits provided to identifiable beneficiaries. Pursuant to 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission is establishing updated fees on the basis of the Commission's Fiscal Year 2016 costs. The adjusted fees announced in this document are effective March 6, 2017. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this final rule is not a major rule within the meaning of section 251 of Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission is submitting this final rule to both houses of the United States Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States.
The new fee schedule is as follows:
Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 381, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85.
U.S. African Development Foundation.
Final rule.
The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) is revising its regulations on the availability of records in accordance with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, and to make minor technical amendments and corrections.
This final rule is effective April 4, 2017.
June B. Brown, 202-233-8882.
The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) is revising its regulations on the availability of records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, to conform to requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, and to make minor technical amendments and corrections to the regulations.
In § 1502.1(a) the rule adds “United States” before “African Development Foundation”, adds “(FOIA)” after “Freedom of Information Act”, and otherwise revises the section to read as set forth in the regulatory text.
In § 1502.1(c) the rule removes “Director of Administration and Finance (A&F)” and adds in its place “Chief FOIA Officer”.
In § 1502.2(b) the rule adds “United States” before “African Development Foundation”.
The rule revises § 1502.3 to read as set forth in the regulatory text.
In § 1502.4 the rule revises paragraphs (a) and (c), and in paragraph (b) removes the sentence: “Blanket requests or requests for `the entire file of' or `all matters relating to' a specified subject will not be accepted.”
Section § 1502.5 is revised as set forth in the regulatory text.
The rule revises the first sentence of § 1502.6 to read as set forth in the regulatory text.
The rule amends § 1502.7 to add a new paragraph (a), to remove paragraph (c), to redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c), and to revise paragraphs (b), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4) set forth in the regulatory text.
The rule revises § 1502.8 to read as set forth in the regulatory text.
The rule amends § 1502.9 to revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), and to add paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as set forth in the regulatory text.
The regulations have been determined to be non-significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
The USADF President, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed the regulations and by approving them certifies that they will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulations pertain to the availability of USADF records under the Freedom of Information Act.
These regulations will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and they will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Freedom of information.
Title V of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980, 22 U.S.C. 290h; 5 U.S.C. 552; FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185.
(a) The United States African Development Foundation makes information about its operations, procedures, and records freely available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
(b) The Foundation will make the fullest possible disclosure of its information and identifiable records consistent with the provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part.
(c) The Chief FOIA Officer shall be responsible for the Foundation's compliance with the processing requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
As used in this part, the following words have the meanings set forth below:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Any person desiring to have access to Foundation records may call or apply in person between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on weekdays (holidays excluded) at the Foundation offices or mail a request to the Foundation at 1400 I Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005, or submit a request by email to “[email protected]” on the Foundation's Web site,
In order to facilitate the processing of written requests, every petitioner should:
(a) Address his or her request to: Chief FOIA Officer, United States African Development Foundation, 1400 I Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.
Both the envelope and the request itself, or the email, should be clearly marked: “Freedom of Information Act Request.”
(b) Identify the desired record by name, title, author, a brief description, or number, and date, as applicable. The identification should be specific enough so that a record can be identified and found without unreasonably burdening or disrupting the operations of the Foundation. If the Foundation determines that a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the requestor shall be advised what additional information is needed or informed why the request is insufficient.
(c) Include a check or money order to the order of the “United States African Development Foundation” covering the appropriate search and copying fees, or a request for determination of the fee, or a specified amount that the requestor is willing to pay in connection with the FOIA request.
Records that the FOIA requires be made available for public inspection in an electronic format may be accessed through the Foundation's Web site.
Responsive records located by the Foundation which have been originated by, or are primarily the concerns of, another U.S. department or agency will be forwarded to the particular department or agency involved, and the requestor so notified. In response to requests for records or publications published by the Government Printing Office or other government printing activity, the Foundation will refer the petitioner to the appropriate sales office and refund any fee payments which accompanied the request.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The categories of records maintained by the Foundation which may be exempted from disclosure are described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his/her principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the Foundation from withholding Foundation records, and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)).
Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice is adjusting for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by components of the Department, in accordance with the provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, for penalties assessed after February 3, 2017, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015.
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, Room 4252 RFK Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 514-8059 (not a toll-free number).
Section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74 (Nov. 2, 2015), titled the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the “2015 Amendments”), 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, substantially revised the prior provisions of the Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410 (the “Inflation Adjustment Act”), and substituted a different statutory formula for calculating inflation adjustments on an annual basis.
In accordance with the provisions of the 2015 Amendments, on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42491), the Department of Justice published an interim rule (“2016 interim rule”) to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed by components of the Department after August 1, 2016, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015 (the so-called “catch-up” adjustments). See 28 CFR 85.5. Readers may refer to the Supplementary Information (also known as the preamble) of the Department's 2016 interim rule for additional background information regarding the statutory authority for adjustments of civil monetary penalty amounts to take account of inflation and the Department's past implementation of inflation adjustments. After considering the public comments submitted in response to the 2016 interim rule, the Department will finalize the 2016 interim rule.
The 2015 Amendments also provide for agencies to adjust for inflation their civil penalty amounts by January 15,
This rule provides the current inflation adjustments being made in 2017. This rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts as established in the 2016 interim rule (which added 28 CFR 85.5), rounded to the nearest dollar. This means that the maximum civil monetary penalty or the range of minimum and maximum civil monetary penalties, as applicable, for each civil monetary penalty is increased by the cost-of-living adjustment, which is the “percentage (if any) for each civil monetary penalty by which—(A) the Consumer Price Index for the month of October preceding the date of [this] adjustment, exceeds (B) the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 1 year before the month of October referred to in subparagraph (A).” Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, sec. 5(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
As provided in the 2015 Amendments, the adjustments made by this rule are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for October 2016.
An example of how the adjustment is calculated using this inflation factor is set forth below.
The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act penalty was increased to $10,781 in 2016, in accordance with the catch-up adjustment requirement of the 2015 Amendments. This amount is then multiplied by the inflation factor, as shown below:
When rounded to the nearest dollar, the new penalty is $10,957.
This rule adjusts for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed by components of the Department of Justice for purposes of the Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended. Other agencies are responsible for the inflation adjustments of certain other civil monetary penalties that the Department's litigating components bring suit to collect. The reader should consult the regulations of those other agencies for inflation adjustments to those penalties.
The adjusted civil penalty amounts added by this rule are applicable only to civil penalties assessed after February 3, 2017, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, the date of enactment of the 2015 Amendments.
The penalty amounts set forth in 28 CFR 85.5, as added by the June 30, 2016, interim rule are applicable only to civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, and on or before February 3, 2017, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015. For convenient reference, this rule amends the table in 28 CFR 85.5 to include both the adjusted penalty amounts as added by the 2016 interim rule as well as the new adjusted civil penalty amounts being adopted in this final rule.
Violations occurring on or before November 2, 2015, and assessments made on or before August 1, 2016, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, will continue to be subject to the civil monetary penalty amounts set forth in the Department's regulations 28 CFR parts 20, 22, 36, 68, 71, 76 and 85 as such regulations existed prior to August 1, 2016 (or as set forth by statute if the amount had not yet been adjusted by regulation prior to August 1, 2016).
The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended by the 2015 Amendments, provides that for the second adjustment made after the date of enactment of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, and each adjustment thereafter, the head of an agency shall adjust civil monetary penalties and shall make the adjustment notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553.
Only those entities that are determined to have violated federal law and regulations would be affected by the increase in the civil penalty amounts made by this rule. A Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is not required for this rule because publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking was not required.
This final rule has been drafted in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” section 1, General Principles of Regulation. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies, in certain circumstances, to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, section 3(f), and, accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule implements the 2015 Amendments by making an across-the-board adjustment of the civil penalty amounts to account for inflation since the adoption of the 2016 interim rule. The 2016 interim rule itself was determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. It will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; 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 United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 28 U.S.C. 503; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; Pub. L. 114-74, section 701, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
For civil penalties assessed after February 3, 2017, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, the civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Department are adjusted as set forth in the fifth column of the following table. For civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, and on or before February 3, 2017, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, the civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Department are those set forth in the fourth column of the following table.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule adjusts the level of the maximum civil monetary penalty contained in the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) regulations pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. The civil penalty inflation adjustment using a 1.01636 multiplier accounts for one year of inflation spanning from October 2015 to October 2016.
This rule is effective on February 3, 2017.
Robert Fisher, Acting Chief Safety and Enforcement Division, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, (202) 208-3955 or by email:
The OCSLA, at 43 U.S.C. 1350(b)(1), directs the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount at least once every three years to reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index to account for inflation. On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (FCPIA of 2015). The FCPIA of 2015 requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through rulemaking, if warranted, and then to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Agencies are required to publish the annual inflation adjustments in the
BSEE last updated civil penalty amounts in BSEE regulations through RIN 1014-AA30 [81 FR 41801] effective July 28, 2016. Consistent with OMB guidance, BSEE's interim final rule (IFR) implemented the catch-up adjustments required by the FCPIA of 2015, through October 2015. No public comments were received on the IFR, and BSEE published the final rule on November 17, 2016 [81 FR 80994].
The OMB Memorandum M-17-11 (Implementation of the 2017 annual adjustment pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015;
BSEE is promulgating this 2017 inflation adjustment for civil penalties as a final rule pursuant to the provisions of the FCPIA of 2015 and OMB guidance. A proposed rule is not required because the FCPIA of 2015 states that agencies shall adjust civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act.” (FCPIA of 2015 at § 4(b)(2)). Accordingly, Congress expressly exempted the annual inflation adjustments implemented pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015 from the pre-promulgation notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), allowing them to be published as a final rule. This interpretation of the statute is confirmed by OMB Memorandum M-17-11. (OMB Memorandum M-17-11 at 3 (“This means that the public procedure the APA generally requires—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment.”)).
Under the FCPIA of 2015 and the guidance provided in OMB Memorandum M-17-11, BSEE has identified the applicable civil monetary penalty and calculated the necessary inflation adjustment. The previous OCSLA civil penalty inflation adjustment accounted for inflation through October 2015. The required annual civil penalty inflation adjustment promulgated through this rule accounts for inflation through October 2016.
Annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U. Consistent with the guidance in OMB Memorandum M-17-11, BSEE divided the October 2016 CPI-U by the October 2015 CPI-U to calculate the multiplying factor. In this case, October 2016 CPI-U (241.729)/October 2015 CPI-U (237.838) = 1.01636.
For 2017, OCSLA and the FCPIA of 2015 require that BSEE adjust the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount. To accomplish this, BSEE multiplied the existing OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount ($42,017) by the multiplying factor ($42,017 × 1.01636 = $42,704.40). The FCPIA of 2015 requires that the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount be rounded to the nearest $1.00 at the end of the calculation process. Accordingly, the adjusted OCSLA maximum civil penalty is $42,704.
Pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015, the increase in the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount applies to civil penalties assessed after the date the increase takes effect, even when the associated violation(s) predates such increase. Consistent with the provisions of OCSLA and the FCPIA of 2015, this rule adjusts the following maximum civil monetary penalty per day per violation:
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant. (
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 further emphasizes that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements, to the extent permitted by statute.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. (
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(1) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(3) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(1) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(2) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department of the Interior's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual Part 512 Chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in E.O. 13175. We have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations, and that consultation under the Department of the Interior's tribal and ANCSA consultation policies is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference, Investigations, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Pipelines, Continental Shelf—mineral resources, Continental Shelf—
For the reasons given in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement amends Title 30, Chapter II, Subchapter B, Part 250 Code of Federal Regulations as follows.
30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), 43 U.S.C. 1334.
The maximum civil penalty is $42,704 per day per violation.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve all but one of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on August 20, 2013, with supporting administrative documentation submitted on September 12, 2013. These submittals revise the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) that pertain to the issuance of Utah air quality permits for major sources in nonattainment areas. The EPA is not taking final action on the portion of the August 20, 2013 submittal that revised rule R307-420 at this time. The EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve the other revisions because, while the submitted revisions to Utah's nonattainment permitting rules do not fully address the deficiencies in the state's program, Utah has committed to address additional remaining deficiencies in the state's nonattainment permitting program no later than a year from the EPA finalizing this conditional approval. Upon the EPA finding of a timely meeting of this commitment in full, the final conditional approval of the SIP revisions would convert to a final approval of Utah's plan. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act).
This final rule is effective March 6, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0620. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or
On August 20, 2013, with supporting administrative documentation submitted on September 12, 2013, Utah sent the EPA revisions to their nonattainment permitting regulations, specifically to address deficiencies the EPA identified in their nonattainment permitting regulations that affected the EPA's ability to approve Utah's PM
The SIP revisions submitted by the Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) on August 20, 2013, establish specific nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting requirements. In this revision, the UDAQ has incorporated federal regulatory language—establishing permitting requirements for new and modified major stationary sources in a nonattainment area—from portions of 40 CFR 51.165 and reformatted it into state-specific requirements for sources in Utah under R307-403-1 (Purpose and Definitions) and R307-403-2 (Applicability), including provisions relevant to NNSR programs for PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires each state plan to include “a program to provide for . . . regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter,” and CAA section 172(c)(5) provides that the plan “shall require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area, in accordance with section [173].” CAA section 173 lays out the requirements for obtaining a permit that must be included in a state's SIP-approved permit program. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that SIPs contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. Under section CAA section 110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans submitted by a state. CAA section 110(i) (with certain limited exceptions) prohibits states from modifying SIP requirements for stationary sources except through the SIP revision process. CAA section 172(c)(7) requires that nonattainment plans, including NNSR programs required by section 172(c)(5),
Section 51.165 in title 40 of the CFR (Permit Requirements) sets out the minimum plan requirements states are to meet within each SIP NNSR permitting program. Generally, 40 CFR 51.165 consists of a set of definitions, minimum plan requirements regarding procedures for determining applicability of NNSR and use of offsets, and minimum plan requirements regarding other source obligations, such as recordkeeping.
Specifically, subparagraphs 51.165(a)(1)(i) through (xlvi) enumerate a set of definitions which states must either use or replace with definitions that a state demonstrates are more stringent or at least as stringent in all respects. Subparagraph 51.165(a)(2) sets minimum plan requirements for procedures to determine the applicability of the NNSR program to new and modified sources. Subparagraph 51.165(a)(3), (a)(9) and (a)(11) set minimum plan requirements for the use of offsets by sources subject to NNSR requirements. Subparagraphs (a)(8) and (a)(10) regard precursors, and subparagraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) regard recordkeeping obligations. Subparagraph 51.165(a)(4) allows NNSR programs to treat fugitive emissions in certain ways. Subparagraph 51.165(a)(5) regards enforceable procedures for after approval to construct has been granted. Subparagraph 51.165(b) sets minimum plan requirements for new major stationary sources and major modifications in attainment and unclassifiable areas that would cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. Finally, subparagraph 51.165(f) sets minimum plan requirements for the use of PALs. Please refer to docket EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0620 to view a cross-walk table which outlines how Utah's nonattainment permitting rules correlate with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.
Clean Air Act section 189(e) requires that state SIPs apply the same control requirements that apply to major stationary sources of PM
As a result of this court decision, Utah needed to submit further revisions to address remaining deficiencies in the nonattainment permitting program in order for the EPA to approve the August 20, 2013, submittal. Included as part of those deficiencies was that Utah has not submitted an analysis demonstrating that sources of ammonia, as a PM
1. UDAQ commits to submit a SIP revision that either regulates major stationary sources pursuant to Utah's NNSR permitting program, consistent with all applicable federal regulatory requirements or demonstrates that sources of ammonia, as a PM
2. UDAQ commits to revise R307-403-2 consistent with the new definitions in 40 CFR 51.165 that the EPA recently finalized in the PM
3. UDAQ commits to revise R307-403-3, including R307-403-3(3), to remove the reference to NNSR determinations being made “at the time of the source's proposed start-up date”;
4. UDAQ commits to revise R307-403-3, including R307-403-3(2) and R307-403-3(3), to specify that NNSR permit requirements are applicable to all new major stationary sources or major modifications located in a nonattainment area that are major for the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment;
5. UDAQ commits to revise R307-403-3, in addition to the previously adopted definition of lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) in R307-403-1, to explicitly state that LAER applies to all major new sources and major modifications for the relevant pollutants in nonattainment areas;
6. UDAQ commits to revise R307-403-4 to incorporate the requirements from 40 CFR 51.165 to establish that all general offset permitting requirements apply for all offsets regardless of the pollutant at issue, and to revise the provision to impose immediate and direct general offset permitting requirements on all new major stationary sources or major modifications located in a nonattainment area that are major for the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment;
7. UDAQ commits to work with the Utah Air Quality Board to revise R307-403-4 to reference the criteria discussed in section IV.D. of 40 CFR 51, Appendix S; and
8. UDAQ will update R307-403 to include a new section that imposes requirements that address emission offsets for PM
Under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA may approve a SIP revision based on a commitment by the state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year after the date of approval of the plan revision. Under a conditional approval, the state must adopt and submit the specific revisions it has committed to within one year of the EPA's finalization. If the EPA fully approves the submittal of the revisions specified in the commitment letter, the conditional nature of the approval would be removed and the submittal would become fully approved. If the state does not submit these revisions within one year, or if the EPA finds the state's revisions to be incomplete, or the EPA disapproves the state's revisions, a conditional approval will convert to a disapproval. If any of these occur and the EPA's conditional approval converts to a disapproval, that will constitute a disapproval of a required plan element under part D of title I of the Act, which starts an 18-month clock for sanctions, see section 179(a)(2), and a two-year clock for a federal implementation plan (FIP), see section 110(c)(1)(B).
As proposed in our October 31, 2016 proposed action (81 FR 75361), we are finalizing conditional approval of the following revisions to the UAC: R307-403-1 (Purpose and Definitions); R307-403-2 (Applicability); R307-403-11 (Actual PALs); and the relocation of R307-401-19 (Analysis of Alternatives), which was originally approved in 79 FR 7072 on February 6, 2014, to R307-403-10 and R307-401-20 (Relaxation of Limits) to R307-403-2, which was originally approved in 79 FR 7072 on February 6, 2014.
In our October 31, 2016 proposed rulemaking (see 81 FR 75361), we proposed to approve R307-420 (Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties.) In that rulemaking, we stated: “This rule is being revised to include the definitions and applicability provisions of R307-403-1. This rule change will ensure that the definitions and applicability provisions in R307-420 are consistent with related permitting rules in R307-403.” However, we are not taking final action at this time on the revisions to R307-420, as submitted by Utah on August 20, 2013. Merely approving the phrase “Except as provided in R307-420-2, the definitions in R307-403-1 apply to R307-420” in R307-420-2 (Definitions), and the phrase “The applicability provisions in R307-403-2(1)(a) through (f) and R307-403-2(2) through (7) apply in R307-420” in R307-420-3(3) (Applicability) would not meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which requires that SIPs contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. The EPA has determined that it should not take action on these revisions because the rest of R307-420 is not a part of Utah's federally enforceable SIP, and approving it into the SIP would create confusion for the regulatory authorities, the sources and the public. However, once Utah does submit a fully approvable revision incorporating all of R307-420, the EPA will be able to undertake future rulemaking action on this section at that time.
The EPA has determined that these final revisions, when combined with the changes in Utah's September 30, 2016 commitment letter, create enforceable obligations for sources and are consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations, including the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), 110(i), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 172(c)(7), 173. While the August 20, 2013, submittal states that ammonia is not a precursor to PM
Utah also committed to address additional remaining deficiencies in the State's nonattainment permitting program in R307-403 by December 8, 2017, that were not addressed in the August 20, 2013, submittal, including revisions to R307-403-2, R307-403-3, and R307-403-4. Therefore, the EPA's final conditional approval of these revisions allows Utah to apply R307-403 as permitting authority in all nonattainment areas for PM
We provided a detailed explanation of the basis of our proposed conditional approval in our proposed rulemaking (see 81 FR 75361). We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on November 30, 2016.
The EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve Utah's August 20, 2013, submittal. As discussed in our proposal and this notice, our action is based on an evaluation of Utah's rules against the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(A), 110(i), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 172(c)(7), 173, and regulations at 40 CFR 51.165.
As described in our proposed rulemaking, and in Section II of this notice, the EPA is conditionally approving the revisions of R307-403-1 (Purpose and Definitions), R307-403-2 (Applicability), R307-403-11 (Actual PALs), and the relocation of R307-401-19 (Analysis of Alternatives) to R307-403-10 and R307-401-20 (Relaxation of Limits) to R307-403-2. We are also determining that if the commitments outlined in Utah's September 30, 2016 commitment letter (see docket EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0620) are met, those revisions combined with the August 20, 2013, submittal would address the deficiencies in Utah's nonattainment permitting program, as identified by the EPA in our proposed rulemaking for this action.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the UDAQ rules as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth in this
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact in a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 4, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revision read as follows:
(c) * * *
The Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action on portions of six submissions from the state of Wyoming that are intended to demonstrate that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These submissions address the 2006 and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on March 6, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0521. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104,
On November 18, 2016, the EPA proposed action on six submittals from Wyoming intended to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on December 19, 2016. The EPA received seven comments on the proposal, which will be addressed in the “Response to Comments” section, below. All of the comments relate to the EPA's proposed action with respect to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We had proposed to approve the portion of the Wyoming SIP submittal pertaining to the CAA requirement that the State prohibit any emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants which will significantly contribute to nonattainment (prong 1) of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states and proposed to disapprove the portion of the Wyoming SIP submittal pertaining to the requirement that the state prohibit any emissions activity within the state interfering with maintenance (prong 2) of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. In proposing to take this action, we noted two deficiencies in Wyoming's submittal: (1) Wyoming limited its
In addition, the EPA cited at proposal certain technical information and a related analysis the agency conducted in order to facilitate efforts to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which was also used to support the recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).
The modeling data showed that emissions from Wyoming contribute above the one percent threshold to one identified maintenance receptor in the Denver, Colorado area. Accordingly, as the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) did not provide technical analysis sufficient to support the State's conclusion that emissions originating in Wyoming do not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state, the EPA proposed to disapprove the Wyoming SIP as to prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The proposal also noted that, despite the deficiencies in Wyoming's SIP submission as to prong 1, the modeling data confirmed the State's conclusion that it does not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to approve Wyoming's SIP as meeting the prong 1 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Commenter Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) asserted that the EPA's refusal to extend the comment period is unreasonable. UARG stated that the EPA did not dispute that the State needed additional time, but rather denied the extension request on grounds that opposing counsel in a proposed consent decree negotiated between the EPA and the Sierra Club had refused to extend the negotiated deadline.
Several commenters asserted that Wyoming should be given an opportunity to review the recently-finalized CSAPR Update modeling to determine whether it is accurate or appropriate for Wyoming or the West overall. Commenter WEST Associates requested that the EPA allow Wyoming to re-examine and resubmit the prong 2 portion of the State's February 6, 2014 submittal before moving forward with a final action.
Moreover, the EPA proposed a similar action with respect to Utah's SIP submission addressing interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on several deficiencies in that state's SIP and citing to the air quality modeling conducted to support the CSAPR Update, which demonstrated that Utah was also linked to nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Denver. May 10, 2016, 81 FR 28807. WDEQ reviewed and commented on the EPA's proposed disapproval action on Utah's interstate transport SIP submission in a June 9, 2016 comment letter submitted to the EPA.
Finally, although the commenters focus on concerns relative to an opportunity to review the applicability of the EPA's air quality modeling, they do not address the clear deficiency in Wyoming's SIP identified in the EPA's proposed disapproval as to the prong 2 requirements. As explained at proposal, in remanding the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the EPA in
Moreover, Wyoming's prong 2 SIP was submitted on February 6, 2014 and was deemed complete by operation of law on August 7, 2014. Accordingly, CAA section 110(k)(2) requires the EPA to have taken final action to approve or disapprove a state's SIP within one year thereafter. As the EPA's action on this submission is already belated, the EPA does not find it appropriate to further delay action on the State's interstate transport SIP until there is resolution of litigation for an unrelated SIP requirement. Delaying action on the State's interstate transport SIP would only further delay potential emission reductions that may be necessary to address maintenance of the NAAQS in Denver, and thereby further delay the public health benefits that would accrue from such emission reductions. To the extent Wyoming believes that the NO
WDEQ asserted that the EPA's proposed prong 2 disapproval indicates a radical change from its prior approach for determining adequacy of such plans. WDEQ asserted that the EPA has made statements indicating that the Agency has not evaluated the applicability of a transport rule in the western states, and that the EPA does not have an understanding of the nature of interstate ozone transport in the West. WDEQ suggested that the EPA should conduct interstate transport modeling and analysis specific to western states and then use the outcome of such analysis in the development and evaluation of future plans, but not plans previously submitted.
Commenter Western Energy Alliance stated that the EPA's proposed action runs contrary to long-standing agency practice of accepting a “weight of evidence” approach to evaluating interstate transport in downwind states, and contends that is inappropriate for the EPA to hold the WDEQ analysis to standards that did not exist when the SIP was developed.
The EPA disagrees that it needed to issue guidance for states to be aware of the requirement to evaluate areas that might be at risk of violating the standard, regardless of whether those areas are or have been designated nonattainment. The court in
While EPA appreciates the helpful role guidance can provide to states, whether the EPA chooses to issue guidance or not does not relieve either states of the obligation to submit SIPs that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by the statutory deadline or the EPA of the obligation to review SIPs consistent with those statutory requirements. States bear the primary responsibility to demonstrate that their plans contain adequate provisions to address the statutory interstate transport provisions, specifically to demonstrate that the plan properly prohibits emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states. Furthermore, in
Moreover, it is inappropriate to rely on older EPA guidance to demonstrate compliance with the prong 2 requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as those guidance documents do not address this specific NAAQS. Both the 2006 and 2007 guidance documents WDEQ claims to have relied on are inapplicable to the State's obligation to address the prong 2 requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. First, WDEQ concedes that both guidance documents were aimed at the addressing the prongs 1 and 2 requirements for the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter (PM
More importantly, in
Although WDEQ questions how it could have developed an approvable SIP without explicit guidance from the EPA and before the EPA had conducted air quality modeling evaluating downwind air quality and contributions, as explained earlier, states bear the primary responsibility for demonstrating that their plans contain adequate provisions to address the statutory interstate transport provisions whether or not the EPA issues such guidance or conducts such modeling. The commenters are correct to note that, in separate interstate transport actions, the EPA has reviewed and finalized action on interstate transport SIPs in states where air quality modeling was not available or where the total weight of evidence for finalizing action on the state's SIP was not solely based on air quality modeling.
Wyoming is correct to note that the EPA stated the CSAPR Update does not apply to Wyoming, and the final CSAPR Update does not impose any implementation obligations on the state of Wyoming or sources within the State. 81 FR 74523, October 26, 2016. However, in the context of that rulemaking, the EPA developed technical information relevant to western states, including Wyoming, while in this final action on the Wyoming SIP the EPA is adopting an approach to analyzing that data as it applies to Wyoming. While the modeling cited in this action was conducted after Wyoming submitted its SIP addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, it would not be appropriate for the EPA to ignore modeling data indicating that the emissions from the State would impact air quality in other states. Rather, the EPA must evaluate each SIP submission based on the information available and consistent with the Act as we and courts interpret it at the time of our action, not at the time of the state's submittal. Wyoming was aware that the EPA had data indicating a potential impact as early as January 2015, but did not submit additional information to supplement or revise its SIP submission addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Commenter WEST Associates stated that the EPA had noted in the CSAPR Update proposal that the modeling for that rule was conducted specifically for Eastern states. The commenter also referenced language from the CSAPR Update and the Wyoming proposal in which the EPA stated that there may be geographically specific factors to consider in evaluating ozone transport in the West affecting modeling and modeling results. Citing 81 FR 81715, November 18, 2016. The commenter suggested that these factors could include broad expanses of public land, high altitude settings, international transport and elevated background ozone concentrations that can comprise a significant portion of ambient concentrations, especially on high ozone days in the Western United States.
The EPA does not find the information provided by the commenters to indicate flaws in the modeling conducted by the EPA. Rather, the commenters point to factors which the CSAPR Update modeling specifically took into account.
The EPA did acknowledge in the CSAPR Update final rule that “for western states, there may be geographically specific factors to consider in evaluating interstate ozone pollution transport,” and that “given the near-term 2017 analysis and implementation of the CSAPR Update FIPs, the EPA focused this rulemaking on eastern states where the CSAPR method for assessing collective contribution has proven effective.” 81 FR 74523, October 26, 2016. However, these statements were not an indication that the EPA believed the modeling of air quality in the West was flawed. Rather, the EPA was suggesting that additional factors may be relevant in determining whether an upwind state that was projected to impact air quality in a downwind state should be determined to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in that state. The EPA's recent action approving Arizona's interstate transport SIP, discussed in more detail at proposal, demonstrates some of the geographically specific factors that the EPA was referring to with these statements.
Moreover, the EPA does not agree that, because background ozone contributes to the projected design values at the Denver monitor, the factual circumstances are “nearly identical” to the circumstances supporting the proposed approval of the Nevada SIP. In fact, the circumstances here are substantially different than the facts considered in the Nevada SIP approval. The EPA proposed to approve Nevada's SIP submission because, among other factors, it determined that the cumulative contribution from upwind states to the downwind receptors to which Nevada was linked (all of which were located in California) was low relative to the cumulative contribution to air quality problems similarly identified elsewhere in the country and because Nevada was the only state contributing above the one percent threshold to those receptors. 81 FR 87860, Dec. 6, 2016. Because the EPA determined that emissions that result in transported ozone from upwind states have limited impacts on the projected air quality problems at the California receptors, the EPA proposed to determine that the sites should not be treated as receptors for purposes of determining interstate transport obligations.
Moreover, consistent with the EPA's approach to background concentrations in this action, the EPA disagreed with Nevada's contention that background concentrations should necessarily excuse an upwind state from reducing emissions where such emissions reductions may nonetheless improve downwind air quality. 81 FR 87860. The EPA noted that even areas with high background ozone may still have a relatively large amount of ozone from the collective contribution of upwind U.S. emissions.
WDEQ further asserted that the approval of the Arizona interstate transport SIP for 2008 ozone was inconsistent with the proposed action on Wyoming, because the EPA based its Arizona action on a weight of evidence analysis and a determination that Arizona's contribution was “negligible” although it was over the one percent threshold. The State also asked the EPA to explain why it determined the cumulative contribution percentages for Arizona were negligible, and at what percentage such contributions became negligible.
The EPA furthermore disagrees that it is not using the one percent contribution threshold as a screening threshold. States are not determined to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance downwind merely because impacts from the state exceed the one percent threshold. As noted in the proposal for this final action, the one
With regard to the EPA's action on the Arizona submittal, the EPA found that the maximum total contribution from anthropogenic emissions in all states to either of the two California receptors to which Arizona contributed above the one percent threshold was 4.4 percent of the total ozone concentration at that receptor, and that only one state contributed above the one percent threshold. 81 FR 15203, March 22, 2016. Thus, the EPA determined that, unlike receptors identified in prior rulemakings, the air quality problems at the California receptors could not be attributed to the collective contribution of numerous upwind states. Given this information, the EPA determined that interstate transport to the California receptors is negligible overall, meaning that all states together (including Arizona) do not contribute significantly to the ozone problems at these receptors. Because the EPA determined that emissions that result in transported ozone from upwind states have limited impacts on the projected air quality problems at the California receptors, the EPA determined that the sites should not be treated as receptors for purposes of determining interstate transport obligations.
The State asserted that it had made several attempts to provide the EPA with additional information, citing its November 23, 2016 letter requesting an extension to the comment period as an example, and claimed that the EPA has told Wyoming it will not consider any additional information beyond the February 6, 2014 submission.
The EPA also disagrees that the State made several attempts to provide EPA with additional information. The State submitted the aforementioned September 13, 2016 inventory, which the EPA reviewed. The State also submitted the June 9, 2016 comment letter on the Utah proposal as discussed previously, and the November 23, 2016 letter requesting an extension to the comment period. The EPA has reviewed and addressed all of these documents. Finally, the EPA is unaware that any staff told Wyoming that we will not consider any additional information beyond the February 6, 2014 submission. The EPA has continuously encouraged the State to submit additional technical information that might better inform our analysis, as discussed in detail earlier.
Commenter Western Energy Alliance stated that Colorado's ozone nonattainment is affected by the northern Front Range's climate, geography, and local emissions sources, and not by Wyoming emissions. The commenter supported Wyoming's assessment that the year-round westerly prevailing wind direction makes it reasonable to infer that Cheyenne is not a driving cause of ozone nonattainment in Colorado's Front Range.
Commenter Western Energy Alliance also asserted that Wyoming is not contributing to ozone nonattainment in the Uintah Basin or in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah.
The EPA agrees that Colorado emissions contribute more to ozone pollution in the Denver area than emissions from any other state. Indeed, the CSAPR Update modeling projected that Colorado would contribute 34.6% percent of the ozone at the Douglas County, Colorado maintenance receptor in 2017, compared to 9.7 percent of the emissions from all other states and tribes combined, with Wyoming projected to contribute 1.5 percent of the ozone. Although there are intrastate contributions to maintenance receptors in Denver, Colorado, those contributions do not relieve upwind states, like Wyoming, from controlling their within state emissions that significantly contribute to a downwind state's nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states.
Thus, while CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not hold upwind areas solely responsible for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states, the statute requires upwind states to address their fair share of downwind air quality problems. As noted, the EPA finds that Wyoming contributions to the Douglas County, Colorado maintenance receptor are such that the State's emissions require further evaluation of potential emission reduction obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Regarding Wyoming's contribution to ozone issues in Utah, the EPA has not found that Wyoming emissions contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Utah.
Commenter WDEQ requested that the EPA honor the commitment made in the Utah Final Rulemaking to “assisting the states in conducting or reviewing air quality modeling and other relevant technical information for the purposes of determining compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).” 81 FR 71996, October 19, 2016. Specifically, the State requested that the EPA commit to work with WDEQ to conduct the necessary modeling and analysis for developing a SIP revision in the event that the EPA finalizes the proposed disapproval.
The commenter stated that the 2015-2017 monitored design value at the Douglas County, Colorado receptor could only attain the NAAQS if the receptor recorded a 4th daily maximum value of 66 ppb in 2017, a value well below the smallest value since 2010. The commenter asserted that the previous 7 years of monitoring data provide a weight of evidence analysis demonstrating that this receptor will be nonattainment for the 2015-2017 design value period. The commenter also asserted that it is unsurprising that the CSAPR Update modeling analysis under-predicts the 2017 design values because it included 2009 monitoring data which was impacted by the Great Recession, during which time ozone levels decreased. The commenter therefore recommended that the EPA disapprove Wyoming's February 6, 2014 prong 1 submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA agrees that recent monitoring data at the Douglas County, Colorado monitor suggest that the site faces a risk of not attaining the NAAQS in 2017. However, that risk is uncertain as the future monitored 2017 design value is unknown at this time. In light of this uncertainty and the statute's silence on how nonattainment and maintenance should be identified under the good neighbor provision, the EPA has developed a reasonable approach to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. When evaluating air quality modeling for purposes of interstate transport, the EPA has routinely identified nonattainment receptors as those with monitors that are both projected to be unable to attain in an appropriate future year and that are measuring nonattainment based on current data—
Moreover, the EPA does not agree that it should identify a nonattainment receptor based on the formula proposed by the commenter because the data cited by the commenter does not conclusively prove that this monitor will be in nonattainment based on 2017 data.
That said, the EPA agrees that the receptor may have problems maintaining the standard in 2017 and has therefore identified this site as a maintenance receptor. As a result of this finding, the EPA and the State of Wyoming will need to evaluate what
The weight of evidence analysis in our action on the Arizona SIP determined the nature of the projected receptor's interstate transport problem as to the magnitude of ozone attributable to interstate transport from all upwind states collectively contributing to the air quality problem, not to the identification of that receptor. In the EPA action on the Arizona SIP, Arizona was the only state that contributed greater than the 1 percent threshold to the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the El Centro receptor. The EPA's assessment concluded that emissions reductions from Arizona are not necessary to address interstate transport because the total collective upwind state ozone contribution to these receptors is relatively low compared to the air quality problems typically addressed by the good neighbor provision. As discussed previously, the EPA similarly evaluated collective contribution to the Douglas County, Colorado monitor and finds the collective contribution of transported pollution to be substantial. Furthermore, in our action on the Arizona SIP we did not deviate from our past practice in identifying nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the way that commenter suggests we should do here.
The EPA does not agree that its projections are unreliable because the 2009 data are affected by the “Great Recession.” In determining our 2009-2013 base period average design values, the data from 2009 are only weighted once, whereas, data in 2011 which has higher ozone is weighted 3 times in the calculations. In addition, our emissions data are projected from 2011 to 2017 and, thus, the effects of the recession on 2009 emissions have very little influence our 2017 projected emissions. In this respect, the air quality and emissions in 2009 have only a very limited influence on the projected design values. As described in EPA's air quality modeling guidance for ozone attainment demonstrations, the use of 5‐year weighted average design values, as applied here, is intended to focus the base period air quality on the year of base case emissions, 2011 for this analysis, and to smooth out, to some extent, the effects of inter‐annual variability in ozone concentrations.
The EPA is approving CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1, 2 and 4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, prong 1 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 4, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action on a portion of a January 31, 2013 submission and a December 22, 2015 supplemental submission from the State of Utah that are intended to demonstrate that the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The interstate transport requirements under the CAA consist of four elements: Significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interference with maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states; and interference with measures required to be included in the plan for other states to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). Specifically, the EPA is approving interstate transport prong 1 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
This final rule is effective on March 6, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0588. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104,
On December 20, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve portions of Utah's January 31, 2013 submission and December 22, 2015 supplemental submission as meeting the prong 1 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 92755, December 20, 2016. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the State's submittals, and the EPA's rationale for this proposed action were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on January 10, 2017. The EPA received four comments on the proposal, which will be addressed in the “Response to Comments” section, below.
Comment: Commenter Sierra Club stated that the EPA should disapprove Utah's prong 1 submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The commenter asserted that all three of the Denver area maintenance receptors to which Utah's projected contribution exceeded one percent of the NAAQS
The commenter stated that the 2015-2017 monitored design values at the Denver receptors could only attain the NAAQS if the receptors recorded the 4th daily maximum values (“critical values”) listed in the 2017 row of Table 1, and notes that each of these values is below the smallest value since 2010. The commenter asserted that the previous seven years of monitoring data provide a weight of evidence analysis demonstrating that these receptors will be nonattainment for the 2015-2017 design value period. The commenter also stated that Colorado's drill rig count for oil and gas extract had increased to 28 by the end of 2016, the highest level since November 2015. The commenter also stated that 2017 was likely to see increased oil and gas extraction and transportation activity in Colorado due to reduced oil production in other countries, and that this would increase NO
The EPA agrees that recent monitoring data at these three sites suggest that these sites face a risk of not attaining the NAAQS in 2017. However, that risk is uncertain as the future monitored 2017 design value is unknown at this time. In light of this uncertainty and the statute's silence on how nonattainment and maintenance should be identified under the good neighbor provision, the EPA has developed a reasonable approach to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. When evaluating air quality modeling for purposes of interstate transport, the EPA has routinely identified nonattainment receptors as those with monitors that are both projected to be unable to attain in an appropriate future year and that are measuring nonattainment based on current data—
Moreover, the EPA does not agree that it should identify nonattainment receptors based on the formula proposed by the commenter because the data cited by the commenter does not conclusively prove that these monitors will be in nonattainment based on 2017 data.
That said, the EPA agrees that the receptors may have problems maintaining the standard in 2017 and has therefore identified these sites as maintenance receptors. On October 19, 2016, the EPA finalized disapproval of Utah's SIP submission to address the maintenance prong for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 71991. As a result of this disapproval, the EPA and the State of Utah will need to evaluate what further emissions reductions may be required to ensure that the State's impact on downwind air quality is mitigated such that the State will not interfere with maintenance of the standard at these receptors.
The weight of evidence analysis in our action on the Arizona SIP determined the nature of the projected receptor's interstate transport problem as to the magnitude of ozone attributable to interstate transport from all upwind states collectively contributing to the air quality problem, not to the identification of that receptor. In the EPA action on the Arizona SIP, Arizona was the only state that contributed greater than the one percent threshold to the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the El Centro receptor. The EPA's assessment concluded that emissions reductions from Arizona are not necessary to address interstate transport because the total collective upwind state ozone contribution to these receptors is relatively low compared to the air quality problems typically addressed by the good neighbor provision. As discussed previously, the EPA similarly evaluated collective contribution to the Douglas County, Colorado monitor and finds the collective contribution of transported pollution to be substantial. Furthermore, in our action on the Arizona SIP we did not deviate from our past practice in identifying nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the way that commenter suggests we should do here.
The EPA does not agree that its projections are unreliable because the 2009 data are affected by the “Great Recession.” In determining our 2009-2013 base period average design values, the data from 2009 are only weighted once, whereas, data in 2011 which has higher ozone is weighted 3 times in the calculations. In addition, our emissions data are projected from 2011 to 2017 and, thus, the effects of the recession on 2009 emissions have very little influence on our 2017 projected emissions. In this respect, the air quality and emissions in 2009 have only a very limited influence on the projected design values. As described in the EPA's air quality modeling guidance for ozone attainment demonstrations, the use of 5‐year weighted average design values, as applied here, is intended to focus the base period air quality on the year of base case emissions, 2011 for this analysis, and to smooth out, to some extent, the effects of inter‐annual variability in ozone concentrations.
Finally, the EPA does not find that the commenter's assumptions about an increase in oil and gas extraction and transportation activities in Colorado sufficient to project an increase in such emissions. For instance, the number of drill rigs noted by the commenter (28) at the end of 2016 is actually much lower than the level at the end of 2014 (69).
The EPA is approving the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 portion of Utah's January 31, 2013 submittal and the December 22, 2015 submittal with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 4, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) Addition to the Utah State Implementation Plan regarding the 2008 ozone Standard for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 submitted to EPA on January 31, 2013 and supplemented on December 22, 2015.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finding that 15 states and the District of Columbia have failed to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions in a timely manner to satisfy certain requirements for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that apply to nonattainment areas and/or states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). As explained in this action, consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA regulations, these findings of failure to submit establish certain deadlines for the imposition of sanctions, if a state does not submit a timely SIP revision addressing the requirements for which the finding is being made, and for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address any outstanding SIP requirements.
The effective date of this action is March 6, 2017.
General questions concerning this notice should be addressed to Mr. Stephen Senter, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code: C504-2, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; by telephone (919) 541-3042; or by email at
Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0646. All documents in the docket are listed on
For questions related to specific states mentioned in this notice, please contact the appropriate EPA Regional office:
On March 27, 2008, the EPA issued its final action to revise the NAAQS for ozone to establish new 8-hour standards.
Promulgation of a revised NAAQS triggers a requirement for the EPA to designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the standards; for ozone NAAQS, this also involves classifying any nonattainment areas at the time of designation.
On May 21, 2012, and June 11, 2012, the EPA issued rules designating 46 areas throughout the country as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective July 20, 2012, and establishing classifications for the designated nonattainment areas.
Ozone nonattainment areas in the lower classification levels have fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than those in higher classifications. For a Marginal area, a state is required to submit a baseline emissions inventory and adopt a SIP requiring emissions statements from stationary sources and implementing a Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program for the relevant ozone standard.
The CAA sets out specific requirements for states in the OTR.
On March 6, 2015, the EPA established a final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule).
Subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA includes a requirement that the SIP for a nonattainment area must provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (otherwise referred to as Reasonably Available Control Measures) as expeditiously as practicable to meet a given NAAQS, including such emissions reductions that may be obtained through implementation of RACT. Under the provisions of Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA, states with ozone nonattainment areas classified Moderate and higher must adopt RACT rules for all volatile organic compounds (VOC) sources covered by existing or new Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs),
NNSR is a preconstruction review permit program that applies to new major stationary sources or major modifications at existing sources located in a nonattainment area.
Consistent with the applicable provisions under CAA section 182(b)(4), ozone nonattainment areas with urbanized populations of 200,000 or more based upon the 1990 United States Census that are classified as Moderate are subject to requirements to implement a basic vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, for which a new submittal or plan revision is due at the same time as the attainment demonstration, which was 3 years after the effective date of designation for a Moderate area (
Consistent with CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), Severe and higher ozone nonattainment areas must submit an analysis to determine if emissions have increased due to growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or vehicle trips. If the VMT analysis shows that a growth in emissions has occurred, the subject area must develop and submit a new plan or a plan revision with specific enforceable transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset that growth in emissions. For such areas, a new submittal or plan revision was due 2 years after the effective date of area designation (
For ozone nonattainment areas classified as Extreme, section 182(e)(3) of the CAA outlines requirements for new, modified, and existing electric utility, industrial, and commercial boilers that emit more than 25 tons per year of NO
For plan requirements under subpart D, title I of the CAA, such as those for ozone nonattainment areas and areas in the OTR, if the EPA finds that a state has failed to make the required SIP submittal or that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then CAA section 179(a) establishes specific consequences, including the eventual imposition of mandatory sanctions for the affected area. Additionally, such a finding triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the finding of failure to submit a complete SIP, if the affected state has not submitted, and the EPA has not approved, the required SIP submittal.
If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that a state has submitted a
Based on a review of SIP submittals received and deemed complete as of the date of this action, the EPA is finding that the states and areas listed in the tables below have failed to submit specific SIP element(s) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS required under subpart 2 of part D of title 1 of the CAA and the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule.
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental risks addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or environment under the ozone NAAQS. The purpose of this rule is to make findings that states named have failed to provide the identified SIP submissions to the EPA that are required per the CAA for purposes of implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, this action does not directly affect the level of protection provided for human health or the environment. Moreover, it is intended that the actions and deadlines resulting from this notice will in fact lead to greater protection for U.S. citizens, including minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, by ensuring that states meet their statutory obligation to develop and submit SIPs to ensure that areas make progress toward attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under sections 172, 182, and 184 which address the statutory requirements that apply to areas designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and to states within the Ozone Transport Region, respectively.
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
The rule is a finding that the named states have not submitted the necessary SIP revisions.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule finds that several states have failed to submit SIP revisions that satisfy the nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA, and the OTR requirements under section 184 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 172 or under subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a finding that several states have failed to submit SIP revisions that satisfy the nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA, and the OTR requirements under Section 184 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and does not directly or disproportionately affect children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. In finding that several states have failed to submit SIP revisions that satisfy the nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA, and the OTR requirements under section 184 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, this action does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section V of this preamble titled “Environmental Justice Considerations.”
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
The EPA has determined that this final rule consisting of findings of failure to submit certain of the required SIP revisions is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). This final agency action affects 15 states with nonattainment areas and/or in the OTR, located in five of the 10 EPA Regional offices, and in 6 different federal circuits.
In addition, the EPA has determined that this rule has nationwide scope or effect because it addresses a common core of knowledge and analysis involved in formulating the decision and a common interpretation of the requirements of 40 CFR 51 appendix V applied to determining the completeness of SIPs in states across the country. This determination is appropriate because, in the 1977 CAA Amendments that revised CAA section 307(b)(l), Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has “scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of this action extends to the 6 judicial circuits that include the states across the country affected by this action. In these circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history authorize the Administrator to find the rule to be of “nationwide scope or effect” and, thus, to indicate that venue for challenges lies in the District of Columbia Circuit. Accordingly, the EPA
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this final action is published in the
Environmental protection, Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to address the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). We are approving the portion of the Nevada SIP pertaining to requirements prohibiting significant contributions from Nevada to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state.
This final rule is effective on March 6, 2017.
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA, Region IX, (415) 972-3856,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS no later than three years after the promulgation of a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) outlines the specific requirements that each state is required to address in this SIP submission that collectively constitute the “infrastructure” of a state's air quality management program. A SIP submittal that addresses these requirements is referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” (I-SIP). In particular, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” (“prong 1”) or “interfere with maintenance” (“prong 2”) of the applicable NAAQS in any other state. This action addresses the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of prong 1 and prong 2 with respect to Nevada's I-SIP submission.
On March 27, 2008, the EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone.
On November 3, 2015, the EPA issued a partial approval and partial disapproval of Nevada's 2013 I-SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS, including the following actions on infrastructure SIP requirements: Approval of SIP elements relating to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—visibility transport (“prong 4”), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (K), (L) and (M); partial approval, for Clark County, and partial disapproval, for Washoe County and the remainder of the state, of SIP elements relating to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II)—interference with Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“prong 3”), (D)(ii) (interstate pollution abatement and international air pollution) and (J); and, for NO
On December 6, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve the 2013 SIP Submittal and the 2016 Supplement addressing the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone
The EPA received no comments on the proposed action during the public comment period.
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation and rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSD, and this final rule, the EPA is approving Nevada's SIP as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 and prong 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 4, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Air pollution control, Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(h)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) aquatic life criterion for freshwaters under the state of Oregon's jurisdiction, to protect aquatic life from the effects of exposure to harmful levels of cadmium. In 2013, EPA determined that the freshwater acute cadmium criterion and freshwater acute and chronic copper criteria that Oregon adopted in 2004 did not meet CWA requirements to protect aquatic life in the state. Since that time, the state adopted revised criteria for copper (which EPA is approving in parallel with this final rulemaking), but has not adopted a revised acute criterion for cadmium and thus EPA is establishing a federal freshwater acute criterion for cadmium that takes into account the best available science, EPA policies, guidance and legal requirements, to protect aquatic life uses in Oregon.
This final rule is effective on March 6, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0012. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Erica Fleisig, Office of Water, Standards and Health Protection Division (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1057; email address:
This final rule is organized as follows:
Cadmium naturally occurs at low levels in surface waters, but anthropogenic activities can increase levels of cadmium in the environment. At higher concentrations, cadmium can be toxic to aquatic life. Sources of elevated cadmium in the environment include coal combustion, mining, electroplating, iron and steel production, and use of pigments, fertilizers and pesticides. Industrial facilities, stormwater management districts, or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that discharge pollutants to freshwaters of the United States under the state of Oregon's jurisdiction could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking, because federal water quality standards (WQS) promulgated by EPA are applicable to CWA regulatory programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned with water quality in Oregon could also be interested in this rulemaking. Categories and entities that could potentially be affected include the following:
In developing this final rule, EPA carefully considered the public comments and feedback received from interested parties. EPA originally provided a 45-day public comment period after publishing the proposed rule in the
Fourteen organizations and individuals submitted comments on a range of issues prior to the close of the public comment period on June 2, 2016. Some comments addressed issues beyond the scope of the rulemaking, and thus EPA did not consider them in finalizing this rule. In each section of this preamble, EPA discusses certain public comments so that the public is aware of the Agency's position. For a full response to these and all other comments, see EPA's Response to Comments document in the official public docket.
CWA section 101(a)(2) establishes as a national goal “wherever attainable . . . water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water. . . .” These are commonly referred to as the “fishable/swimmable” goals of the CWA.
CWA section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) directs states to adopt WQS for their waters subject to the CWA. CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131 require, among other things, that a state's WQS specify appropriate designated uses of the waters, and water quality criteria that protect those uses. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1) provide that “[s]uch criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use. For waters with multiple use designations, the criteria shall support the most sensitive use.” In addition, 40 CFR 131.10(b) provides that “[i]n designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the [s]tate shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.”
States are required to review applicable WQS at least once every three years and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new standards (CWA section 303(c)(1)). Any new or revised WQS must be submitted to EPA for review and approval or disapproval (CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and (c)(3)). If EPA disapproves a state's new or revised WQS, the CWA provides the state 90 days to adopt a revised WQS that meets CWA requirements, and if it fails to do so, EPA shall promptly propose and then within 90 days promulgate such standard unless EPA approves a state replacement WQS first (CWA section 303(c)(3) and (c)(4)(A)). CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) authorizes the Administrator to determine that a new or revised standard is needed to meet CWA requirements. Upon making such a determination, the CWA specifies that EPA shall promptly propose, and then within 90 days promulgate, any such new or revised standard unless prior to such promulgation, the state has adopted a revised or new WQS that EPA determines to be in accordance with the CWA.
Under CWA section 304(a), EPA periodically publishes criteria recommendations for states to consider when adopting water quality criteria for particular pollutants to meet the CWA section 101(a)(2) goal uses. In establishing criteria, states should establish numeric water quality criteria based on EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria, section 304(a) criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods (40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)). In all cases criteria must be sufficient to protect the designated use and be based on sound scientific rationale (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)).
As discussed in the preamble to EPA's proposed rule (81 FR 22555; April 18, 2016), EPA disapproved several of Oregon's revised aquatic life criteria
As discussed in the preamble to the 2016 proposed rule (81 FR 22555), to derive criteria for the protection of aquatic life, EPA follows its
Numeric criteria derived using EPA's 1985 Guidelines are expressed as short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) values. The combination of a criteria maximum concentration (CMC), a one-hour average value, and a criteria continuous concentration (CCC), a four-day average value, protects aquatic life from acute and chronic toxicity, respectively. Neither value is to be exceeded more than once in three years. EPA selected the CMC's one-hour averaging period because high concentrations of certain pollutants can cause death in one to three hours, and selected the CCC's four-day averaging period to prevent increased adverse effects on sensitive life stages. EPA based the once every three years exceedance frequency recommendation on the ability of aquatic ecosystems to recover from the exceedances (when the average concentration over the duration of the averaging period is above the CCC or the CMC).
Because fresh and salt waters have different chemical compositions and different species assemblages, it is necessary to derive separate acute and chronic criteria for fresh and salt waters. Additionally, criteria may be based on certain water characteristics (
Water hardness (determined by the presence of calcium and magnesium ions, and expressed as calcium carbonate, CaCO
On March 30, 2016, EPA announced publication of final updated 304(a) national recommended aquatic life criteria for cadmium.
To protect aquatic life in Oregon's freshwaters from acute toxic effects from cadmium, EPA is promulgating the one-hour average CMC ofe
Where site-specific hardness data are unavailable, EPA is establishing default hardness concentrations (as CaCO
To determine the default hardness concentrations, EPA used 10th percentile hardness estimates from Table 4 in USEPA's
Some commenters were in favor of EPA's decision to include default input parameters, while others were critical of this approach. Specifically related to EPA's proposal of a default hardness value for use with the acute cadmium criterion, some commenters argued that EPA's proposal of a default hardness value of 25 mg/L was overly conservative because it is below the lowest existing 10th percentile ecoregional hardness concentration in Oregon. EPA maintains that it is important to include default values for hardness to provide clarity to NPDES permit writers and water body assessors as to the applicable acute cadmium criterion at the site when there are insufficient ambient hardness data to adequately characterize the site. The default hardness of 25 mg/L that EPA proposed in its April 18, 2016 proposed rule (81 FR 22555) is protective and consistent with Oregon's application of a default hardness concentration of 25 mg/L if no hardness data are available to calculate hardness-dependent metals criteria.
Consistent with EPA guidance, the hardness default does not represent a “hardness floor” for the ecoregion; rather, a site's actual ambient water hardness should be used to calculate the criterion when sufficiently representative hardness data are available, even if ambient hardness is below the default hardness concentration.
Commenters requested that EPA provide additional specificity on the minimum number of samples required to adequately capture temporal and spatial variability at a site, and site selection considerations. While many of these comments were with respect to copper criteria calculations, EPA agrees that these are important considerations for cadmium as well. In response to these comments, EPA is providing the following recommendations.
The number of samples needed to characterize site variability depends on several characteristics of the site. The water quality characteristics that determine the bioavailability of metals, including cadmium, can vary widely in both space and time, changing with biological activity, flow, geology, human activities, watershed landscape, and other features of the water body. For the state to ensure that the criteria are adequately protective of the most bioavailable conditions at the site through time, the state should apply appropriate methods to evaluate how a site's water quality conditions are expected to vary temporally, and ensure that adequate monitoring is in place to capture the variability across the site and through time.
The state should first demonstrate that the hardness concentrations used in the calculations are not biased toward less bioavailable conditions for cadmium by evaluating the hardness data and resultant acute cadmium criteria that are calculated over time for different flows and seasons. The state should use appropriate analytical methods, such as a Monte Carlo
Oregon should consider the following when defining a site to which to apply criteria for cadmium: (1) Metals are generally persistent, so calculating the criterion using input parameter values from a location at or near the discharge point could result in a criterion that is not protective of areas that are outside of that location, and (2) as the size of a site increases, the spatial and temporal variability is likely to increase; thus, more water samples may be required to adequately characterize the entire site.
Substantial changes in a site's ambient hardness will likely affect the bioavailability of and the relevant criterion for cadmium at that site. In addition, with regular monitoring and a robust, site-specific dataset, criteria can be developed that more accurately reflect site conditions than criteria set using default values or limited data sets. Therefore, EPA recommends that Oregon periodically revisit each water body's cadmium criterion and re-run the hardness equation when changes in water chemistry are evident or suspected at a site, and also as additional monitoring data become available.
When Oregon calculates cadmium criteria, to promote transparency and ensure predictable and repeatable outcomes, EPA recommends that the state make each site's ambient hardness data used in the cadmium criteria calculations, resultant numeric criteria, and the geographic extent of the site publicly available on the state's Web site.
Because organisms are more sensitive to cadmium when hardness is low, Oregon should ensure that sufficiently representative ambient hardness data are collected to have confidence that critical conditions in the water body are
For transparency for the public, EPA recommends that Oregon describe in its NPDES permit factsheets how the numeric criteria were calculated and used to determine reasonable potential and derive WQBELs. Similarly for TMDLs, EPA recommends that Oregon describe in the TMDL document how the numeric criteria were calculated and used to determine TMDL targets. In the assessment and listing context, EPA recommends that Oregon describe in its integrated reports how it calculated numeric criteria to which it compared ambient cadmium concentrations.
To ensure that the criteria are applied appropriately to protect Oregon's aquatic life uses, EPA is establishing critical low-flow values for Oregon to use in calculating the available dilution for the purposes of determining the need for and establishing WQBELs in NPDES permits. Dilution is one of the primary mechanisms by which the concentrations of contaminants in effluent discharges are reduced following their introduction into a receiving water. Low flows can exacerbate the effects of effluent discharges because, during a low-flow event, there is less water available for dilution, resulting in higher instream pollutant concentrations. If criteria are implemented using inappropriate critical low-flow values (
EPA's March 1991
For the freshwater acute cadmium criterion, EPA establishes the following critical low-flow values: 1Q10 or 1B3. Using the hydrologically based method, the 1Q10 represents the lowest one-day average flow event expected to occur once every ten years, on average. Using the biologically based method, 1B3 represents the lowest one-day average flow event expected to occur once every three years, on average.
The criterion in this final rule applies at the point of discharge unless Oregon authorizes a mixing zone. Where Oregon authorizes a mixing zone, the criterion applies at the locations allowed by the mixing zone (
One commenter argued that EPA's proposed critical low-flow provisions were unnecessary, asserting that Oregon already has such provisions. Currently Oregon's implementation methods for low-flows are in non-binding guidance. Specifying the appropriate low-flow provisions in regulation will provide added clarity, and ensure that the acute cadmium criterion is implemented in such a way that designated uses are protected.
As noted in the 2016 proposed rule, the NMFS 2012 biological opinion concluded that the freshwater acute cadmium criterion that Oregon adopted in 2004 would jeopardize the continued existence of specific endangered species and their critical habitat in Oregon. The opinion also contained a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) for cadmium that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to endangered species in Oregon.
EPA has determined that the acute cadmium criterion being finalized in this rulemaking is consistent with the RPA for acute cadmium as contained in the NMFS 2012 biological opinion. Therefore, as finalized, the acute cadmium criterion for Oregon is sufficiently protective of threatened and endangered species in state waters and avoids the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. EPA's RPA analysis for the acute cadmium criterion is contained in the docket for this rule.
Under the CWA, Congress gave states primary responsibility for developing and adopting WQS for their navigable waters (CWA section 303(a)-(c)). Although EPA is establishing an acute cadmium criterion for Oregon's freshwaters to remedy EPA's 2013 disapproval of Oregon's 2004 criteria, Oregon continues to have the option to adopt and submit to EPA an acute cadmium criterion for the state's freshwaters consistent with CWA section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131.
In its April 18, 2016, proposed rule, EPA proposed that if Oregon adopted and submitted freshwater cadmium and/or copper aquatic life criteria after EPA's finalization of the freshwater acute cadmium criterion and freshwater acute and chronic copper criteria, then once EPA approved Oregon's WQS, those EPA-approved criteria in Oregon's WQS would automatically become solely effective for CWA purposes and EPA's promulgated criteria would no longer apply. EPA did not receive any comments on this provision as it relates to copper and cadmium criteria for Oregon, and this provision is moot with respect to copper since Oregon adopted revised freshwater copper criteria (which EPA is approving in parallel with this final acute cadmium criterion rulemaking). However, upon further consideration of comments received on other proposed rules where EPA proposed a similar provision, EPA decided not to finalize this provision. Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21(c), EPA's federally promulgated WQS are and will be applicable for purposes of the CWA until EPA withdraws those federally promulgated WQS. EPA would expeditiously undertake such a rulemaking to withdraw the federal
Oregon has considerable discretion to implement the acute cadmium aquatic life criterion through various water quality control programs. Among other things, EPA's regulations: (1) Specify how states and authorized tribes establish, modify, or remove designated uses; (2) specify the requirements for establishing criteria to protect designated uses, including criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions; (3) authorize states and authorized tribes to adopt WQS variances to provide time to achieve the applicable WQS; and (4) allow states and authorized tribes to include compliance schedules in NPDES permits. Each of these approaches are discussed in this section.
EPA's final acute cadmium criterion applies to freshwaters in Oregon where the protection of fish and aquatic life is a designated use (see Oregon Administrative Rules at 340-041-8033, Table 30). The federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.10 specify how states and authorized tribes establish, modify or remove designated uses for their waters. If Oregon removes designated uses such that no fish or aquatic life uses apply to any particular water body affected by this rule and adopts the highest attainable use,
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11 specify requirements for establishing criteria to protect designated uses, including criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions. In the context of this rulemaking, a site-specific criterion (SSC) is an alternative value to the federal freshwater acute cadmium criterion that would be applied on a watershed, area-wide, or water body-specific basis that meets the regulatory test of protecting the designated use, being scientifically defensible, and ensuring the protection and maintenance of downstream WQS. A SSC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal criterion. A SSC may be appropriate when further scientific data and analyses can bring added precision to express the concentration of cadmium that protects the aquatic life-related designated use in a particular water body. As discussed earlier, if Oregon adopts and EPA approves site-specific criteria that fully meet the requirements of section 303(c) of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131, EPA will undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the corresponding federal criterion.
40 CFR part 131 defines WQS variances at 131.3(o) as time-limited designated uses and supporting criteria for a specific pollutant(s) or water quality parameter(s) that reflect the highest attainable conditions during the term of the WQS variances. WQS variances adopted in accordance with 40 CFR part 131 allow states and authorized tribes to address water quality challenges in a transparent and predictable way. Variances help states and authorized tribes focus on making incremental progress in improving water quality, rather than pursuing a downgrade of the underlying water quality goals through a designated use change, when the designated use is not attainable throughout the term of the variance due to one of the factors listed in 40 CFR 131.14. Oregon has sufficient authority to use variances when implementing the final acute cadmium criterion, as long as such variances are adopted consistent with 40 CFR 131.14, and submitted to EPA for review under CWA section 303(c).
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.47 provide the requirements when states and authorized tribes wish to include permit compliance schedules in their NPDES permits if dischargers need additional time to meet their WQBELs based on the applicable WQS. EPA's updated regulations at 40 CFR 131.15 require any state or authorized tribe wishing to use permit compliance schedules to also include provisions authorizing the use of permit compliance schedules after appropriate public involvement to ensure that a decision to allow permit compliance schedules derives from and complies with the applicable WQS. (80 FR 51022, August 21, 2015). Oregon may use its EPA-approved regulation authorizing the use of permit compliance schedules (see OAR 340-041-0061), consistent with 40 CFR 131.15, to grant compliance schedules, as appropriate, for WQBELs based on the federal acute cadmium criterion. That state regulation is not affected by this final rule.
Although EPA's final acute cadmium criterion itself will not impose any direct requirements on entities, this criterion may ultimately serve as a basis for development of new or revised NPDES permit limits. Oregon has NPDES permitting authority, and retains considerable discretion in implementing standards. Still, to best inform the public of the potential impacts of this rule, EPA evaluated the potential costs associated with state implementation of EPA's final criterion. This analysis is documented in
For the economic analysis, EPA assumed the baseline to be full implementation of currently approved existing aquatic life criteria (
EPA did not estimate the potential for costs to stormwater or nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff. EPA recognizes that Oregon may require controls for nonpoint sources; however, it is difficult to model and evaluate the potential cost impacts of this rule to those sources because they are intermittent, variable, and occur under hydrologic or climatic conditions associated with precipitation events. Also, baseline total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for waters with baseline impairment for cadmium have not yet
For identifying new criteria values for the purposes of estimating cost incremental to costs to achieve the existing baseline criteria, EPA developed hypothetical applications of the final cadmium criterion using conservative estimates for hardness. The criteria that EPA calculated for the economic analysis are likely different from and possibly lower (more stringent) than the actual criteria applications that Oregon would calculate using ambient data from each water body. As described earlier in this final rule, EPA recommends that Oregon collect sufficiently representative ambient data to calculate the most accurate and protective cadmium criteria by site.
Using the criteria calculated for the cost analysis, EPA identified 12 point source facilities with sufficient data for evaluation
For facilities with available data, EPA evaluated existing baseline permit conditions, reasonable potential to exceed estimates of the aquatic life criteria based on the final rule, and potential to exceed projected effluent limitations based on available effluent monitoring data. There was no reasonable potential to exceed the final acute cadmium criterion.
If the final criterion resulted in an incremental increase in impaired waters, resulting in the need for TMDL development, there could also be some costs to nonpoint sources of cadmium. Using available ambient monitoring data, EPA compared cadmium concentrations to the baseline and final criteria, identifying waterbodies that may be incrementally impaired (
As discussed above, EPA determined there are no point or nonpoint source costs associated with the acute cadmium criterion in this final rule. None of the dischargers for which monitoring data are available have a reasonable potential to exceed the final criterion. Therefore, EPA estimates that point source dischargers will not incur annual costs to comply with the final acute cadmium criterion. Additionally, based on available monitoring data, EPA did not identify any location that would be incrementally impaired under the final criterion. Therefore, EPA did not attribute any cost to nonpoint sources for compliance with the final acute cadmium criterion.
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
This action does not impose any direct new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. EPA-promulgated standards are implemented through various water quality control programs including the NPDES program, which limits discharges to navigable waters except in compliance with an NPDES permit. The CWA requires that all NPDES permits include any limits on discharges that are necessary to meet applicable WQS. Thus, under the CWA, EPA's promulgation of WQS establishes standards that the state implements through the NPDES permit process. The state has discretion in developing discharge limits, as needed to meet the standards. As a result of this action, the State of Oregon will need to ensure that permits it issues include any limitations on discharges necessary to comply with the standards established in the final rule. In doing so, the state will have a number of choices associated with permit writing. While Oregon's implementation of the rule may ultimately result in new or revised permit conditions for some dischargers, including small entities, EPA's action, by itself, does not impose any of these requirements on small entities; that is, these requirements are not self-implementing.
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. As these water quality criteria are not self-implementing, EPA's action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that could 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
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor does it substantially affect the relationship between the federal government and tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Many tribes in the Pacific Northwest hold reserved rights to take fish for subsistence, ceremonial, religious, and commercial purposes. EPA developed the criteria in this final rule to protect aquatic life in Oregon from the effects of exposure to harmful levels of cadmium. Protecting the health of fish in Oregon will, therefore, support tribal reserved fishing rights, including treaty-reserved rights, where such rights apply in waters under state jurisdiction.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with tribal officials during the development of this action. On November 23, 2015, EPA sent a letter to tribal leaders in Oregon offering to consult on the proposed cadmium criterion in this rule. On December 15, 2015, EPA held a conference call with tribal water quality technical contacts to explain EPA's proposed action and timeline. Formal consultation on the proposed action was not requested by any of the tribes.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. The criterion in this final rule will support the health and abundance of aquatic life in Oregon, and will therefore benefit all communities that rely on Oregon's ecosystems.
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Indians—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 131 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1251
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The criterion established in this section is subject to Oregon's general rules of applicability in the same way and to the same extent as are other federally promulgated and state-adopted numeric criteria when applied to freshwaters in Oregon where fish and aquatic life are a designated use.
(i) For all waters with mixing zone regulations or implementation procedures, the criterion applies at the appropriate locations within or at the boundary of the mixing zones and outside of the mixing zones; otherwise the criterion applies throughout the water body including at the end of any discharge pipe, conveyance or other discharge point within the water body.
(ii) The state shall not use a low flow value that is less stringent than the values listed below for waters suitable for the establishment of low flow return frequencies (
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources.
Final rule.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is updating its regulations to reflect required annual inflation-related increases to the civil monetary penalties in its regulations, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvement Act of 2015.
This rule is effective February 3, 2017.
Andrea Brandon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grants and Acquisitions, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Room 514-G, Hubert Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20201; 202-690-6396; FAX 202-690-5405.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the “Act”), which is intended to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) and to maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties, requires agencies to adjust the civil monetary penalties for inflation annually.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lists the civil monetary penalties and the penalty amounts administered by all of its agencies in tabular form in 45 CFR 102.3.
The annual inflation adjustment for each applicable civil monetary penalty is determined using the percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October of the year in which the amount of each civil penalty was most recently established or modified. In the December 16, 2016, OMB Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Agencies and Departments, M-17-11,
Using the 2017 multiplier, HHS adjusted all its applicable monetary penalties in 45 CFR 102.3.
Section 4 of the 2015 Act directs federal agencies to publish annual adjustments no later than January 15, 2017. In accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), most rules are subject to notice and comment and are effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the
Pursuant to OMB Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, M-17-11, HHS has determined that making technical changes to the amount of civil monetary penalties in its regulations does not trigger any requirements under procedural statutes and Executive Orders that govern rulemaking procedures.
This rule is effective February 3, 2017. The adjusted civil penalty amounts apply to civil penalties assessed on or after February 3, 2017, when the
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends subtitle A, title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Public Law 101-410, Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Atlantic migratory group southern zone to 1,500 lb (680 kg), round weight, per day. This trip limit reduction is necessary to maximize the socioeconomic benefits of the quota.
Effective 6:00 a.m., local time, February 6, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2017.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish
Framework Amendment 1 to the FMP (79 FR 69058, November 20, 2014) implemented a commercial annual catch limit (equal to the commercial quota) of 3.33 million lb (1.51 million kg) for the Atlantic migratory group of Spanish mackerel. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel are divided into a northern and southern zone for management purposes. The southern zone consists of Federal waters off South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The boundaries for the southern zone for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel extend between North Carolina/South Carolina, a line extending in a direction of 135°34′55″ from true north beginning at 33°51′07.9″ N. lat. and 78°32′32.6″ W. long. to the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ, at 25°20′24″ N. lat., which is a line directly east from the boundary between Miami-Dade/Monroe Counties, Florida.
The southern zone quota for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel is 2,667,330 lb (1,209,881 kg). Seasonally variable trip limits are based on an adjusted commercial quota of 2,417,330 lb (1,096,482 kg). The adjusted commercial quota is calculated to allow continued harvest in the southern zone at a set rate for the remainder of the current fishing year, through February 28, 2017, in accordance with 50 CFR 622.385(b)(2). As specified at 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(B), after 75 percent of the adjusted commercial quota of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel is reached or projected to be reached, Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern zone may not be possessed onboard or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts exceeding 1,500 lb (680 kg) per day.
NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the adjusted commercial quota for Atlantic group Spanish mackerel has been reached. Accordingly, the commercial trip limit of 1,500 lb (680 kg) per day applies to Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern zone effective 6 a.m., local time February 6, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2017, unless changed by subsequent notification in the
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(B) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and opportunity for comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately reduce the trip limit for the commercial sector for Spanish mackerel constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rules implementing the quotas and trip limits have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction.
Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest, because any delay in the trip limit reduction of the commercial harvest could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the Spanish mackerel resource, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require additional time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Thursday, March 2, 2017, for the purpose of selecting the Vice-Chair of the Committee and familiarizing members with the mission of the Committee and project process.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 2, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. PST.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-967-7140, conference ID number: 6063836. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8311, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
On September 29, 2016, IRIS USA, Inc. (IRIS) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within FTZ 277—Site 12, in Surprise, Arizona.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On October 28, 2016, the Acting Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the New Jersey Department of State, grantee of FTZ 44, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 44, on behalf of AGFA Corporation, in Branchburg, New Jersey.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 44I is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 44's 407.5-acre activation limit.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective February 3, 2017.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is initiating a new shipper review (“NSR”) with respect to Jiangsu Runchen Agricultural/Sideline Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu Runchen”) in the context of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) for this NSR is December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016.
Carrie Bethea, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1491.
The Department published the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC in the
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Jiangsu Runchen submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment and subsequent shipments; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
The Department queried the database of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in an attempt to confirm that the shipment reported by Jiangsu Runchen had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The information which the Department examined was consistent with that provided by Jiangsu Runchen in its request.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), an exporter or producer may request a NSR within one year of the date on which its subject merchandise was first entered. Moreover, 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1) states that if the request for the review is made during the six-month period ending with the end of the anniversary month, the Secretary will initiate a NSR in the calendar month immediately following the anniversary month. Further, 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A) states that if the NSR was initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month, the POR will be the 12-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month. Jiangsu Runchen made the request for a NSR that included all documents and information required by the statute and regulations, within one year of the date on which its honey first entered. Its request was filed in December, which is the anniversary month of the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(b) and based on the information on the record, the Department finds that Jiangsu Runchen's request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR for shipments of honey from the PRC produced and exported by Jiangsu Runchen. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a NSR of Jiangsu Runchen.
It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies (“NMEs”), to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate (
On February 24, 2016, the President signed into law the “Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015,” Public Law 114-125, which made several amendments to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act. We will conduct this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (“Sunset Reviews”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) order(s) listed below. The
Effective February 1, 2017.
The Department official identified in the
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address:
This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that dioctyl terephthalate (“DOTP”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective February 3, 2017.
Laurel LaCivita or Shanah Lee, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243, (202) 482-6386, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 28, 2016.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The product covered by this investigation is DOTP from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). There are two mandatory respondents participating in this investigation: Aekyung Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (“AKP”) and LG Chem Ltd. (“LG Chem”). Export price and, where appropriate, constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
On November 15, 2016, Eastman Chemical Company (“Petitioner”) filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of DOTP.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
We calculated the all-others rate based on a weighted average of AKP and LG Chem's publicly ranged total sales values.
The Department preliminarily determines that DOTP from Korea is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, pursuant to section 733 of the Act, and that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist during the POI:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of DOTP from Korea as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for the mandatory respondents listed above will be the respondent-specific rates we determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a mandatory respondent identified above, but the producer is, the rate will be the specific rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be the all-others rate. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the public announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On January 10, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), LG Chem, Ltd. requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV for the respondents, the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is dioctyl terephthalate (“DOTP”), regardless of form. DOTP that has been blended with other products is included within this scope when such blends include constituent parts that have not been chemically reacted with each other to produce a different product. For such blends, only the DOTP component of the mixture is covered by the scope of this investigation.
DOTP that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled with DOTP from sources not subject to this investigation. Commingled refers to the mixing of subject and non-subject DOTP. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of the investigation.
DOTP has the general chemical formulation C
Subject merchandise is currently classified under subheading 2917.39.2000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 2917.39.7000 or 3812.20.1000 of the HTSUS. While the CAS registry number and HTSUS classification are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) from Thailand. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, The Siam Industrial Wire Co., Ltd. (SIW). We preliminarily determine that SIW did not make sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective February 3, 2017.
Sergio Balbontin or Brian Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6478 or (202) 482-1677, respectively.
The merchandise covered by the
The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this administrative review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for SIW for the POR.
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in the final results.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than seven days after we issue the final verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the deadline is extended.
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
If SIW's weighted-average dumping margin is above
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for SIW will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Effective February 3, 2017.
Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243.
On October 3, 2016, the Department initiated the fourth sunset review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:
(1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);
(2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and
(3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium).
“Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.
Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension (
Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
All issues raised by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and
The Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) is undertaking an economics data collection effort for the West Coast Swordfish Fishery (WCSF) in order to improve the SWFSC's capability to do the following: (1) Describe and monitor economic performance (
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.
Announcement of revised scoping hearing schedule; request for comments.
The New England Fishery Management Council announces its intent to prepare, in cooperation with NMFS, a draft environmental impact statement consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act. A draft environmental impact statement may be necessary to provide analytic support for Amendment 5 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan. This notice alerts the interested public of the scoping process for a potential draft environmental impact statement and outlines opportunity for public participation in that process.
Written and electronic scoping comments must be received on or before March 6, 2017.
Written scoping comments on Amendment 5 may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for copies of the Amendment 5 scoping document and other information should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465-0492.
The scoping document is accessible electronically via the Internet at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, (978) 465-0492.
The New England Fishery Management Council, working through its public participatory committee and meeting processes, anticipates the development of an amendment to consider limited access to the skate (bait and non-bait) fishery that may require an environmental impact statement (82 FR 825, January 4, 2017). This notice announces a revised public scoping hearing schedule as outlined in Table 1 to meet applicable criteria in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and guidance for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Amendment 5 will consider limited access to the skate (bait and non-bait) fishery.
The Northeast Skate Complex is comprised of seven species (barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter skate), managed as a single unit along the east coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC. The skate bait fishery primarily targets little skate, with a small component of winter skate catch. The non-bait fishery, including the wing fishery, primarily targets winter skate.
Following the first skate stock assessment in 1999, the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan was adopted in 2003. Amendment 3 established an annual catch limit and annual catch target for the skate complex, total allowable landings for the skate bait and non-bait fisheries, seasonal quotas for the bait fishery, new possession limits, and in-season possession limit triggers.
The skate fishery is an open access fishery—any vessel may join or leave the fishery at any time. Skate fishermen are concerned that increasingly strict regulations in other fisheries— particularly in the Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) fishery where several stocks are overfished and subject to strict catch restrictions—might cause these fishermen to switch their fishing effort onto skates. An increase in effort in the skate fishery could cause the fishery to harvest its catch limit in a shorter time period, trigger reduced skate trip limits, or have other negative economic impacts on current participants since developing skate markets could be negatively impacted by a flood of product.
A control date for the bait fishery was established on July 30, 2009 (74 FR 37977). A control date for the non-bait fishery was established on March 31, 2014 (79 FR 18002). The control dates may be used as a reference date for future management measures related to such rulemaking.
The Council has initiated the development of this amendment to address three issues:
• Limited access qualification criteria that would determine whether vessels may target skate. These criteria may differ by stock or management area and may treat older history differently than newer history;
• Limited access permit conditions (transfers, ownership caps, `history' permits, etc.); and
• Permit categories and associated measures.
The amendment's objective would be to establish qualification criteria for skate (bait and non-bait “wing”) fishing permits and possibly different qualification criteria or catch limits for each fishery, considering how they operate differently. For example, in the wing fishery, it may be desirable to have different permit tiers that distinguish between skate vessels that currently target skate, historically targeted, and/or vessels that catch and land small quantities. Qualification criteria might include several factors such as, but not limited to, the time period vessels have participated in the fishery (possibly using the control dates established for this fishery), historic levels of landings, and dependency on the fishery.
The Council may consider limiting access to the skate (bait and non-bait) fishery in a manner that may affect individual permit holder access to skates depending on the qualification criteria and other permit conditions developed. Based on individual fishing history, a vessel that has targeted skate may be distinguished differently from a vessel that caught and landed skates while fishing for other species. Landing limits for qualifiers and non-qualifiers could therefore be more consistent with the type of fishing that these vessels conduct in order to minimize discarding and economic effects. For example, the bait skate fishery currently requires a letter of authorization, but has substantially larger landing limits than the wing fishery. Some historic participants in the Northeast Skate Complex fisheries also may desire limited access privileges (a catch share program, for example).
Following the scoping period, the Council and its Skate Committee will identify the specific goals and objectives of the amendment and develop alternatives to meet the purpose and need of the action. With input from its committees and the public, the Council would select a range of alternatives to implement limited access in the skate fishery.
All persons affected by or otherwise interested in Northeast skate management are invited to comment on the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed by submitting written comments (see
The Council will hold public hearings to receive comments on the draft amendment and on the analysis of its impacts presented in the draft EIS. The hearings will be recorded. Consistent with U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recordings are available upon request. In addition to soliciting comment on this notice, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the measures and alternatives being considered by the Council through public meetings and public comment periods consistent with NEPA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Any amendment developed and approved by the Council would have to be approved and implemented by NMFS.
The Council will take and discuss scoping comments on this amendment at the public meetings listed in Table 1.
A scoping document with additional background information is available on the Council's Web site at
The meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS) of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, will host a two-day workshop on Tactical Encryption and Key Management. The goal of the workshop is to identify solutions to the problem of how to dynamically key and re-key different groups with varying levels of access and for varying lengths of time using existing infrastructure or over an ad hoc network that is reliable and user friendly.
The workshop will be held on February 15-16, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mountain Standard Time.
The workshop will be located in Building 1 Lobby, Department of Commerce Boulder Laboratories, 325 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado.
Joseph Parks, Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305; telephone: (303) 497-5865; email:
The Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS) is the research and engineering laboratory of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. ITS research enhances scientific knowledge and understanding in cutting-edge areas of telecommunications technology. The Institute's research capacity and expertise is used to analyze new and emerging technologies, and to contribute to standards creation. Research results are broadly disseminated through peer-reviewed publications as well as through technical contributions and recommendations to standards bodies. ITS research helps to drive innovation and contributes to the development of communications and broadband policies that enable a robust telecommunication infrastructure, ensure system integrity, support e-commerce, and protect an open global Internet.
Today, encryption and key management (E&KM) is a process that can be onerous, difficult, and time-consuming. We hypothesize that advances in processing efficiency and networking technologies can greatly simplify (or perhaps even automate) E&KM thus enabling secure dynamic coalitions and information flow control in mobile, tactical applications. We further hypothesize that these secure, dynamic coalitions and information control schemes can be constructed and maintained without a central, off-site coordination authority.
ITS will host a two-day workshop on Tactical EK&M to look into the future to see what E&KM may look like and will look at the present to see what technologies can be leveraged to take us there. The workshop is sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and organized and hosted as a joint effort between ITS and the RAND Corporation.
ITS will post a detailed agenda on its Web site,
The meeting will be open to the public (U.S. Citizens only) and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. Attendees must present valid government-issued photo identification upon arrival in order to enter the building, and must RSVP with Joseph Parks at least 48 hours in advance to be sponsored to access the site.
The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Joseph Parks via the contact information provided above at least five (5) business days before the meeting.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the procurement list.
This action adds product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Effective February 26, 2017.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-2132, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 12/9/2016 (81 FR 89086), 12/16/2016 (81 FR 91140-91141) and 12/23/2016 (81 FR 94340), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and
Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-2132, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:
Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:00-11:30 a.m. (ET).
Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW., Suite 4026, Washington, DC 20525 (Please go to the first floor lobby reception area for escort).
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-779-9469 conference call access code number 6366753. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and CNCS will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Replays are generally available one hour after a call ends. The toll-free phone number for the replay is 800-944-3743. TTY: 402-998-1748. The end replay date is March 1, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. (ET).
Open.
Members of the public who would like to comment on the business of the Board may do so in writing or in person. Individuals may submit written comments to
The Corporation for National and Community Service provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify Eric Harsch at
Eric Harsch, Program Support Assistant, Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone: 202-606-6928. Fax: 202-606-3460. TTY: 800-833-3722. Email:
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 6, 2017.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available
Requests for copies of the invention cited should be directed to the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320 and must include the Navy Case number.
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Technology Transfer Office, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-3083 or email:
The DoN intends to move expeditiously to license this invention. Potential licensees are required to submit a license application and commercialization plan. The license application is available online at:
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 4, 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 NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 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 April 4, 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 NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
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.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears 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.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) staff will hold a workshop on March 30, 2017, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time in the Commission Meeting Room at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The purpose of the workshop is to solicit public comment on the effectiveness of the tested two-year pilot process as required by section 6 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013. The workshop will be open to the public and all interested parties are invited to participate. The workshop will be led by Commission staff, and may be attended by one or more Commissioners. An agenda for the workshop, including a list of issues for commenter and panelist consideration, is attached to this notice.
This workshop will be transcribed. Transcripts of the workshop will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. at (202) 347-3700. A free webcast will be available through
Registration is not required, but is encouraged. Please register at
In addition to the webcast, a limited number of phone lines will be available on a first-come, first-served basis for those who wish to participate via teleconference. If you would like to participate via teleconference, please contact Ryan Hansen at (202) 502-8074 or
Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
Those who wish to file written comments may do so within 75 days of this notice, or by April 14, 2017. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and will be available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
For more information about this workshop, please contact:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
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:
With respect to an order issued by the Commission on April 28, 2016 in the above-captioned docket,
Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:
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.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears 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.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
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:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice; request for comments.
The Coast Guard seeks comments on the recertification of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) for March 1, 2017, through February 28, 2018. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), the Coast Guard may certify the PWSRCAC on an annual basis. This advisory group monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers under the Prince William Sound program established by the statute. The Coast Guard may certify an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of the PWSRCAC. The current certification for the PWSRCAC will expire February 28, 2017.
Public comments on PWSRCAC's recertification application must reach the Seventeenth Coast Guard District on or before February 17, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-1078 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this recertification, call or email LT Patrick Grizzle, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi); telephone (907)463-2809; email
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before February 10, 2017 using one of the four methods specified under
The Coast Guard published guidelines on December 31, 1992 (57 FR 62600), to assist groups seeking recertification under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732) (the Act). The Coast Guard issued a policy statement on July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36504), to clarify the factors that the Coast Guard would be considering in making its determination as to whether advisory groups should be certified in accordance with the Act; and the procedures which the Coast Guard would follow in meeting its certification responsibilities under the Act. Most recently, on September 16, 2002 (67 FR 58440), the Coast Guard changed its policy on recertification procedures for regional citizen's advisory council by requiring applicants to provide comprehensive information every three years. For the two years in between, applicants only submit information describing substantive changes to the information provided at the last triennial recertification. This is the year in this triennial cycle that PWSRCAC must provide comprehensive information.
The Coast Guard is accepting comments concerning the recertification of PWSRCAC. At the conclusion of the comment period, February 17, 2017, the Coast Guard will review all application materials and comments received and will take one of the following actions:
(a) Recertify the advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o).
(b) Issue a conditional recertification for a period of 90 days, with a statement of any discrepancies, which must be corrected to qualify for recertification for the remainder of the year.
(c) Deny recertification of the advisory group if the Coast Guard finds that the group is not broadly representative of the interests and communities in the area or is not adequately fostering the goals and purposes of 33 U.S.C. 2732.
The Coast Guard will notify PWSRCAC by letter of the action taken on their respective applications. A notice will be published in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that the District Five Prevention Division (Dp) has issued a Certificate of Alternate Compliance (COAC) from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) for the M/V TURTLE as required by statue. Due to the construction and placement of the pilothouse aft and starboard of amidships it cannot fully comply with the masthead light provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's operations as an open deck vehicle ferry as there are no structures forward of amidships to affix a masthead light. This notice promotes the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.
Documents mentioned in the preamble are part of docket USCG-2016-1010. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information or questions about this notice call or email: CDR Scott W. Muller, District Five, Chief, Inspections and Investigations, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6389, email:
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law
The
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of minimum random drug testing rate.
The Coast Guard has set the calendar year 2017 minimum random drug testing rate at 25 percent of covered crewmembers.
The minimum random drug testing rate is effective January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Marine employers must submit their 2016 Management Information System (MIS) reports no later than March 15, 2017.
Annual MIS reports may be submitted by electronic submission to the following Internet address:
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Patrick Mannion, Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Investigation Program Manager, Office of Investigations and Casualty Analysis (CG-INV), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone 202-372-1033.
The Coast Guard requires marine employers to establish random drug testing programs for covered crewmembers on inspected and uninspected vessels in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230. Every marine employer is required by 46 CFR 16.500 to collect and maintain a record of drug testing program data for each calendar year, and submit this data by 15 March of the following year to the Coast Guard in an annual MIS report.
Each year, the Coast Guard will publish a notice reporting the results of random drug testing for the previous calendar year's MIS data and the minimum annual percentage rate for random drug testing for the next calendar year. The purpose of setting a minimum random drug testing rate is to assist the Coast Guard in analyzing its current approach for deterring and detecting illegal drug abuse in the maritime industry.
The Coast Guard announces that the minimum random drug testing rate for calendar year 2017 is 25 percent. The Coast Guard may increase this rate if MIS data indicates a qualitative deficiency of reported data or the positive random testing rate is greater than 1.0 percent in accordance with 46 CFR part 16.230(f)(2). MIS data for 2016 indicates that the positive rate is less than one percent.
For 2017, the minimum random drug testing rate will continue at 25 percent of covered employees for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(e).
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
30-day notice of information collection for review; Forms No. 73-028; ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (IMAGE); OMB Control No. 1653-0048.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE) is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(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 agencies 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Scott Elmore, PRA Clearance Officer, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 801 I Street NW., Mailstop 5800, Washington, DC 20536-5800.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(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 agencies 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588 or send an email to
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 12-07, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301)-443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number). HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 or send an email to
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Northwest Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will meet on Thursday, March 16, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the BLM Northwest Oregon District Office, 1717 Fabry Rd SE., Salem, OR 97306. The RAC members will consider recreation-related subcommittee work and approve a new Chairperson among other topics. Members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the RAC during a public comment period at 12:00 p.m. The public also may send written comments to the RAC at the Northwest Oregon District Office, 1717 Fabry Road SE., Salem, OR 97306.
Jennifer Velez, Coordinator for the Northwest Oregon RAC, 1717 Fabry Road SE., Salem, OR 97306, (541) 222-9241,
The fifteen-member Northwest Oregon RAC was chartered to serve in an advisory capacity concerning the planning and management of the public land resources located within the BLM's Northwest Oregon District. Members represent an array of stakeholder interests in the land and resources from within the local area and statewide. All advisory council meetings are open to the public. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period of the meeting should register in person with the BLM, at the meeting location, preceding that meeting day's public comment period. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited. The public may also send written comments to the RAC at the Northwest Oregon District Office, 1717 Fabry Road SE., Salem, OR 97306. The BLM appreciates all comments.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dakotas Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Dakotas RAC meeting will be held on February 16, 2017.
The RAC will meet at the BLM South Dakota Field Office, 309 Bonanza Street in Belle Fourche, South Dakota. The meeting location and times will also be announced in a local news release.
Mark Jacobsen, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Eastern Montana/Dakotas District, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, Montana 59301; (406) 233-2831;
The 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in North and South Dakota. At this meeting, topics will include: An Eastern Montana/Dakotas District report, North Dakota Field Office and South Dakota Field Office manager reports, new member introductions, discussion on the Montana/Dakotas RAC chair meeting, individual RAC member reports and other topics and issues the council may wish to cover. All meetings are open to the public and the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal RAC meeting will have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations should contact the BLM as provided above.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will host a meeting.
On Feb. 23 and 24, 2017, the Utah RAC will hold a meeting in St. George, Utah. On Feb. 23, the RAC will meet from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. On Feb. 24, the RAC will meet from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. An optional field tour of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area will take place on Feb. 24 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The RAC will meet at the BLM Arizona Strip District Office, 345 E. Riverside Drive, St. George, Utah 84770. Written comments may be sent to the BLM Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.
If you wish to attend the field tour, contact Lola Bird, Public Affairs Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101; phone (801) 539-4033; or,
Agenda topics will include an introduction of new BLM managers, an update on the Planning 2.0 Rule, implementation of Greater Sage-Grouse plans, and updates on current resource management planning efforts and major projects.
A public comment period will take place on Feb. 23 from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., where the public may address the RAC. Written comments may also be sent to the BLM Utah State Office at the address listed in the
The meeting is open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating individuals.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours.
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (“final ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on November 30, 2016, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has also determined to grant the motion filed on December 23, 2016, by the complainants to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. The Commission requests certain briefing from the parties on the issues under review, as indicated in this notice. The Commission also requests briefing from the parties and interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on November 20, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Diebold Incorporated and Diebold Self-Service Systems (collectively, “Diebold”). 80 FR 72735-36 (Nov. 20, 2015). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of six United States Patents: 7,121,461 (“the '461 patent”); 7,249,761 (“the '761 patent”); 7,314,163 (“the '163 patent”); 6,082,616 (“the '616 patent”); 7,229,010 (“the '010 patent”); and 7,832,631 (“the '631 patent”).
The '461 patent, '761 patent, and '163 patent were previously terminated from the investigation.
Nautilus and Diebold each filed a petition for review of the ID. No party petitioned for review concerning the '010 patent, the Commission has determined not to review the ID's finding of no violation as to the '010 patent, and the investigation is hereby terminated as to that patent. What remain are asserted claims 1, 5-8, 10, 16, 26 and 27 of the '616 patent; and asserted claims 1-7 and 18-20 of the '631 patent. Diebold's petition deals principally with the '616 patent, and Nautilus's petition deals principally with the '631 patent.
Separately, on December 23, 2016, Diebold moved the Commission for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to change the name of Diebold, Incorporated (one of the two complainants) to Diebold Nexdorf, Incorporated. Nautilus did not oppose the motion. The Commission hereby grants the motion.
On December 30, 2016, the parties submitted statements on the public interest. Diebold contends that the investigation does not raise any public interest concerns. Nautilus asserts that a Commission exclusion order should include a certification provision and that any Commission remedial orders be tailored to allow repair of existing Nautilus ATMs in the United States. In addition, the Commission received submissions from United States Representative James B. Renacci, United States Senator Sherrod Brown, and certain Nautilus customers.
Having reviewed the record of investigation, including the ALJ's orders and initial determinations, including the final ID, as well as the parties' petitions for review and responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the ID in part.
For the '616 patent, the Commission has determined to review the constructions of the terms “service opening” and “a second position
In view of the Commission's determination to review and modify the construction of these two claim limitations, the Commission has also determined to review:
(1) Whether the accused products infringe each of the asserted claims of the '616 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
(2) whether the asserted claims of the '616 patent are obvious in view of Diebold's 1064i ATM; and
(3) whether Diebold has satisfied the technical prong for the domestic industry requirement for the '616 patent.
The Commission has determined to review and to take no position on whether, for the '631 patent, Diebold satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B) based on its field service labor expenditures.
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID.
The parties are asked to brief the issues for the '616 patent of infringement, obviousness in view of Diebold's 1064i ATM, and the technical prong, in view of the Commission's constructions, and with reference to the applicable law and the existing evidentiary record. For each argument presented, the parties' submissions should demonstrate that the argument has been preserved in accordance with the ALJ's Ground Rules as well as Commission Rule 210.43(b), 19 CFR 210.43(b).
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
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 section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-972”) 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.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this investigation effective December 16, 2015, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Whirlpool Corporation, Benton Harbor, Michigan. The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigation following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of large residential washers from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on January 30, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4666 (January 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50547) and determined on November 4, 2016 that it would conduct an expedited review (81 FR 87589, December 5, 2016).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on January 31, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4667 (January 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On October 3, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Richard W. Walker, M.D. (Registrant), of League City, Texas. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of his DEA Certificate of Registration No. AW2558750, on the ground that he does not have authority to dispense controlled substances in Texas, the State in which he is registered with the Agency. Order to Show Cause, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is the holder of Registration No. AW2558750, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 4604 Hispania View Drive, League City, Texas.
As ground for the proposed action, the Show Cause Order alleged that “[t]he Texas Medical Board issued an order, effective June 10, 2016, which accepted [the] surrender of [his] authority to practice medicine.”
The Show Cause Order notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option.
The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to submit a corrective action plan.
On or about October 3, 2016, a Diversion Investigator (DI) from the Houston Division Office sent the Order to Show Cause by Certified Mail to Registrant at the address of his registered location. Appendix 4, at 2 (Declaration of DI). According to the DI, on or about October 11, 2016 she received back the signed return-receipt card showing that the Show Cause Order had been received at Registrant's registered address.
On December 12, 2016, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action (RFFA) and an evidentiary record to my Office. Therein, the Government represents that more than 30 days have passed since the Order to Show Cause was served on Registrant and that it “has not received a request for hearing or any other reply from” Registrant. RFFA at 2.
Based on the Government's representation and the record, I find that more than 30 days have passed since the date of service of the Show Cause Order, and that neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing or submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing. I therefore find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, and issue this Decision and Order based on relevant evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) & (e). I make the following findings of fact.
Registrant is the holder of Certificate of Registration No. AW2558750, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 4604 Hispania View Drive, League City, Texas; his registration does not expire until May 31, 2017. Appendix 2 (Certificate of Registration).
On June 10, 2016, Registrant entered into an Agreed Order of Revocation with the Texas Medical Board (the Board) “to avoid further investigation, hearings, and the expense and inconvenience of litigation.” Appendix 3, at 4 (Agreed Order of Revocation). The Board specifically found that Registrant “failed to adequately supervise his prescriptive delegate . . . who non[-]therapeutically prescribed controlled substances and who operated an unregistered pain management clinic.”
Based on the Board's Order, and Registrant's failure to submit any evidence to show that his medical license has been reinstated, I find that Registrant is no longer currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Texas, the State in which he is registered with the Agency.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of Title 21, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had [his] State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has repeatedly held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
As found above, by virtue of the Agreed Order of Revocation, Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine and dispense controlled substances in Texas, the State in which he holds his DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that his registration be revoked.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AW2558750, issued to Richard W. Walker, Jr., M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I further order that any pending application of Richard W. Walker, Jr., M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective March 6, 2017.
On September 22, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Janet Carol Dean, M.D. (Registrant), of Denver, Colorado. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BD2298621, the denial of any applications to renew or modify her registration, and the denial of any applications for any other DEA registration, on the ground that she does not have authority to handle controlled
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is the holder of Certificate of Registration No. BD2298621, pursuant to which she is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 710 E. Speer Blvd., Denver, Colorado.
As ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on August 22, 2016, the Colorado Medical Board issued an order “which suspended [her] medical license” and that she is “currently without authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in the State of Colorado, the [S]tate in which [she is] registered with the” Agency.
The Show Cause Order notified Registrant of her right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option.
On or about September 29, 2016, a Diversion Investigator from the Denver Field Division mailed the Order to Show Cause to Registrant by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, addressed to her at the following addresses: (1) An address which, according to the Government was her registered address, but which is recorded on the Certified Mail Receipt as 710 E. Speed Blvd.; (2) her mailing address on file with the Agency; and (3) the address listed on her Colorado driver's license. Government Request for Final Agency Action (RFFA), at 1-2. According to both USPS tracking information and the signed return-receipt card, the mailing to Registrant's mailing address was signed for on October 6, 2016.
On December 7, 2016, the Government forwarded its Request for Final Agency Action and an evidentiary record to my Office. Therein, the Government represents that Registrant has neither requested a hearing nor “otherwise corresponded or communicated with DEA regarding” the Show Cause Order. RFFA, at 2.
Based on the Government's representation and the record, I find that more than 30 days have passed since the Order to Show Cause was served on Registrant and she has neither requested a hearing nor submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing.
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration BD2298621, pursuant to which she is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 710 E. Speer Blvd., Denver, Colorado. GX 1, at 1 (Certification of Registration History). Her registration does not expire until June 30, 2017.
On August 22, 2016, the Colorado Medical Board (the Board) issued an Order of Suspension to Registrant, which was effective the same day. GX 4, at 2 (Order of Suspension). According to the Board's Order, an Inquiry Panel reviewed information that “during the period of January 1, 2016 to May 27, 2016, [Registrant] signed in excess of 450 certifications recommending the medical use of marijuana which authorized the individual to possess more marijuana plants than were medically necessary to treat the patients' conditions.”
The Panel further found that the “significant number of standard of care deviations, within a six-month period, raise[d] significant concerns regarding Respondent's medical judgment and decision-making.”
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of Title 21, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had [her] State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has repeatedly held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which [s]he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which [s]he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever she is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which she engages in professional practice.
Moreover, because “the controlling question” in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a practitioner's registration “is currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,”
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration BD2298621, issued to Janet Carol Dean, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I further order that any pending application of Janet Carol Dean, M.D., to renew or modify her registration, or for any registration in the State of Colorado, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.
On January 19, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed settlement agreement with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the lawsuit entitled
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed settlement agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed settlement agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $3.00 (12 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 6, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Michelle Martin, Senior Management Analyst, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (phone: 202 514-9354). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 4, 2017.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until March 6, 2017.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The purpose of this new information collection is to provide a worksheet for documenting the amount of matching funds required at the closeout of a specific fiscal year award under the STOP Formula Grant Program. The type of questions on the worksheet will include award number, award amount, amount of funds sub-awarded to victim service providers for victim services or to tribes.
(5)
(6)
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Regulations Governing the Administration of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064 (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Regulations Governing the Administration of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) information collection. The regulations and forms cover the submission of information relating to the processing of claims for benefits under the LHWCA and its extensions. The LHWCA authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Employment and Training Administration Quick Turnaround Surveys” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the ETA Quick Turnaround Surveys generic clearance. The ICR is for eight (8) to twenty (20) surveys over the next three years, with each survey being simple and relatively short (10-30 questions). The surveys will be designed on an ad hoc basis and will focus on emerging topics of pressing policy interest in order to fill critical gaps in ETA's information needs about the workforce system. Survey results will inform development of legislation, regulations, and technical assistance. The surveys could focus on the state or local level, or some combination of both, and respondents could include management, staff or leadership in state workforce agencies, local boards, American Job Centers, Employment Service offices, or other partners. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the ETA seeks to have the surveys be available for the variety of issues concerning the very broad spectrum of programs administered by ETA, instead of the single statute focus previously approved. The nature of the surveys will remain unchanged.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled,
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Occupational Noise Exposure Standard information collection requirements specified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.95 that require an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer to monitor worker exposure to noise when it is likely such exposures may equal or exceed 85 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA) on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) (action level); to take action to reduce noise exposures to the 90 dBA permissible exposure limit; and to provide an effective hearing conservation program (HCP) for all workers exposed to noise at a level greater than, or equal to, a TWA of 85 dBA. The HCP contains annual audiometric testing for workers; a provision for providing hearing protection devices to exposed workers; education and training of exposed workers; and maintenance of records pertaining to noise exposure-monitoring and audiometric testing. OSH Act sections 2(b), 6, and 8 authorize the information collection provisions.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “National Evaluation of Round 4 of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation;
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OASAM, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA approval in order to conduct the National Evaluation of Round 4 of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) Grant Program information collection. The TAACCCT grant program provides community colleges and other eligible institutions of higher education with funds to expand and improve their ability to deliver education and career training programs that can be completed in two years or less and are suited for workers who are eligible for training under the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers Program. This ICR seeks approval for the following information collections: Participant tracking data form, 12-month follow-up survey, college survey, and employer interviews.
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Asbestos in General Industry Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Asbestos in General Industry Standard information collections codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.1001 that require an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard to monitor worker exposure; to notify workers of their asbestos exposures; to develop a written compliance program; to maintain records concerning the presence, location, and quantity of asbestos-containing materials and/or presumed asbestos-containing materials; to provide medical surveillances; to provide examining physicians with specific information; to ensure workers receive a copy of the physician's written opinion; to maintain workers' exposure monitoring and medical records for specific periods; and to provide the OSHA, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, affected workers, and their authorized representatives access to these records. Employers, workers, physicians, and the Government use these records to ensure exposure to asbestos in the workplace does not harm workers. OSH Act sections 2, 6, and 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice.
On January 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employment Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Job Corps Application Data,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 2, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064 (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks continued PRA authorization for Job Corps application data collected on three forms (ETA-652, Job Corps Data Sheet; ETA-655, Statement from Court or Other Agency; and ETA-682, Child Care Certification) used for screening and enrollment purposes to determine eligibility for the Job Corp program in accordance with Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requirements. The information collected concerns economic criteria and past behavior as well as information needed to certify an applicant's arrangements for care of dependent children while the applicant is in the Job Corps. WIOA section 145 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before March 6, 2017.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
(1) On July 12, 2016, Coeur submitted a petition for modification (PFM #1) seeking relief from § 57.11050. PFM #1 seeks relief from MSHA's requirement that Coeur provides a refuge chamber within 1,000 feet of the development face in the mine. During Coeur's discussions with MSHA as part of the review of PFM #1 and Coeur's compliance with § 57.11050, Coeur learned that a second petition for modification (PFM #2) was necessary to seek relief from § 57.11052(d). The petitioner requests that MSHA consider PFM #2 in conjunction with information submitted previously for PFM #1 because the factual basis for both petitions and means of compliance for both standards are intertwined. These means of compliance will provide the same or greater measure of safety as the existing regulations.
(2) The petitioner owns and operates the Kensington mine, an underground gold mine located in Juneau County, Alaska. Kensington utilizes both transverse and longitudinal long-hole stoping. In both methods, a single development drift is driven through waste rock adjacent to the ore body. When this drift reaches planned elevations, level accesses are developed to provide entry points to the ore body for exploration and later ore production. Once the level development and exploration are completed at a planned elevation, the ore is extracted either perpendicular (transverse stoping) or parallel to the strike of the ore (longitudinal stoping).
(3) With PFM #1, Coeur sought relief from MSHA's interpretation of 30 CFR 57.11050 that would require that a refuge chamber be located within 1,000 feet of the development face. Part of the basis for PFM #1 is that the petitioner's miners at the development face can walk to the existing refuge chamber within 30 minutes as required by the standard and the existing location of the permanent refuge chamber complies with § 57.11050. Also, the petitioner has voluntarily elected to provide an ERCP in the vicinity of the development face, and to reposition that ERCP from time to time as development advances.
(4) Because ERCP is equipped with a minimum of a 72-hour internal air supply for up to 12 miners, and more than 20 gallons of potable water, the petitioner seeks relief from the requirement in § 57.11052(d) to connect compressed air and waterlines to the ECRP each time it is repositioned.
(5) The ERCP as constructed by the manufacturer complies with § 57.11052 because the ERCP has internal air and water sources. Kensington has been in operation since 1987. The petitioner has operated the mine since 1995, and between 1995 and 2009, activities were exclusively exploration and development. Coeur did not begin production until 2010, with limited production areas. The portions of the Kensington mine that are relevant to PFM #2 are still in the exploration and development phases—no production is occurring in these areas. During the fourth quarter of 2016, Kensington typically had nine stopes associated with production, and approximately three main development drifts in which exploration and development are taking place. The precise number of stopes and drifts may vary slightly from one month to the next.
Currently, 100 percent of Kensington's operations below the 480 level are either development or exploration. At present, the ERCP is positioned within 1,000 feet from the development face, and the current location of Kensington's permanent refuge station adjacent to the 585 Downramp complies with the requirements of §§ 57.11050 and 57.11052(d) because the miners working in the development area can reach it within 30 minutes, and compressed airlines and waterlines are installed at that station.
(6) The ERCP is located directly below the 330 level access, and has air and waterlines connected to it. However, the ERCP will not remain in this location permanently. The petitioner will relocate the ERCP in the future as development activities advance. The ERCP is more than a reinforced metal compartment to physically shield miners following an underground emergency—it is a self-contained chamber with own sources for electrical power, breathable air, water, food, and a lavatory. Even without being connected to mine services, the ERCP can provide electrical power and breathable air to occupants for a minimum of 72 hours if the atmosphere outside the ERCP is contaminated. The ERCP is equipped with enough potable water to last three days with up to 12 occupants.
(7) Section 57.11052(d) requires that every refuge area be provided with compressed air lines, waterlines, suitable hand tools, and stopping materials. Based on our research, there is no regulatory or judicial history that explains the purpose behind a requirement for compressed air lines and waterlines. Accordingly, petitioner assumes that these lines are intended to serve the purpose a reasonably prudent person, familiar with the mining industry, would expect—to provide a source of breathable air and potable water to miners inside a refuge area.
As a matter of simple logic, an operator complies with § 57.11052(d) by prepositioning hand tools and stoping materials inside the refuge area for future use. Similarly, if air and water could be prepositioned in a refuge area for future use, the operator would be complying with the standard. Historically, it was difficult to ensure that sufficient breathable air and potable water would be available in a refuge area. Today, the technology behind the ERCP enables the petitioner to provide a sustainable environment for its miners and a viable time window for mine rescue teams to reach the ERCP following an emergency, thereby rendering the requirement for external air waterlines obsolete—particularly when the ERCP is a supplemental device in addition to Kensington's existing permanent refuge stations.
(8) Section 57.11052(d) does not specify a minimum quantity, volume or pressure for air lines and water lines, and the regulation makes no mention of independent power sources or lengths of time the air and waterlines need to be available at the refuge area. The standard simply requires they be provided. The ERCP provides breathable air and potable water. Kensington already complies with the standards requirement. This capability to provide known quantities of air and water internally is a benefit to the ERCP occupants because there is no risk of interrupted air and water access from external damage to the lines, and the known quantities allow mine rescue teams to make informed decisions regarding the length of time that an ERCP can provide a sustainable environment for its occupants.
(9) Installing air lines and water lines each time the ERCP is relocated to remain in proximity to the development face would result in a diminution of safety; however, requested relief provides an equivalent degree of safety to § 57.11051(d).
Kensington's underground operations take place in a dynamic environment, and its exploration and development areas are dominated by self-propelled mobile equipment and blasting activities. At desired development rates, Kensington typically advances its faces
(10) Repeated movement of the ERCP puts miners at risk for several reasons. An ERCP cannot simply be parked on the decline because of its size—it would block access between the development drift face and the escapeways. To allow for the decline to remain clear, a cutout into the rib must be made to park the ERCP, making the relocation more complex.
(11) Damage to the ERCP will put miners at risk as the refuge may not function as intended. Each time the ERCP is relocated, there is a potential that the ERCP will be damaged in some manner. Similarly, if a compressed air line and waterline need to be run and connected to each new location for the ERCP, there is a chance that the lines or the connections will be damaged. Potential damage to the ERCP and the external airline and waterlines increases each time they are moved, disconnected, rerouted, reconnected, and tested. The risk of damaging the lines and connectors is eliminated by relying on the ERCP's self-contained capabilities.
The ERCP can only provide a safety benefit to miners while the device is operational. To the extent an ERCP is unavailable while being relocated, that window of non-availability will increase while the air and water lines are being run, connected and tested for the new location. As such, complying with § 57.11052(d) with respect to the relocating of the ERCP will have a detrimental effect on miner safety.
(12) There are significant costs associated with each movement of an ERCP. The ERCP is roughly 15-feet long, and requires a cutout that is 30-feet deep. The development costs at Kensington are approximately $1,500 per foot, meaning that each 30-foot cutout will cost $45,000 to create. Installing air, water and shotcrete will add to the figure. Moving the unit will take 2 miners approximately 12 hours, at a labor cost of $1,136. In total, the average cost to relocate a portable refuge one time is almost $50,000. To the extent these costs can be controlled by alleviating redundant or unnecessary requirements, Coeur's submits this petition.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will at all times provide the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) issues this Notice describing the process for submission of Letters of Intent to Apply for 2017 funding from the LSC Technology Initiative Grant program. This notice and application information are posted at
LSC will not accept applications submitted after the application deadline unless an extension of the deadline has been approved in advance (see Waiver Authority). Therefore, allow sufficient time for online submission.
LSC will provide confirmation via email upon receipt of the completed electronic submission of each Letter of Intent. Keep this email as verification that the program's LOI was submitted and received. If no confirmation email is received, inquire about the status of your LOI at
Letters of Intent must be submitted electronically at
For information on the status of a current TIG project, contact Eric Mathison, Program Analyst, 202-295-1535;
For questions about projects in CT, IL, IN, ME, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, WI, WV, VT, contact David Bonebrake, Program Counsel, 202-295-1547;
For questions about projects in AK, AZ, CA, CO, GU, HI, ID, IA, KS, MP, MN, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY, contact Glenn Rawdon, Senior Program Counsel, 202.295.1552;
For questions about projects in AL, AR, DC, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, MO, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI, VA, contact Jane Ribadeneyra, Program Analyst, 202.295.1554,
If you have a general question, please email
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) issues this Notice describing the criteria governing submission and processing of Letters of Intent to Apply for Technology Initiative Grants (TIG). Since LSC's TIG program was established in 2000, LSC has made over 670 grants totaling more than $57 million. This grant program funds technology tools that help achieve LSC's goal of increasing the quantity and quality of legal services available to eligible persons. Projects funded under the TIG program develop, test, and replicate innovative technologies that can enable grant recipients and state justice communities to improve low-income persons' access to high-quality legal assistance through an integrated and well managed technology system.
The Legal Services Corporation awards Technology Initiative Grant funds through an open, competitive, and impartial selection process. All prospective applicants for 2017 TIG funds must submit a Letter of Intent to Apply (LOI) prior to submitting a formal application. The format and contents of the LOI should conform to the requirements specified below in Section IV.
Through the LOI process, LSC selects those projects that have a reasonable chance of success in the competitive grant process based on LSC's analysis of the project description and other information provided in the LOI. LSC will solicit full proposals for the selected projects.
Technology Initiative Grant funds are subject to all LSC requirements, including the requirements of the Legal Services Corporation Act (LSC Act), any applicable appropriations acts and any other applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, instructions, and other directives of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), including, but not limited to, the LSC Audit Guide for Recipients and Auditors, the Accounting Guide for LSC Recipients, the CSR Handbook, the 1981 LSC Property Manual (as amended) and the
For additional information and resources regarding TIG compliance, including transfers, subgrants, third-party contracting, conflicts of interest, grant modification procedures, and special TIG grant assurances, see LSC's TIG compliance Web page.
Only current LSC basic field grant recipients awarded at least a one-year basic field grant term are eligible to apply for TIG.
LSC will not award a TIG to any applicant that is not in good standing on any existing TIG projects. Applicants must be up to date according to the milestone schedule on all existing TIG projects prior to submitting an LOI, or have requested and received an adjustment to the original milestone schedule. LSC will not award a TIG to any applicant that has not made satisfactory progress on prior TIGs. LSC recipients that have had a previous TIG terminated for failure to provide timely reports and submissions are not eligible to receive a TIG for three years after their earlier grant was terminated. This policy does not apply to applicants that worked with LSC to end a TIG early after an unsuccessful project implementation resulting from technology limitations, a failed proof of concept, or other reasons outside of the applicant's control.
The amount of TIG funding available will depend on the 2017 fiscal year appropriation to the LSC from Congress, which had not been determined by January 26, 2017, the date this notice was issued. The federal government is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) that expires April 28, 2017. The Continuing Resolution maintains funding at FY 2017 levels, which for TIG is $4 million, but with an across-the-board reduction of 0.19 percent, or $7,600 for TIG. In 2016, 34 TIG projects received funding with a median funding amount of $87,211. (See TIG's past awards Web page for more information on past grants). LSC recommends a minimum amount for TIG funding requests of $40,000, but projects with lower budgets will be considered. There is no maximum amount for TIG funding requests that are within the total appropriation for TIG.
The TIG program encourages applicants to reach out to and include in TIG projects others interested in access to justice—the courts, bar associations, pro bono projects, libraries, and social service agencies. Partnerships can enhance the reach, effectiveness, and sustainability of many projects.
LSC will accept projects in two application categories:
The Innovations and Improvements Category is designated for projects that: (1) Implement new or innovative approaches for using technology in legal services delivery; or (2) enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of existing technologies so that they may be better used to increase the quality and quantity of services to clients.
Although there is no funding limit or matching requirement for applications in this category, additional weight is given to projects with strong support from partners. Proposals for initiatives with broad applicability and/or that would have impact throughout the legal services community are strongly encouraged.
The Replication and Adaptation category is for proposals that seek to replicate, adapt, or provide added value to the work of prior technology projects. This includes, but is not limited to, the implementation and improvement of tested methodologies and technologies from previous TIG projects. Applicants may also replicate technology projects funded outside of the TIG program, including sectors outside the legal aid community, such as social services organizations, the broader non-profit community, and the private sector.
Project proposals in the Replication and Adaptation category may include, but are not limited to:
LSC requires that any original software developed with TIG funding be available to other legal services programs at little or no cost. Applicants should look to previous successful TIG projects and determine how they could be replicated at a reduced cost from the original project, and/or how they could be expanded and/or enhanced. Projects where original software or content has already been created lend themselves to replication, and LSC encourages programs to look to these projects to see how they could benefit the delivery systems in their state.
LawHelp Interactive (LHI) LHI is an automated document server powered by HotDocs Server and made available to any LSC funded program at no charge. LHI is deployed across the country with thousands of active HotDocs templates and A2J Author modules hosted on the LawHelp Interactive National HotDocs Server at
Even if a form differs from one state to another, the information needed to populate a form will, for the most part, be similar. (What are the names of the plaintiff, the defendant, the children, etc.?). This means the interviews are more easily replicated than form templates. All of these form templates and interviews are available to be modified as needed. Applicants should identify which forms and templates are to be adapted, and then estimate the cost to do this and compare that to the cost of developing them from scratch.
LHI has the capacity to support Spanish, Vietnamese, Mandarin and Korean language interviews. In addition, LHI has been integrated with other systems to allow the flow of information between LHI and court e-filing systems and legal aid case management systems. The “Connect” feature enables pro bono programs from across a state to use LHI interviews and forms to assign pre-screened pro bono cases and their documents to panel attorneys. For additional information, including examples, best practices, models and training materials, see the LawHelp Interactive Resource Center at
In addition to replicating other TIG funded technology projects, LSC encourages replication of proven technologies from non-LSC funded legal
Through support from the Ford Foundation, LSC worked closely over the last year with a user-centered research and design agency to assess the quality and usability of statewide legal aid Web sites across the country. By February 8, 2017, LSC will share individual assessment results with each Web site and provide sites and stakeholders access to a toolkit and set of how-to guides for implementing the findings and recommendations from the evaluation.
This area of interest focuses on projects that build on the key insights from the assessment to improve statewide Web site(s). Projects may address enhancements to an individual statewide Web site and/or to one of the national legal aid Web site templates (LawHelp or DLAW-OpenAdvocate). Proposals should demonstrate how the proposed project responds to one or more of the nine focus areas identified through the assessment: 1. Plain Language; 2. Language Access; 3. Content Presentation; 4. Accessibility; 5. User Support; 6. Mobile Friendly; 7. Community Engagement; 8. Ease of Navigation; and 9. Visual Design & Iconography. In addition, proposals should highlight how the project will enhance the quality of user experience on the statewide Web site and how the improvements to the site will be measured. LSC welcomes both new Web site innovations and replications of successful initiatives under this area of interest.
Applicants may submit multiple LOIs, but a separate LOI should be submitted for each project for which funding is sought.
Letters of Intent must be submitted using the online system at
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
LSC will initially review all Letters of Intent to Apply to determine whether they conform to the required format and clearly present all of the required elements listed and described above. Failure to meet these requirements may result in rejection of the Letter of Intent.
LSC will review each Letter of Intent to identify those projects likely to improve access to justice, or to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of legal services provided by grantees. The Letters of Intent will also be reviewed to determine the extent to which the project proposed is clearly described and well thought out, offers major benefits to our targeted client community, is cost-effective, involves all of the parties needed to make it successful and sustainable, and is either innovative or a cost-effective replication of prior successful projects. LSC will invite those applicants that satisfy these criteria to submit full applications.
LSC will notify successful applicants by April 21, 2017. Successful applicants will have until 11:59 p.m. EDT, Monday, June 5, 2017, to complete and submit full applications in the online application system.
LSC, upon its own initiative or when requested, may waive provisions in this Notice at its sole discretion. Waivers may be granted only for requirements that are discretionary and not mandated by statute or regulation. Any request for a waiver must set forth the reason for the request and be included in the application. LSC will not consider a request to extend the deadline for a Letter of Intent to Apply unless the extension request is received by LSC prior to the deadline.
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Public notice.
The U.S. Copyright Office is announcing receipt of eight notices of intent to audit certain statements of account filed by cable operators and satellite carriers pursuant to the section 111 and 119 statutory licenses.
Regan A. Smith, Deputy General Counsel, by email at
Sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Act (“Act”), Title 17 of the United States Code, establish compulsory licenses under which cable operators and satellite carriers may, by complying with the license terms, retransmit copyrighted over-the-air broadcast programming. Among other requirements, cable and satellite licensees must file statements of account and deposit royalty fees with the U.S. Copyright Office (“Office”) on a semi-annual basis.
The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, Public Law 111-175 (2010), amended the Act by directing the Register of Copyrights (“Register”) to issue regulations to allow copyright owners to audit the statements of account and royalty fees that cable operators and satellite carriers file with the Office.
While the Office is supposed to publish a notice in the
On December 31, 2016, the Office received the below notices of intent to audit statements of account. The notices were submitted jointly by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, National Football League, National Basketball Association, Women's National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National Collegiate Athletics Association pursuant to 37 CFR 201.16(c):
1. Notice of intent to audit the statements of account filed by DISH Network, LLC for the accounting periods January 1-June 30, 2013 and July 1-December 31, 2014.
2. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Bright House Networks LLC for the cable system serving Orlando, Florida and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 10444) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2014.
3. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Bright House Networks LLC for the cable system serving Hillsborough, Florida and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 20503) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2014.
4. Notice of intent to audit the statements of account filed by Comcast of Boston, Inc. for the cable system serving Boston, Massachusetts and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 1240) for the accounting periods July 1-December 31, 2014 and January 1-June 30, 2016.
5. Notice of intent to audit the statements of account filed by Time Warner Cable New York City, LLC for the cable system serving the borough of Manhattan in New York, New York and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 7761) for the accounting periods July 1-December 31, 2014 and January 1-June 30, 2016.
6. Notice of intent to audit the statements of account filed by Charter Communications Entertainment 1 LLC for the cable system serving St. Louis, Missouri and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 20437) for the accounting periods July 1-December 31, 2014 and July 1-December 31, 2015.
7. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by MCC Iowa, LLC for the cable system serving Des Moines, Iowa and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 7649) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2014.
8. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Cox Communications Gulf Coast LLC for the cable system serving Pensacola, Florida and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 34160) for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2014.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Thursday, February 23, 2017, 2:15 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Kennedy Space Center, Headquarters Building, Room 2201, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899.
Ms. Carol Hamilton, Executive Director, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1857 or
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will hold its First Quarterly Meeting for 2017. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include:
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. This meeting is also available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number (800) 467-6272; pass code 612448. Attendees will be required to sign a visitor's register and to comply with NASA Kennedy Space Center security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID and a secondary form of ID, before receiving an access badge. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with driver's licenses issued from noncompliant states/territories must present a second form of ID. Noncompliant states/territories are Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, and Washington. All U.S. citizens desiring to attend the ASAP 2017 First Quarterly Meeting at the Kennedy Space Center must provide their full name; date of birth; place of birth; social security number; company affiliation and full address (if applicable); residential address; telephone number; driver's license number; email address; country of citizenship; and naturalization number (if applicable); to the Kennedy Space Center Protective Services Office no later than close of business on February 17, 2017.
All non-U.S. citizens must submit their full name; current address; driver's license number and state (if applicable); citizenship; company affiliation (if applicable) to include address, telephone number, and title; place of birth; date of birth; U.S. visa information to include type, number, and expiration date; U.S. Social Security Number (if applicable); Permanent Resident (green card) number and expiration date (if applicable); place and date of entry into the U.S.; and passport information to include country of issue, number, and expiration date; to the Kennedy Space Center Protective Services Office no later than close of business on February 7, 2017.
If the above information is not received by the dates noted, attendees should expect a minimum delay of two (2) hours. All visitors to this meeting will be required to process in through the Kennedy Space Center Badging Office, Building M6-0224, located just outside of Kennedy Space Center Gate 3, on SR 405, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Please provide the appropriate data required above by email to Tina Delahunty at
At the beginning of the meeting, members of the public may make a verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA, not to exceed five (5) minutes in length. To do so, members of the public must contact Ms. Carol Hamilton at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by March 6, 2017. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
NARA publishes notice in the
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0042, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records relating to marketing in support of recruitment efforts.
2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0048, 9 items, 9 temporary items). Records related to individual and unit mobilization and duty assignments.
3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0051, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to equipment requirements to support named operations.
4. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0052, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records related to ammunition accountability.
5. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0062, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records related to emergency management system calls and responses.
6. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (DAA-0167-2016-0006, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Associates' records to include case files pertaining to guest researchers. Included are applications, travel information, and agreements.
7. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (DAA-0167-2016-0007, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Records of the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, including accreditation records, assessor files, laboratory files, and supporting documents for the accreditation program.
8. Department of Energy, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (DAA-0434-2015-0006, 30 items, 27 temporary items). Mission related records including policies and procedures, staging packages, power plant checks, fleet support, equipment history, project support and associated records. Proposed for permanent retention are records of nationally significant events, significant research, and program planning and execution.
9. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service (DAA-0087-2016-0002, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Master files of a retired electronic information system used to manage internal investigations and security functions. Proposed for permanent retention are master files of an electronic information system used to manage mission-related criminal investigations and protective activities.
10. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (DAA-0399-2015-0001, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Records pertaining to general correspondence. Proposed for permanent retention is correspondence pertaining to senior officials.
11. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service (DAA-0121-2015-0001, 21 items, 14 temporary items). Records relating to durable property, routine building drawings and specifications, routine inspections, reports, studies, and certificates; routine equipment and art inventories; routine property appraisal, planning, and disposal records; construction program records and project files; and facility management, operations, and services, leasing, and building physical security records. Proposed for permanent retention are real property records documenting acquisition, ownership and disposal; significant building drawings and specifications, inspections, reports, studies, and certificates relating to buildings, equipment, and property; significant art inventory records; property disposal case records; significant new building methods and materials records; and buildings program records regarding nationwide agreements with Federal agencies.
12. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (DAA-GRS-2017-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). A General Records Schedule for Federal agency administrative and information technology help desk records.
13. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (DAA-GRS-2017-0002, 2 items, 2 temporary items). A General Records Schedule for public customer service records.
14. Peace Corps, Office of Global Operations (DAA-0490-2017-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of the Office of Staging and Pre-Departure, related to facilitating the orientation and departure of volunteers to overseas posts.
15. Vietnam Education Foundation, Agency-wide (DAA-0508-2017-0001, 17 items, 9 temporary items). Records to include biographies, routine photographs, compliance reports, grant applications, fellowship files, and immigration documents. Proposed for permanent retention are Board of Directors records, official photographs, Executive Director correspondence, publications, news releases, video recordings, and historical documents.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will be submitting the following information
Comments should be received on or before March 6, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing
The collection of information pursuant to Part 1026 is triggered by specific events and disclosures and must be provided to consumers within the time periods established under the regulation. To ease the compliance cost (particularly for small credit unions), model forms and clauses are appended to the regulation.
The collection of information pursuant to Parts 1022 and 717 is triggered by specific events and disclosures and must be provided to consumers within the time periods established under the regulation. To ease the compliance cost (particularly for small credit unions), model clauses and sample forms are appended to the regulations.
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on January 31, 2017.
February 6, 13, 20, 27, March 6, 13, 2017
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 6, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 20, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 6, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 13, 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 301-415-0981 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.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to an August 16, 2016, request from Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon or the licensee), from certain regulatory requirements. The exemption would allow a certified fuel handler (CFH), besides a licensed senior operator, to approve the emergency suspension of security measures for Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 (CPS); Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (QCNPS); and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather.
The exemption was issued on January 23, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0014 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:
•
•
•
John G. Lamb, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3100; email:
Exelon is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for CPS, Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30 for QCNPS, and Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 for OCNGS. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. The CPS, QCNPS, and OCNGS facilities consist of boiling-water reactors located in DeWitt County, Illinois; Rock Island County, Illinois; and Ocean County, New Jersey, respectively, and site-specific licensed independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI) at CPS, QCNPS, and OCNGS.
By letter dated January 7, 2011, the licensee submitted Certification of Permanent Cessation of Operations for OCNGS. In this letter, Exelon provided notification to the NRC of its intent to permanently cease power operation no later than December 31, 2019.
By letter dated June 20, 2016, the licensee submitted Certification of Permanent Cessation of Operations for CPS. In this letter, Exelon provided notification to the NRC of its intent to permanently cease power operation by June 1, 2017.
By letter dated June 20, 2016, the licensee submitted Certification of Permanent Cessation of Operations for QCNPS. In this letter, Exelon provided notification to the NRC of its intent to permanently cease power operation by June 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 September 6, 2016, the NRC approved the Certified Fuel Handler Training and Retraining Program for CPS, QCNPS, and OCNGS.
By letters dated December 14, 2016, Exelon withdrew its “Certification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations” for CPS and QCNPS. The withdrawal letters for CPS and QCNPS did not revise its request for exemption, and did not change the effectiveness of the exemption or the conditions required to implement the actions permitted by the exemption.
On August 16, 2016, 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) require, in part, that the suspension of security measures during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather be approved by a licensed senior operator. Exelon requested an exemption from these rules to allow either a licensed senior operator or a CFH to approve the suspension of security measures. There is no need for an exemption from these rules for a licensed senior operator because the current regulation allows the licensed senior operator to approve the suspension of security measures. The exemption request relates solely to the licensing requirements specified in the regulations for the staff directing suspension of security measures in accordance with § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii), and would allow a CFH, besides a licensed senior operator, to provide this approval. The exemption would allow the suspension of security measures during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather by a licensed senior operator or a CFH.
The current § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) regulations state the licensed senior operator can approve suspension of security measures.
The proposed exemption would authorize that the suspension of security measures must be approved as a minimum by either a licensed senior operator or a certified fuel handler, at a nuclear power plant reactor facility for which the certifications required under § 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted.
The NRC's security rules have long recognized the potential need to suspend security or safeguards measures under certain conditions. Accordingly, 10 CFR 50.54(x) and (y), first published in 1983, allow a licensee to take reasonable steps in an emergency that deviate from license conditions when those steps are “needed to protect the public health and safety” and there are no conforming comparable measures (48 FR 13970; April 1, 1983). As originally issued, the deviation from license conditions must be approved by, as a minimum, 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).
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 steps. Specifically, in addressing the role of the CFH during emergencies, the Commission stated in the proposed rule, “Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors” (60 FR 37379; July 20, 1995):
The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.54(y) to permit a certified fuel handler at nuclear power reactors that have permanently ceased operations and permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel, subject to the requirements of § 50.82(a) and consistent with the proposed definition of “Certified Fuel Handler” specified in § 50.2, to make these evaluations and judgments. A nuclear power reactor that has permanently ceased operations and no longer has fuel in the reactor vessel does not require a licensed individual to monitor core conditions. A certified fuel handler at a permanently shutdown and defueled nuclear power reactor undergoing decommissioning is an individual who has the requisite knowledge and experience to evaluate plant conditions and make these judgments.
In the final rule (61 FR 39298; July 29, 1996), the NRC added the following definition to § 50.2: “
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 the rulemaking, so 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 site that otherwise no longer operates.
However, pursuant to § 73.5, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 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 exemption from § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) would allow a CFH, besides a licensed senior operator, to approve the suspension of security measures, under certain emergency conditions or severe weather. The licensee intends to align these regulations with § 50.54(y) by using the authority of a CFH in place of a licensed senior operator to approve the suspension of security measures during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather.
Per § 73.5, the Commission is allowed to grant exemptions from the regulations in 10 CFR part 73, as authorized by law. The NRC staff has determined that granting of 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, besides a licensed senior operator, to approve suspension of security measures during emergencies or severe weather will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security for the reasons described in this section.
First, § 73.55(p)(2) continues 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
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. 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 September 6, 2016, the NRC approved Exelon's CFH training and retraining program for the CPS, QCNPS, and OCNGS facilities. The NRC staff found that, among other things, the program addresses the safe conduct of decommissioning activities, safe handling and storage of spent fuel, and the appropriate response to plant emergencies. Because the CFH is sufficiently trained and qualified under an NRC-approved program, the NRC staff considers a CFH to have sufficient knowledge of operational and safety concerns, such that allowing a CFH to suspend security measures during emergencies or severe weather will not result in undue risk to public health and safety.
In addition, the exemption does not reduce the overall effectiveness of the physical security plan and has no adverse impacts to Exelon's ability to physically secure the sites or protect special nuclear material at CPS, QCNPS, and OCNGS, and thus would not have an effect on the common defense and security. The NRC staff has concluded that the exemption would not reduce security measures currently in place to protect against radiological sabotage. Therefore, relaxing the requirement to allow a CFH, besides a licensed senior operator, to approve the suspension of security measures in an emergency or during severe weather, does not adversely affect public health and safety issues or the assurance of the common defense and security.
Exelon's proposed exemption would relax the requirement to allow a CFH, besides a licensed senior operator, to approve suspension of security measures 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.” Without the exemption, the licensee cannot implement changes to its security plan to authorize a CFH to approve the temporary suspension of security regulations during an emergency or severe weather, comparable to the authority given to the CFH by the NRC when it published § CFR 50.54(y). Instead, the regulations would continue to require that a licensed senior operator be available to make decisions for a permanently shutdown plant, even though CPS, QCNPS, and OCNGS would no longer require a licensed senior operator after the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii) were submitted. It is unclear how the licensee would implement emergency or severe weather suspensions of security measures without a licensed senior operator. This exemption is in the public interest for two reasons. First, without the exemption, there is uncertainty on how the licensee will invoke temporary suspension of security matters that may be needed for protecting public health and safety or the safety of the security force during emergencies and severe weather. 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. 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. Second, the consistent and efficient regulation of nuclear power plants serves the public interest. This exemption would assure consistency between the security regulations in 10 CFR part 73 and CFR 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 an alternative position, 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 safety of the security force, consistent with the similar authority provided by § 50.54(y). Therefore, the exemption is in the public interest.
The NRC's approval of the exemption to security requirements 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 exemption is categorically excluded from further 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 Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has determined that approval of the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because allowing a CFH, besides a licensed senior operator, to approve the security suspension at a defueled shutdown 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 exempted security regulation 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 exempted regulation is not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulation 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 10 CFR 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 10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii), to authorize that the suspension of security measures must be approved as a minimum by either a licensed senior operator or a certified fuel handler, at a nuclear power plant reactor facility for which the certifications required under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) have been submitted.
The exemption is effective upon receipt.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-1330, “Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors.” This DG is a proposed new regulatory guide (RG) to provide designers, applicants, and licensees of non-light water cooled nuclear reactors (non-LWR) guidance for developing principal design criteria (PDC) for a proposed facility. The PDC establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to safety; that is, structures, systems, and components that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Submit comments by April 4, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
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
Jan Mazza, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-0498, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0016 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0016 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled “Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors,” is a proposed new RG. The proposed new RG is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1330. The proposed new RG describes the NRC's proposed guidance on how the general design criteria (GDC) in Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” of title 10 of the
The advanced reactor design criteria (ARDC) are intended to be technology-neutral and, therefore, could apply to any type of non-LWR design. In July 2013, the NRC and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established a joint initiative to review and address the existing GDC, which may not directly apply to non-LWR power plant designs. During the review it was determined that the safety objective for some of the current GDC were not applicable to SFR and mHTGR technologies, so entirely new design criteria were developed to address their unique design features.
The purpose of DG-1330 is to provide regulatory guidance to assist future applicants in developing PDC for non-LWR designs. The NRC approves the PDC, which form part of the licensing basis for the facility. The DG, if finalized, would not constitute regulatory requirements. For this reason, issuance of DG-1330, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 50.109 (the “Backfit Rule”). Future applicants may choose to follow the guidance or utilize another approach in developing principle design criteria for their facilities. Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions discussed below—were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. Therefore, the positions in any regulatory guide, if imposed on applicants under 10 CFR 50.34(a)(3), 52.47(a)(3), 52.79(a)(4), 52.137(a)(3), or 52.157(a), would not represent backfitting or a violation of issue finality (except as discussed below).
The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever a combined license applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This notice will be published in the
1.
Under Section 1(k) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), unemployment and sickness benefits are not payable for any day remuneration is payable or accrues to the claimant. Also Section 4(a-1) of the RUIA provides that unemployment or sickness benefits are not payable for any day the claimant receives the same benefits under any law other than the RUIA. Under Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) regulation 20 CFR 322.4(a), a claimant's certification or statement on an RRB-provided claim form, that he or she did not work on any day claimed and did not receive income such as vacation pay or pay for time lost, shall constitute sufficient evidence unless there is conflicting evidence. Further, under 20 CFR 322.4(b), when there is a question raised as to whether or not remuneration is payable or has accrued to a claimant with respect to a claimed day(s), an investigation shall be made with a view to obtaining information sufficient for a finding. The RRB utilizes the following three forms to obtain information from railroad employers, nonrailroad employers, and claimants, that is needed to determine whether a claimed day(s) of unemployment or sickness were improperly or fraudulently claimed: Form ID-5i, Request for Employment Information; Form ID-5R (SUP), Report of Employees Paid RUIA Benefits for Every Day in Month Reported as Month of Creditable Service; and Form UI-48, Statement Regarding Benefits Claimed for Days Worked. Completion is voluntary. One response is requested of each respondent.
To qualify for unemployment or sickness benefits payable under Section 2 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), a railroad employee must have certain qualifying earnings in the applicable base year. In addition, to qualify for
During the RUIA claims review process, the RRB may determine that unemployment or sickness benefits cannot be awarded because RRB records show insufficient qualifying service and/or compensation. When this occurs, the RRB allows the claimant the opportunity to provide additional information if they believe that the RRB service and compensation records are incorrect.
Depending on the circumstances, the RRB provides the following forms to obtain information needed to determine if a claimant has sufficient service or compensation to qualify for unemployment or sickness benefits. Form UI-9,
2.
Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) provides for the payment of disability annuities to qualified employees. Section 2 also provides that if the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) receives a report of an annuitant working for a railroad or earning more than prescribed dollar amounts from either nonrailroad employment or self-employment, the annuity is no longer payable, or can be reduced, for the months worked. The regulations related to the nonpayment or reduction of the annuity by reason of work are prescribed in 20 CFR 220.160-164.
Some activities claimed by the applicant as “self-employment” may actually be employment for someone else (
Certain types of work may actually indicate an annuitant's recovery from disability. Regulations related to an annuitant's recovery from disability for work are prescribed in 20 CFR 220.17-220-20.
In addition, the RRB conducts continuing disability reviews (also known as a CDR), to determine whether the annuitant continues to meet the disability requirements of the law. Payment of disability benefits and/or a beneficiary's period of disability will end if medical evidence or other information shows that an annuitant is not disabled under the standards prescribed in Section 2 of the RRA. Continuing disability reviews are generally conducted if one or more of the following conditions are met: (1) The annuitant is scheduled for a routine periodic review, (2) the annuitant returns to work and successfully completes a trial work period, (3) substantial earnings are posted to the annuitant's wage record, or (4) information is received from the annuitant or a reliable source that the annuitant has recovered or returned to work. Provisions relating to when and how often the RRB conducts disability reviews are prescribed in 20 CFR 220.186.
To enhance program integrity activities, the RRB utilizes Form G-252,
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The amendment to the CAT NMS Plan adds MIAX PEARL as a Participant.
MIAX PEARL has executed a copy of the current CAT NMS Plan, amended to include MIAX PEARL in the List of Parties (including the address of MIAX PEARL), paid the applicable Participation Fee and provided each current Plan Participant with a copy of the executed and amended Plan.
The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment 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.
By the Commission.
On December 16, 2016, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) (collectively, the “Exchanges”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule changes and finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the
Currently, the Exchanges are wholly owned subsidiaries of NYSE Group. NYSE Group, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Holdings LLC (“NYSE Holdings”), which is wholly owned by Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ICE Holdings”).
In order to consummate the Acquisition and reflect NYSE Group's proposed ownership of NYSE National, the Exchanges propose to amend certain organizational documents of NYSE Group and its intermediary and ultimate parent entities. In particular, as described below, the Exchanges propose to amend the (1) Sixth Amended and Restated Bylaws of ICE (“ICE Bylaws”), (2) Seventh Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of ICE Holdings (“ICE Holdings COI”), (3) Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of ICE Holdings (“ICE Holdings Bylaws”), (4) Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of ICE (“ICE Independence Policy”), (5) Seventh Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Holdings (“NYSE Holdings LLC Agreement”), (6) Fourth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group (“NYSE Group COI”), and (7) Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Group (“NYSE Group Bylaws”).
The Exchanges represent that the current organizational documents of ICE and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, provide certain protections to the NYSE Exchanges that are designed to protect and facilitate their self-regulatory functions, including certain restrictions on the ability to vote and own shares of ICE.
The ICE Bylaws will be amended to reflect the Acquisition and incorporate NYSE National into the ICE Bylaws' existing (i) voting and ownership restrictions, (ii) provisions relating to the qualifications of directors and officers and their submission to jurisdiction, (iii) compliance with the federal securities laws, (iv) access to books and records, and (v) other matters related to ICE's control of its registered national securities exchanges. Specifically, the ICE Bylaws will be amended as follows:
• Update the heading to reflect that the bylaws will be the seventh amendment and restatement.
• Amend the definition of “U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries” in Article III (Directors), Section 3.15, which currently includes the NYSE, NYSE Market (DE), Inc. (“NYSE Market”), NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSE Regulation”), NYSE Arca, LLC, NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), and NYSE MKT, to include NYSE National, and to delete obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation.
• Article VIII (Confidential Information), Section 8.1, provides that, for so long as ICE controls any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries, all confidential information that shall come into the possession of ICE pertaining to any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries contained in the books and records of any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries shall (x) not be made available to any persons (other than as provided in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 of the ICE Bylaws) other than to those officers, directors, employees and agents of ICE that have a reasonable need to know the contents thereof; (y) be retained in confidence by ICE and the officers, directors, employees and agents of ICE; and (z) not be used for any commercial purposes. Section 8.1 will be amended to include NYSE National and to delete the obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation.
• Article XI (Amendments to the Bylaws), Section 11.3, provides that, for so long as ICE controls any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries, any amendment to or repeal of the ICE Bylaws must either be (i) filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, or (ii) submitted to the boards of directors of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries or the boards of directors of their successors, in each case, only to the extent that such entity continues to be controlled directly or indirectly by ICE. Section 11.3 will be amended to include NYSE National, and to delete the obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation.
The Exchanges also propose to add Article XII (Voting and Ownership Limitations) to the ICE Bylaws. Specifically, proposed Section 12.1(a) of Article XII will provide that, subject to
• In the case of a resolution to approve the exercise of voting rights in excess of 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such matter, neither such Person
• in the case of a resolution to approve entering into an agreement, plan or other arrangement under circumstances that would result in shares of stock of ICE that would be subject to such agreement, plan or other arrangement not being voted on any matter, or the withholding of any proxy relating thereto, where the effect of such agreement, plan or other arrangement would be to enable any person, but for Article V of the certificate of incorporation of ICE, either alone or together with its Related Persons, to vote, possess the right to vote or cause the voting of shares of stock of ICE that would exceed 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such matter (assuming that all shares of stock of ICE that are subject to such agreement, plan or other arrangement are not outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such matter), neither such Person nor any of its Related Persons is, with respect to NYSE National, an ETP Holder.
Proposed Section 12.1(b) will provide that, subject to its fiduciary obligations under applicable law, for so long as ICE directly or indirectly controls NYSE National (or its successor), the board of directors of ICE shall not adopt any resolution pursuant to clause (b) of Section B.2 of Article V of the ICE's certificate of incorporation,
Proposed Section 12.2 will provide that, for so long as ICE shall control, directly or indirectly, NYSE National (or its successor), the ICE board of directors shall not adopt any resolution to repeal or amend any provision of the certificate of incorporation of ICE unless such amendment or repeal shall either be (a) filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder or (b) submitted to the board of directors of NYSE National (or the board of directors of its successor), and if such board of directors determines that such amendment or repeal must be filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder before such amendment or repeal may be effectuated, then such amendment or repeal shall not be effectuated until filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission, as the case may be.
The Commission believes that the proposed changes to the ICE Bylaws are consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. The Commission also believes that the proposed provisions in the ICE Bylaws are reasonably designed to ensure that the Exchanges are able to carry out their self-regulatory obligations under the Exchange Act and thereby should minimize the potential that a person could improperly interfere with or restrict the ability of the Commission or the Exchanges to effectively carry out their respective regulatory oversight responsibilities under the Exchange Act. Furthermore, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to remove the obsolete references and add references to NYSE National in the ICE Bylaws so that the Bylaws will reflect the proposed ownership structure of NYSE National following the closing of the Acquisition.
The ICE Holdings COI will be amended as follows:
• Update the heading and paragraphs (2)-(5) to reflect that the certificate of incorporation will be the eighth amendment and restatement, including replacing an incorrect reference to “Sixth” before “Amended” in paragraph (3). The date of the ICE Holdings COI will also be updated in the preamble.
• Amend subsection A.3(c)(ii) of Article V (Limitations on Voting and Ownership) to define an ETP Holder of NYSE Arca Equities as an “NYSE Arca Equities ETP Holder,” to distinguish between the ETP Holders of NYSE Arca Equities and those of NYSE National. The obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation will be deleted.
• Amend Subsection A.3(c) of Article V to add subsection (v), similar to those in place for the Exchanges, which will provide that, for so long as the ICE Holdings directly or indirectly controls NYSE National (or its successor), no person nor any of its related persons (as those terms are defined therein) is an ETP Holder (as defined in the bylaws of NYSE National, as such bylaws may be in effect from time to time) of NYSE National.
• Amend Subsection A.3(d) of Article V to add “NYSE Arca” before “ETP Holder” in one place to distinguish between the NYSE Arca Equities ETP Holders and those of NYSE National.
• Amend Subsection A.3(d) of Article V to add subsection (v) similar to those in place for the Exchanges. Proposed subsection (v) will incorporate NYSE National into an existing restriction, such that the board of directors of ICE Holdings will not be able to adopt a resolution to approve the exercise of voting rights that would exceed 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such matter, where neither such person nor any of its related persons is, with respect to NYSE National, an NYSE National ETP Holder.
• Amend Subsection B.3(d) of Article V to add “NYSE Arca” before “ETP Holder” to distinguish between the NYSE Arca Equities ETP Holders and those of NYSE National.
• Amend subsection B.3 of Article V to add subsection (g) similar to those in place for the Exchanges, incorporating NYSE National into the restriction on the ICE Holdings board of directors from adopting any resolution pursuant to clause (b) of Section B.2 of Article V of the ICE Holdings COI
• Amend Article X (Amendments) which provides that, for so long as ICE Holdings shall control, directly or indirectly, any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries, before any amendment or repeal of any provision of the ICE Holdings COI shall be effective, the amendment or repeal must be submitted to the boards of directors of NYSE, NYSE Market, NYSE Regulation, NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities, and NYSE MKT (or the boards of directors of their successors), to add the board of directors of NYSE National to the list of those exchanges that would receive any amendment or repeal of any provision of the ICE Holdings COI. The obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation will be deleted.
The Commission believes that the proposed changes to the ICE Holdings COI are consistent with the Exchange Act in that they are reasonably designed to facilitate the Exchanges' ability to fulfill their self-regulatory obligations under the Exchange Act. Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed changes should minimize the potential that a person could improperly interfere with or restrict the ability of the Commission or the Exchanges to effectively carry out their respective regulatory oversight responsibilities under the Exchange Act. Furthermore, the Commission believes it is appropriate to replace outdated or obsolete references in the ICE Holdings COI following the closing of the Acquisition.
The cover page and heading on the first page of the ICE Holdings Bylaws will be amended to reflect that the bylaws will be the fifth amendment and restatement. The effective date on the cover page will also be updated. Additionally, similar to the ICE Bylaws discussed above, the ICE Holdings Bylaws will be amended to include “NYSE National, Inc.” in: (1) The definition of “U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries” in Article III (Directors), Section 3.15;
The Commission believes that these proposed changes are consistent with the Exchange Act in that they are intended to align the Exchanges' upstream ownership governance documents with the proposed ownership structure of NYSE National following the closing of the Acquisition.
The ICE Independence Policy will be amended to add NYSE National to the section describing “Independence Qualifications.” In particular, NYSE National will be added to categories 1.b. and c. that refer to “members,” as defined in Section 3(a)(3)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Exchange Act.
The Commission believes that these changes should reduce confusion caused by obsolete references and align the Exchanges' upstream ownership governance documents with the proposed ownership structure of NYSE National following the closing of the Acquisition.
The Exchanges propose to amend the NYSE Holdings LLC Agreement as follows:
• The heading and preamble will be amended to reflect that the LLC agreement will be the eighth amendment and restatement. The effective date will also be updated. In addition, a new clause will be added in the second full sentence that states the proposed amended NYSE Holdings LLC Agreement amends and restates the Seventh Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of May 22, 2015.
• The current penultimate WHEREAS clause will be amended by adding “in May 2015” before “the Company” and the phrase “now desires to amend and restate” immediately following will be replaced with “amended and restated.” The words “have” and “are” will be changed to the past tense “had” and “were” in the final sentence.
• The following new WHEREAS clause will be added immediately above the current last WHEREAS clause: “WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend and restate the Seventh Amended and Restated Agreement to reflect the acquisition of NYSE National, Inc. by the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Group, Inc.;”.
• The definition of “ETP Holder” in Article I (Interpretation), Section 1.1 will be deleted and new definitions of an “NYSE Arca ETP Holder” and “NYSE National ETP Holder” will be added to the definitions section. The Exchanges will also add a definition for “NYSE National.” The obsolete definition of NYSE Market will be deleted.
• Article IX (Voting and Ownership Limitations), Section 9.1(a)3.C will be amended to add “NYSE Arca” before “ETP Holder” and the defined term “NYSE Arca ETP Holder” to distinguish between the ETP Holders of NYSE Arca Equities and those of NYSE National. An obsolete reference to NYSE Market will be deleted from Section 9.1(a)3.C.
• Clause (v) will be added to Section 9.1(a)3.C. similar to those in place for the Exchanges. Clause (v) will incorporate NYSE National into the existing restriction, such that the NYSE Holdings board of directors will not be able to adopt a resolution pursuant to clause (b) of Section 9.1(a)2 unless the NYSE Holdings board of directors determines that, for so long as NYSE Holdings directly or indirectly controls NYSE National (or its successor), neither such person nor any of its related persons is an ETP Holder (as defined in the bylaws of NYSE National, as such bylaws may be in effect from time to time) of NYSE National (“NYSE National ETP Holder”). The clause will also provide that any such person that is a related person of an ETP Holder shall hereinafter also be deemed to be an “NYSE National ETP Holder” for purposes of the NYSE Holdings LLC Agreement, as the context may require.
• Article IX (Voting and Ownership Limitations), Section 9.1(a)3.D will be amended to add “NYSE Arca” before
• Clause (v) will be added to Section 9.1(a)3.D to incorporate NYSE National into the existing restriction on the NYSE Holdings Board of Directors, such that it will not be able to adopt a resolution to approve the exercise of voting rights that would exceed 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such matter for so long as NYSE Holdings controls NYSE National. The clause will provide that “for so long as the Corporation directly or indirectly controls NYSE National, neither such person nor any of its Related Persons is an NYSE National ETP Holder.”
• Article IX, Section 9.1(b)3 will be amended to add subpart G. to incorporate NYSE National into the existing restriction on the NYSE Holdings Board of Directors, so that it will provide that, subject to its fiduciary obligations under applicable law, for so long as NYSE Holdings directly or indirectly controls NYSE National (or its successor), the board of directors of NYSE Holdings shall not adopt any resolution pursuant to (b) of Section 9.1(b)(2) of the NYSE Holdings LLC Agreement, unless the board of directors of NYSE Holdings shall have determined that neither such person nor any of its related persons is an NYSE National ETP Holder.
The Commission believes that the proposed changes to the NYSE Holdings LLC Agreement are consistent with the Exchange Act in that they are reasonably designed to facilitate the Exchanges'ability to fulfill their self-regulatory obligations under the Exchange Act. Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed changes should minimize the potential that a person could improperly interfere with or restrict the ability of the Commission or the Exchanges to effectively carry out their respective regulatory oversight responsibilities under the Exchange Act. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the replacement of outdated or obsolete references may reduce confusion that could result from having these references in the NYSE Holdings LLC Agreement following the closing of the Acquisition.
The Exchanges propose to amend the NYSE Group COI as follows:
• The heading and recitations will be amended to reflect that the certificate of incorporation will be the fifth amendment and restatement.
• NYSE National will be added to the list of “Regulated Subsidiaries” in Article IV (Stock), Section 4(b)(1), and the obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation will be deleted.
• Section 4(b)(1)(y) of Article IV (Stock) will be amended to define an ETP Holder of NYSE Arca Equities as an “NYSE Arca Equities ETP Holder,” to distinguish between the ETP Holders of NYSE Arca Equities and those of NYSE National, An outdated reference to NYSE Market will be deleted.
• Section 4(b)(1)(y) will also be amended to add a provision similar to those in place for the Exchanges providing that, for so long as NYSE Group directly or indirectly controls NYSE National (or its successor), neither such person nor any of its related persons is an ETP Holder (as defined in the rules of NYSE National, as such rules may be in effect from time to time) of NYSE National (defined as an “NYSE National ETP Holder”) and that any such person that is a related person of an NYSE National ETP Holder shall hereinafter also be deemed to be an “NYSE National ETP Holder” for purposes of the NYSE Group COI, as the context may require.
• Section 4(b)(1)(z) of Article IV will be amended to define an ETP Holder of NYSE Arca Equities as an “NYSE Arca Equities ETP Holder” and delete an outdated reference to NYSE Market. Section 4(b)(1)(z) will also be amended to incorporate NYSE National into the existing restriction on the NYSE Group Board of Directors, such that it will not be able to adopt a resolution to approve the exercise of voting rights that would exceed 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such matter, where neither such person nor any of its related persons is, with respect to NYSE National, an NYSE National ETP Holder.
• Section 4(b)(1)(z)(iv) of Article IV will be amended to add “NYSE Arca” before “ETP Holder” to distinguish between the NYSE Arca Equities ETP Holders and those of NYSE National.
• Subpart (vii) will be added to Section 4(b)(2)(C) of Article IV to incorporate NYSE National into the existing restriction on the NYSE Group Board of Directors, such that it will not be able to adopt a resolution to approve the exercise of voting rights that would exceed 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such matter, where neither such person nor any of its related persons is, with respect to NYSE National, an NYSE National ETP Holder.
• Article X (Confidential Information) will be amended to extend the same protection to confidential information relating to the self-regulatory function of NYSE National or its successor and delete obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation.
Article XII (Amendments to Certificate of Incorporation) provides that, for so long as NYSE Group controls the Regulated Subsidiaries, before any amendment or repeal of any provision of the NYSE Group COI shall be effective, such amendment or repeal shall either (a) be filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder or (b) be submitted to the boards of directors of NYSE, NYSE Market, NYSE Regulation, NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities, and NYSE MKT or the boards of directors of their successors. Article XII will be amended to add NYSE National to subsection (b) and delete obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation.
The Commission believes that the proposed changes to the NYSE Group COI are consistent with the Exchange Act in that they are reasonably designed to facilitate the Exchanges' ability to fulfill their self-regulatory obligations under the Exchange Act. Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed changes should minimize the potential that a person could improperly interfere with or restrict the ability of the Commission or the Exchanges to effectively carry out their respective regulatory oversight responsibilities under the Exchange Act. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the replacement of outdated or obsolete references will reduce confusion that might result from having these references in the NYSE Group COI following the closing of the Acquisition.
The heading of the NYSE Group Bylaws will be amended to reflect that the bylaws will be the third amendment and restatement. Additionally, Article VII (Miscellaneous), Section 7.9(A)(b) will be amended to (1) delete obsolete references to NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation, (2) replace the outdated reference to “NYSE Alternext US LLC” with “NYSE MKT LLC,” and (3) add NYSE National to the list of those exchanges that would receive any
The Commission believes that the proposed changes to the NYSE Group Bylaws are consistent with the Exchange Act in that they are intended to eliminate confusion that may result from having outdated or obsolete references and reflect the proposed new ownership of NYSE National by the NYSE Group.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 900.3NY to eliminate Price Improving Orders and Quotes, amend Rule 961NY to eliminate the electronic and open outcry bidding and offering requirements associated with a Price Improving Order or Quote, and make a conforming change to Rule 935NY, and (2) eliminate Section 910-AEMI of the AEMI Rules, and Sections 910 and 910-AEMI of the NYSE MKT Company Guide. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule 900.3NY to eliminate Price Improving Orders and Quotes, amend Rule 961NY to eliminate the electronic and open outcry bidding and offering requirements associated with a Price Improving Order or Quote, and make a conforming change to Rule 935NY, and (2) eliminate Section 910-AEMI of the AEMI Rules, and Sections 910 and 910-AEMI of the NYSE MKT Company Guide. The Exchange proposes to eliminate these order types in order to streamline its rules and reduce complexity among its order type offerings, and to delete obsolete and outdated rules.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate, and thus delete from its rules, Price Improving Orders and Quotes, as defined in Rule 900.3NY(r).
A Price Improving Order or Price Improving Quote is an order or quote to buy or sell an option at a specified price at an increment smaller than the minimum price variation in the security. Price Improving Orders and Quotes may be entered in increments as small as one cent. Because the Exchange has not implemented this functionality, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to delete the functionality from its rules.
To reflect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete all references to Price Improving Orders and Quotes in Rule 900.3NY(r), and to the electronic and open outcry bidding and offering requirements associated with a Price Improving Order or Quote in the second introductory paragraph of Rule 961NY and in Rules 961NY(a), 961NY(b) and 961NY(c), and to delete in the Commentary to Rule 935NY a reference to Rule 900.3NY(r),
• Delete Rule 900.3NY(r), which defines Price Improving Orders and Quotes;
• delete the second introductory paragraph of Rule 961NY, which describes which options may be
• delete Rule 961NY(a), which describes the electronic submission process in connection with a Price Improving Order or Quote;
• delete Rule 961NY(b), which describes the open outcry submission process in connection with a Price Improving Order or Quote;
• delete Rule 961NY(c), which describes the requirement to electronically “sweep” any penny pricing interest in the Exchange's System;
• delete in the Commentary to Rule 935NY a reference to Rule 900.3NY(r).
The Exchange also proposes to eliminate, and thus delete one section from its rulebook and two sections from the Company Guide, governing the same topic, that are now obsolete and outdated:
• Delete Section 910-AEMI. Amex Company Guide RELATIONSHIP WITH SPECIALIST (§ 910-AEMI) PROCEDURES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, of the AEMI Rules;
• delete Section 910. PROCEDURES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, of the NYSE MKT Company Guide; and
• delete Section 910-AEMI. PROCEDURES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, of the NYSE MKT Company Guide.
The Exchange has identified these obsolete and outdated rules and proposes to delete both the section in the rulebook and the corresponding sections in the Company Guide. These rules relate to trading systems that have been decommissioned by the Exchange and rules governing Specialists' obligations, conduct, and activities, including dealings and communications, which were superseded by later-implemented rules governing the same conduct or circumstances. The Commission has previously approved the Exchange's new Equity Rules that superseded the AEMI rules.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
Specifically, the Exchange believes that eliminating Price Improving Orders and Quotes would remove impediments to and perfect a national market system by simplifying the functionality and complexity of its order types. The Exchange believes that eliminating these order types would be consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from the removal of complex functionality. The Exchange also believes that eliminating Price Improving Orders and Quotes would benefit investors and add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules because the functionality of those order types was not implemented and therefore is not available.
The Exchange further believes that deleting corresponding references in Exchange rules to deleted order types, and the associated bidding and offering process in connection with a deleted order type, also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the Exchange's rulebook and better understand the order types available for trading on the Exchange. Removing obsolete cross references also furthers the goal of transparency and adds clarity to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange further believes that by deleting obsolete and outdated rules, it also promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, helps to protect investors and the public interest by providing transparency as to which rules are operable and reducing potential confusion that may result from having obsolete or outdated rules in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange further believes that the proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rulebook.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but would rather remove complex functionality, references to functionality that is not available, and obsolete and outdated rules, thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and navigate.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
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 December 22, 2016, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
On December 14, 2016, ICE entered into an agreement with the Exchange pursuant to which its wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Group, will acquire all of the outstanding capital stock of the Exchange (the “Acquisition”). As a result of the Acquisition, the Exchange will be renamed NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”) and will be operated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of NYSE Group. NYSE Group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NYSE Holdings, which is in turn 100% owned by ICE Holdings. ICE is a public company listed on the New York Stock Exchange LLC (the “NYSE”), and owns 100% of ICE Holdings.
In connection with the Acquisition, the Exchange proposes to amend its Certificate of Incorporation and Third Amended and Restated Bylaws. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend certain corporate governance documents of NYSE Group, NYSE Holdings, ICE Holdings and ICE,
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
According to the Exchange, the proposed rule change consists of (i) non-substantive changes that will conform terminology of the Exchange to that of the NYSE Exchanges, and (ii) substantive and/or procedural changes that are designed to conform the Exchange's rules and procedures to those of other NYSE Exchanges.
• The proposed rule change would continue the requirement in the Exchange's Bylaws that an independent board committee oversees the adequacy and effectiveness of the performance of the Exchange's self-regulatory responsibilities;
• The Regulatory Oversight Committee would be similar in composition and function to committees of other self-regulatory organizations, and would be similarly designed to (i) ensure the adequacy and effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory responsibilities; and (ii) to assist the Board and any other committees of the Board in reviewing the regulatory plan and the overall effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory functions.
• The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 19(h) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and Cease-and-Desist Order, entered by the Commission on May 19, 2005.
• The changes to the corporate and governance structure will place the Exchange in a better position to improve its technology and engage in value-enhancing transactions that will enable the Exchange to more effectively participate and compete in the marketplace.
• The Exchange's proposed changes to its corporate governance structure are designed to align its structure with that of the NYSE Exchanges to promote a consistent approach to corporate governance, and to simplify and create greater consistency with the organizational documents and governance practices of the NYSE Exchange.
The Exchange has represented to the Commission that it believes that the benefits of aligning its corporate documents to those of other NYSE Exchanges outweigh the costs, if any, to leaving its rules as is and being the sole outlier among the NYSE Exchanges. The Commission also notes that it received no comments on the proposed rule change. Finally, the Commission believes that uniformity of terminology as well as corporate governance structure among the wholly owned subsidiaries of NYSE Group, including the NYSE Exchanges and the Exchange, to the extent possible, should allow for a more streamlined, consistent, and effective approach to both compliance and surveillance in furtherance of the rules of the Exchange and the federal securities laws.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
It is therefore ordered, 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to permit the listing and trading of P.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 Index® options on a pilot basis.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule filing is to permit the listing and trading, on a pilot basis, of NASDAQ-100 Index® (“NASDAQ-100”) options with third-Friday-of-the-month (“Expiration Friday”) expiration dates, whose exercise settlement value will be based on the closing index value, symbol XQC, of the NASDAQ-100 on the expiration day (“P.M.- settled”) for an initial period of twelve months (the “Pilot Program”) from the date of approval of this proposed rule change.
The NASDAQ-100, a modified market capitalization-weighted index, includes 100 of the largest non-financial companies listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market, based on market capitalization. It does not contain securities of financial companies including investment companies. Security types generally eligible for the NASDAQ-100 include common stocks, ordinary shares, American Depository Receipts, and tracking stocks. Security or company types not included in the NASDAQ-100 are closed-end funds, convertible debentures, exchange traded funds, limited liability companies, limited partnership interests, preferred stocks, rights, shares or units of beneficial interest, warrants, units and other derivative securities.
The conditions for listing the proposed contract (“NDXPM”) on Phlx will be similar to those for Full Value Nasdaq 100 Options (“NDX”), which are already listed and trading on Phlx, except that NDXPM will be P.M.-settled.
As with NDX, in determining compliance with Rule 1001A, Position Limits, there will be no position limits for broad-based index option contracts in the NDXPM class.
As with NDX, whenever the Exchange determines that additional margin is warranted in light of the risks associated with an under-hedged NDXPM option position, the Exchange may consider imposing additional margin upon the account maintaining such under-hedged position pursuant to its authority under Exchange Rules 1003(b) (for non-FLEX options) and 1079(d)(2) (for FLEX options). The trading hours for NDXPM will be from 9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Regarding NDXPM FLEX Options, there would be no position limits (as with NDX FLEX Options). As with NDX FLEX Options, each member or member organization (other than a Specialist or Registered Options Trader) that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of 100,000 contracts for NDXPM FLEX Options, for its own account or for the account of a customer, would be required to report information on the FLEX equity option position, positions in any related instrument, the purpose or strategy for the position and the collateral used by the account. The report would be required to be in the form and manner prescribed by the Exchange. Like NDX FLEX Options, there would be no exercise limits for NDXPM FLEX Options (including reduced-value option contracts).
In addition, whenever the Exchange determined that a higher margin requirement was necessary in light of the risks associated with a NDXPM FLEX Option position in excess of the standard limit for NDXPM non-FLEX options of the same class, the Exchange could consider imposing additional margin upon the account maintaining such under-hedged position. Additionally, the clearing firm carrying the account would be subject to capital charges under SEC rule 15c3-1 to the
To explain the basic adoption of NDXPM, the Exchange proposes to add Commentary .05 to Rule 1101A, Terms of Options Contracts. This proposed new Commentary would provide that in addition to A.M.-settled Full Value Nasdaq 100 Options approved for trading on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 1101A Commentary .01, the Exchange may also list options on the NASDAQ-100 Index whose exercise settlement value is the closing value of the NASDAQ-100 Index on the expiration day.
Precedent exists for P.M. settlement of broad-based index options. SPXPM (a P.M. settled index option contract based on the Standard & Poor's 500 index) is traded on the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”). Further, OEX (an index option contract based on the Standard & Poor's 100 index) is also traded on CBOE and has been P.M.-settled since 1983. The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 index options. The Exchange will monitor for any such disruptions or the development of any factors that could cause such disruptions.
The Exchange also notes that P.M.-settled options predominate in the OTC market, and Phlx is not aware of any adverse effects in the stock market attributable to the P.M.-settlement feature. Phlx is merely proposing to offer a P.M.-settled product in an exchange environment which offers the benefit of added transparency, price discovery, and stability. In response to any potential concerns that disruptive trading conduct could occur as a result of the concurrent listing and trading of two index option products based on the same index but for which different settlement methodologies exist (
The adoption of trading of P.M.-settled options on the NASDAQ-100 Index on the same exchange that lists A.M.-settled options on the NASDAQ-100 Index would provide greater spread opportunities. This manner of trading in different products allows a market participant to take advantage of the different expiration times, providing expanded trading opportunities. In the options market currently, market participants regularly trade similar or related products in conjunction with each other, which contributes to overall market liquidity.
The Exchange represents that it has sufficient capacity to handle additional traffic associated with this new listing, and that it has in place adequate surveillance procedures to monitor trading in these options thereby helping to ensure the maintenance of a fair and orderly market.
As proposed, the proposal would become effective on a Pilot Program basis for period of twelve months. If the Exchange were to propose an extension of the program or should the Exchange propose to make the program permanent, then the Exchange would submit a filing proposing such amendments to the program. The Exchange notes that any positions established under the pilot would not be impacted by the expiration of the pilot. For example, a position in a P.M.-settled series that expires beyond the conclusion of the pilot period could be established during the 12-month pilot. If the Pilot Program were not extended, then the position could continue to exist. However, the Exchange notes that any further trading in the series would be restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.
The Exchange proposes to submit a Pilot Program report to Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program (the “annual report”). The annual report would contain an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. The analysis would examine trading in the proposed option product as well as trading in the securities that comprise the NASDAQ-100 index. In addition, for series that exceed certain minimum open interest parameters, the annual report would provide analysis of index price volatility and share trading activity. In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the Commission with periodic interim reports while the pilot is in effect that would contain some, but not all, of the information contained in the annual report. The annual report would be provided to the Commission on a confidential basis. The annual report would contain the following volume and open interest data:
(1) Monthly volume aggregated for all trades;
(2) monthly volume aggregated by expiration date;
(3) monthly volume for each individual series;
(4) month-end open interest aggregated for all series;
(5) month-end open interest for all series aggregated by expiration date; and
(6) month-end open interest for each individual series.
In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the Commission with interim reports of the information listed in Items (1) through (6) above periodically as required by the Commission while the pilot is in effect. These interim reports would also be provided on a confidential basis. The annual report would also contain the information noted in Items (1) through (6) above for Expiration Friday, A.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 index options traded on Phlx.
In addition, the annual report would contain the following analysis of trading patterns in Expiration Friday, P.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 index option series in the pilot: (1) A time series analysis of open interest; and (2) an analysis of the distribution of trade sizes. Also, for series that exceed certain minimum parameters, the annual report would contain the following analysis related to index price changes and underlying share trading volume at the close on Expiration Fridays: A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given Expiration Friday with comparable price changes from a control sample. The data would include a calculation of percentage price changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the respective control sample. The Exchange would provide a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be attributable to expiring in-the-money series. The data would include a comparison of the calculated share volume for securities in the sample set to the average daily trading volumes of those securities over a sample period. The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time intervals, method for randomly selecting the component securities, and sample periods would be determined by the Exchange and the Commission.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
The Commission has previously stated that when cash-settled index options were first introduced in the 1980s, they generally utilized closing-price settlement procedures (
However, the Exchange believes that the above concerns that have led to the transition to a.m. settlement for index derivatives have been largely mitigated. It believes that expiration pressure in the underlying cash markets at the close has been greatly reduced with the advent of multiple primary listing and unlisted trading privilege markets, and that trading is now widely dispersed among many market centers. Additionally, the Exchange notes that opening procedures in the 1990s were deemed acceptable to mitigate one-sided order flow driven by index option expiration and that Nasdaq uses an automated closing cross procedure and has a closing order type that facilitates orderly closings. The Nasdaq closing procedures are well-equipped to mitigate imbalance pressure at the close. In addition, after-hours trading now provides market participants with an alternative to help offset market-on-close imbalances.
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. NDXPM options would be available for trading to all market participants. The proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of a novel option product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The listing of NDXPM will enhance competition by providing investors with an additional investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading environment, through which investors can gain and hedge exposure to NASDAQ-100 stocks. Further, this product could offer a competitive alternative to other existing investment products that seek to allow investors to gain broad market exposure. Also, the Exchange notes that it is possible for other exchanges to develop or license the use of a new or different index to compete with the NASDAQ-100 and seek Commission approval to list and trade options on such an index.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
In notice document 2017-01461, appearing on pages 8249-8252, in the issue of Tuesday, January 24, 2017, make the following correction:
On page 8249, in the second column, the heading is corrected to read as set forth above.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The OLPP establishes procedures designed to facilitate the listing and trading of standardized options contracts on the options exchanges. The amendment to the OLPP adds MIAX PEARL as a Sponsor. The other OLPP Sponsors are Amex, BATS, BOX, BX, CBOE, C2, EDGX, ISE, ISE Mercury, MIAX, Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, OCC, Phlx, and Topaz. MIAX PEARL has submitted an executed copy of the OLPP to the Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in the OLPP regarding new Sponsors. Section 7 of the OLPP provides for the entry of new Sponsors to the OLPP. Specifically, Section 7 of the OLPP provides that an Eligible Exchange
Section 7(ii) of the OLPP sets forth the process by which an Eligible Exchange may effect an amendment to the OLPP. Specifically, an Eligible Exchange must: (a) Execute a copy of the OLPP with the only change being the addition of the new Sponsor's name in Section 8 of the OLPP;
The foregoing OLPP amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Plan requires the options exchanges to establish a framework for providing order protection and addressing locked and crossed markets in eligible options classes. The amendment to the Plan adds MIAX PEARL as a Participant. The other Plan Participants are BATS, BOX, BX, C2, CBOE, EDGX, ISE, ISE Gemini, ISE Mercury, MIAX, Nasdaq, Phlx, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca. MIAX PEARL has submitted an executed copy of the Plan to the Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Plan regarding new Participants. Section 3(c) of the Plan provides for the entry of new Participants to the Plan. Specifically, Section 3(c) of the Plan provides that an Eligible Exchange
Section 4(b) of the Plan sets forth the process by which an Eligible Exchange may effect an amendment to the Plan. Specifically, an Eligible Exchange must: (a) Execute a copy of the Plan with the only change being the addition of the new Participant's name in Section 3(a) of the Plan; and (b) submit the executed Plan to the Commission. The Plan then
The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7150 (The Price Improvement Period (“PIP”)). 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 self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 7150 (The Price Improvement Period (“PIP”)) to provide that if at the start of the auction the quoted NBBO spread is less than or equal to a $0.01, only PIP Orders for less than 50 contracts will be rejected.
The Exchange recently filed to amend the BOX Rules to make permanent the pilot programs that permit the Exchange to have no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the PIP (“PIP Pilot Program”) and COPIP (“COPIP Pilot Program”), collectively known as the (“Programs”).
The Exchange now proposes to modify the requirements of the PIP to specify where the NBBO spread is less than or equal to $0.01; only PIP Orders for less than 50 contracts will be rejected. This is a competitive filing based on the price improvement auction proposed rules of the Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX”).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change will allow PIP auctions of 50 or more contracts to continue without restriction on NBBO spread. The Exchange believes this removes impediments to and better provides for a free and open market. As such, BOX believes the proposed rule change is in the public interest, and therefore, consistent with the Act. The Exchange also notes that the proposal would provide increased opportunities for increased price improvements for these types of orders which will benefit market participants engaging in the PIP auctions.
Additionally, as set forth above, the Exchange believes this proposed change is reasonable and appropriate as it is based on the rules of another exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal is pro-competitive because it will enable the Exchange to better compete with another options exchange that allows PIP Orders of more than 50 contracts to trade when the NBBO spread is $0.01 or less.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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 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.
On November 17, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Currently, there are two trading platforms operating on CBOE's trade engine, CBOE Command: (i) Hybrid; and (ii) the Hybrid 3.0 Platform.
Currently, when CBOE receives a complex order consisting of both SPX and SPXW options series (an “SPX/SPXW order”) during regular trading hours, the order is routed to a PAR workstation pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.12(a)(1) to provide an opportunity for the order to trade in open outcry.
CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .10 provides rules governing the execution of complex orders in Hybrid 3.0 classes trading on the Hybrid 3.0 Platform. CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .10 to provide that if CBOE authorizes a group of series of a Hybrid 3.0 class for trading on Hybrid pursuant to CBOE Rule 8.14, Interpretation and Policy .01, CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .10 will apply to a complex order with at least one leg in a series from the group authorized for trading on the Hybrid 3.0 Platform, including if the order has another leg(s)
CBOE states that SPX/SPXW orders will trade using a price-time matching algorithm.
• SPX/SPXW orders with more than four legs will be routed for manual handling, consistent with the manner in which CBOE handles SPX complex orders.
• SPX/SPXW orders for the accounts of non-customers
• SPX/SPXW orders for the accounts of customers and non-customers will be permitted to participate in the COB opening process and trade against SPX/SPXW orders resting in the COB, consistent with the manner in which CBOE handles SPX complex orders.
• As discussed above, marketable SPX/SPXW orders will not be eligible to automatically execute against individual orders residing in the EBook for the legs of the order.
• Marketable SPX/SPXW orders will be eligible to automatically execute against other SPX/SPXW orders resting in the COB, provided the execution is at a net price that has priority over the individual orders and quotes residing in the EBook, consistent with the manner in which CBOE handles SPX complex orders.
• Marketable SPX/SPXW orders will not be eligible to automatically execute against individual Market-Maker quotes resting in the EBook for the legs, consistent with the manner in which CBOE handles SPX complex orders.
• SPX/SPXW orders resting in the COB that become marketable against Market-Maker quotes in the individual legs will be subject to a complex order auction (“COA”),
• Pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .10(e), CBOE will submit incoming customer SPX/SPXW orders to a COA if they are COA-eligible.
During extended trading hours, SPX/SPXW orders for the accounts of customers and non-customers will be allowed to rest in the COB.
As with all products that trade during both regular trading hours and extended trading hours, no SPX/SPXW order on the COB at the end of regular trading hours will interact with or be transferred to the COB for extended trading hours, nor will an SPX/SPXW order on the COB at the end of extended trading hours interact with or be transferred to the COB.
CBOE will announce the implementation date of the proposal,
After careful review of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Currently, complex orders consisting of one or more series that trade on Hybrid and one or more series that trade on the Hybrid 3.0 Platform must be executed in open outcry because CBOE's system cannot accept complex orders consisting of series that trade on different trading platforms.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 to 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.
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 notice of the amended proposal in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”). The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the sub-advisers.
Destra Investment Trust, Destra Investment Trust II, and Destra Exchange-Traded Fund Trust (each, a “Trust”), Massachusetts business trusts registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series,
The application was filed on March 18, 2016, and amended on July 18, 2016.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 24, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Jessica Shin, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-5921, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to each Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the applicable Trust (the “Advisory Agreement”).
2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to hire certain Sub-Advisers pursuant to Sub-Advisory Agreements and materially amend existing Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards, appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series' shareholders and notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard because, as further explained in the application, the Advisory Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval, while the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially similar to that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Subadvised Series. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-Advisers that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Series.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Itawamba Mississippian Railroad, LLC (IMR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from the Itawamba County Railroad Authority (ICRA), a noncarrier and political subdivision of the State of Mississippi, and to operate, a 25-mile rail line, known as the Mississippian Railway, between milepost 0.0 in Amory, Miss., and milepost 25.0 in Fulton, Miss. (the Line).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
IMR certifies that the projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in IMR's becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. IMR certifies also that the lease between IMA and ICRA does not involve any provision or agreement that would limit future interchange of traffic with a third-party connecting carrier.
The proposed transaction may be consummated on or after February 18, 2017, the effective date of this exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed by February 10, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36094, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Rodney M. Love, Mississippi Department of Transportation, 401 North West Street, Suite 9500, Jackson, MS 39201.
According to IMR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental reporting under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Itawamba County Railroad Authority (ICRA), a noncarrier and political subdivision of the State of Mississippi, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from the Itawamba County Port Commission (ICPC) a 25-mile rail line, known as the Mississippian Railway, between milepost 0.0 in Amory, Miss., and milepost 25.0 in Fulton, Miss. (the Line).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
According to ICRA, an agreement has been reached to transfer ownership of the Line and related assets from ICPC to ICRA, and ICRA has reached an agreement with IMR to lease and operate the Line.
ICRA certifies that the projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in ICRA's becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. ICRA certifies also that the proposed transaction does not involve any provision or agreement between ICRA and ICPC that would limit future interchange of traffic with a third-party connecting carrier.
The proposed transaction may be consummated on or after February 18, 2017, the effective date of this exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed). If the verified notice contains false or misleading
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36093, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Rodney M. Love, Mississippi Department of Transportation, 401 North West Street, Suite 9500, Jackson, MS 39201.
According to ICRA, this action is categorically excluded from environmental reporting under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of operation exemption.
By decision served on January 31, 2017, the Board granted an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 for Jersey Marine Rail, LLC (JMR) to operate as a Class III rail carrier over approximately 5,000 feet of track within the City of Linden, N.J. JMR states that it intends to rehabilitate and restore rail service over the tracks, which include a three-track holding yard and three former industrial spur tracks. JMR states that all six tracks were previously served by a common carrier and have been out of service for up to 30 years. According to JMR, it leases the existing tracks and land upon which it proposes to restore service and operate for a term, with extensions, totaling 50 years. This transaction is exempt from environmental reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) because the operational changes would not exceed any of the thresholds established in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(4) or (5).
The exemption will be effective on February 15, 2017; petitions to stay the exemption must be filed by February 7, 2017; and petitions for reconsideration of the exemption must be filed by February 9, 2017.
An original and ten copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36063, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each filing in this proceeding must be served on JMR's representative: John F. McHugh, Attorney at Law, 233 Broadway, Suite 2320, New York, NY 10279.
Jonathon P. Binet, (202) 245-0368. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 1-800-877-8339].
Copies of written filings will be available for viewing and self-copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131, and will be posted to the Board's Web site.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing; correction.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published a document in the
Christine Peterson, Director for Innovation and Intellectual Property, Office of the United States Trade Representative, at
In the
The corrected schedule and deadlines for the 2017 Special 301 public hearing are as follows:
In the
The Special 301 Subcommittee will hold a public hearing on March 8, 2017, at the Office of the United State Trade Representative, 1724 F Street NW., Rooms 1&2, Washington, DC 20508, at which interested persons, including representatives of foreign governments, may appear to provide oral testimony. If necessary, the hearing may continue on the next business day. The hearing will be open to the public. Because the hearing will take place in Federal facilities, security screening will be required. Attendees will need to show photo identification and be screened for security purposes. Please consult
Prepared oral testimony before the Special 301 Subcommittee must be delivered in person, in English, and will be limited to five minutes. Subcommittee member agencies may ask questions following the prepared statement. Persons, except representatives of foreign governments, wishing to testify at the hearing must submit a “Notice of Intent to Testify” and “Hearing Statement” by the February 9, 2017, deadline to
All representatives of foreign governments that wish to testify at the hearing must submit a “Notice of Intent to Testify” by the February 23, 2017, deadline to
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a revision to this information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Currently, the OCC is finalizing a revision to a regulatory reporting requirement for national banks and federal savings associations titled, “Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by March 6, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0319, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0319, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the OCC's Web site under News and Issuances (
The OCC is requesting comment on the following revision to an approved information collection:
In 2012, the OCC first implemented the reporting templates referenced in the final rule.
The OCC intends to use the data collected to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered institutions and to provide forward-looking information to the OCC regarding a covered institution's capital adequacy. The OCC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered institution. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered institution's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.
The OCC recognizes that many covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit similar reports to the Board using reporting form FR Y-14A.
The OCC also recognizes that the Board has proposed an amendment to its Capital Plan and Stress Testing rule and that the Board's proposed amendment includes modified reporting requirements for bank holding companies (BHCs) categorized by the Board as large and noncomplex firms.
In addition to the changes that parallel the Board's changes to the FR Y-14A, the OCC is also implementing a new supplemental schedule to collect certain items not included in the Board's FR Y-14A. It is anticipated that this data will help the OCC better understand and monitor salient risks at covered institutions.
The revisions to the DFAST-14A reporting templates consist of the following:
• Adding line items to the Regulatory Capital Instruments Schedule.
• Updating the Summary Schedule to collect items related to the supplementary leverage ratio.
• Removing sub-schedules of the Operational Risk Schedule for all covered institutions and adding sub-schedules to the Operational Risk Schedule for a subset of covered institutions.
• Creating a new supplemental schedule to collect certain items not included in the Board's FR Y-14A.
• Requiring a bank-specific scenario. Covered institutions would be required to submit bank-specific baseline and stress scenarios.
• Requiring the assumption of largest counterparty default. The largest trading covered institutions that also submit the Global Market Shock scenario would be required to assume the default of their largest counterparty in the supervisory severely adverse and adverse scenarios.
Covered institutions will be required to submit bank-specific baseline and bank-specific stress scenarios and associated projections for the 2017 annual stress testing submission. While supervisory scenarios provide a homogeneous scenario and a consistent market-wide view of the condition of the banking sector, these prescribed scenarios may not fully capture all of the risks that may be associated with a particular institution. The revisions require covered institutions to provide bank-specific baseline and bank-specific stress scenarios.
The OCC recognizes that the Board requires BHCs to submit BHC-specific baseline and stress scenarios and projections. Where OCC covered institutions also submit BHC-specific scenarios, bank-specific scenarios must be consistent with the BHC-specific scenarios.
One commenter objected to the submission of bank-specific scenarios. The commenter argued that the submission of a bank-specific scenario would be duplicative with the submission of a BHC-specific scenario if a covered institution subsidiary constitutes nearly all of the BHC's assets. The commenter also argued that, if a covered institution represents a smaller fraction of a BHC's assets, then it is inappropriate for the bank-specific scenario to be consistent with the BHC-specific scenario. The commenter further asked whether the OCC and the Board would draw the same conclusions on the adequacy of the BHC-specific versus bank-specific scenarios.
While the bank-specific scenario results may be broadly similar to the BHC-specific scenario results, especially for holding companies where the covered institution includes an overwhelming majority of the holding company's total assets and exposures, the holding company's nonbank assets may contain risks that are materially different from the rest of the holding company's exposures. Applying the bank-specific scenario against the covered institution's exposures ensures that supervisory analysis is conducted on the covered institution's reported numbers, rather than OCC estimates interpolated from results at the holding-company level. Furthermore, the holding company and the subsidiary national bank or federal savings association may implement different capital actions which may result in different capital outcomes between the BHC and bank-specific scenarios. Therefore, the bank-specific scenario may potentially result in a different assessment from the BHC-specific scenario.
Covered institutions that complete the Global Market Shock are also required to complete the Largest Counterparty Default component. The completion of the Largest Counterparty Default component is currently required by the Board, and the OCC is adopting a similar requirement to enhance consistency and comparability of BHC and bank results.
The revisions include a new supplemental schedule that collects additional information not included in the FR Y-14A. This schedule collects additional data on auto lending, commercial exposures, and non-U.S. exposures. The schedule also collects information relevant to the calculation of the Supplementary Leverage Ratio.
One commenter indicated that covered institutions may have the data required for the Supplemental Schedule but that this data may not be segmented in the manner used by the Supplemental Schedule. Another commenter noted that covered institutions do not have systems in place to report the level of granularity required in the schedule, as much of the additional information would require substantial systems revisions and information technology changes. The OCC understands that existing data systems and processes may not be currently designed to align with the specific loan types, product types, and other classifications delineated on the OCC Supplemental Schedule. As indicated in the OCC's proposal, covered institutions should not develop new models or methodologies to provide the loss, balance, provision, and allowance numbers requested in the OCC Supplemental Schedule. Instead, institutions should use existing models and methodologies to furnish the requested information. The OCC expects covered institutions to use reasonable efforts to supply the data requested by the Supplemental Schedule. Also, most items in the OCC Supplemental Schedule include materiality thresholds to ensure that only sizeable portfolios and exposures, as measured in terms of total assets and as a percentage of tier 1 capital, are reported.
One commenter noted that the additional information to be collected in the OCC Supplemental Schedule is already received by the OCC from other sources. Certain line items requested in the OCC Supplemental Schedule are contained in the Call Report; however, the Call Report collects historical information, whereas the OCC Supplemental Schedule collects forward-looking projections. Existing sources of information do not contain the forward-looking projections which are essential to evaluating impact on capital adequacy in adverse and severely adverse macroeconomic conditions.
One commenter suggested that covered institutions will need clear instructions about what each line in the Supplemental Schedule requires. Another commenter requested that the Supplemental Schedule be dropped in its entirety from the final template. Another commenter provided detailed feedback on the proposed line items. This commenter recommended that (a) owner-occupied commercial real estate (CRE) loans be reclassified as commercial and industrial (C&I) loans, especially since the Board classifies these loans as C&I in the FR Y-14Q Schedule; (b) line items relating to portfolio vacancy rates and weighted-average loan to value (LTV) be removed from the schedule; (c) more guidance be provided on calculating counterparty funding value adjustment (FVA) losses; (d) institutions not be required to submit historical data for line items relating to C&I exposures; (e) the OCC provide analysis of the purported benefits of the additional information to be provided in the Supplemental Schedule; and (f) institutions whose internal modeling practices do not align to the regulatory definition with respect to the additional granularity in the OCC Supplemental Schedule be permitted to use a pro-rata allocation approach or to note “N/A” as applicable.
For certain line items, the OCC has provided North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code industry mappings to indicate which obligor-types must be included. Additionally, in the final instructions, the OCC has provided additional clarity on which obligors must be included for non-U.S. exposures. Line items pertaining to leverage exposure for the Supplementary Leverage Ratio are defined in the same way as analogous line items contained in the DFAST-14A Regulatory Capital Transitions Schedule. In regards to (a), we have re-categorized these line items as C&I loans rather than CRE loans. For (b), we have removed line items for portfolio vacancy rates and weighted-average committed LTV throughout the schedule. For (c), only those institutions that fill out the trading worksheet are responsible for completing this line item. Institutions that do not consider counterparty FVA losses within their counterparty credit modeling should not complete this item. Institutions that are currently calculating counterparty FVA losses should use existing calculations to fill out this item and provide information on how this item was calculated in the bank's supporting documentation. For (d), as the Supplemental Schedule only collects information on the current quarter and projected quarters, historical balances and/or losses need not be submitted. For (e) and (f), the OCC considers those items included in the OCC Supplemental Schedule as material risks which are necessary for monitoring and assessing a covered institution's capital adequacy and capital planning process. Covered institutions that cannot use existing models and methodologies to furnish requested information on the OCC Supplemental Schedule may use allocations, expert judgment, or other methods for projections of balances, losses, and allowances if data is not available at the requested level of granularity. Covered institutions should supply appropriate documentation explaining their approach. Institutions should not supply “N/A” for any fields in the Supplemental Schedule. If the covered institution does not meet the materiality threshold for a given item, the institution should leave this item blank.
One commenter requested a delay of at least one year before requiring submission of the Supplemental Schedule. According to the commenter, submissions of this data would require changes in internal processes. Another commenter requested a delay of unspecified length for the same reasons. As mentioned, covered institutions are expected to use existing models and methodologies and to undertake reasonable effort to furnish requested information. It is not the OCC's intent to cause institutions to redesign existing processes to complete the Supplemental Schedule. The OCC considers those items included in the OCC
Effective for DFAST 2017, covered institutions that are subsidiaries of large, non-complex firms, as defined by the Board, are not required to report the following sub-schedules of the Summary Schedule: Securities OTTI methodology sub-schedule, Securities Market Value source sub-schedule, Securities OTTI by security sub-schedule, Retail repurchase sub-schedule, Trading sub-schedule, Counterparty sub-schedule, and Advanced RWA sub-schedule.
The other revisions to the DFAST-14A consist of clarifying instructions, adding and removing schedules, adding, deleting, and modifying existing data items, and altering the as-of dates. These changes increase consistency between the DFAST-14A and the FR Y-14A and the Call Report.
The revision includes multiple line item changes intended to promote consistency with the FR Y-14A and ensure the collection of accurate information.
Covered institutions are required to estimate their Supplementary Leverage Ratio for the planning horizon beginning on January 1, 2018. The OCC is adding two items to the Summary Schedule: Supplementary Leverage Ratio Exposure (SLR Exposure) and Supplementary Leverage Ratio (the SLR). The SLR is a derived field.
In addition, to collect more precise information regarding deferred tax assets (DTAs), the OCC is modifying one existing item on the Capital—DFAST worksheet of the Summary Schedule. The OCC is changing existing item 112 on the Capital—DFAST worksheet of the Summary Schedule, “Deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, net of deferred tax liabilities (DTLs), but before related valuation allowances,” to “Deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences, net of DTLs.” A covered institution in a net DTL position must report this item as a negative number. This modification provides more specific information about the components of the “DTAs arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, net of related valuation allowances and net of DTLs” subject to the common equity tier 1 capital deduction threshold.
The revisions also remove certain items that pertained to the capital regulations in place before the adoption of the Basel III final rule.
The OCC is adding the item “Other counterparty losses” to the counterparty worksheet of the Summary Schedule.
One commenter noted that the ASC 310-30 Schedule had been omitted from the templates but had not been discussed in the PRA notice. This sub-schedule has been removed, effective for the DFAST 2017 submission. This change had already been finalized in the OCC's 2016 Final PRA notice.
The revisions remove and add sub-schedules to the Operational Risk Schedule to ensure the collection of accurate information. The OCC is adding two sub-schedules and modifying the supporting documentation requirements for this schedule. First, the new Material Risk Identification sub-schedule collects information on a covered institution's material operational risks included in loss projections based on their risk management framework. Second, the new Operational Risk Scenarios sub-schedule collects a covered institution's operational risk scenarios included in the BHC Baseline and BHC Stress projections, a fundamental element of the framework.
One commenter argued that the OCC should remove the operational risk component from the stress testing reporting forms. However, operational risk is a key element of the stress testing framework. Operational risk losses can significantly influence a covered institution's capital and earnings projections and thus comprises an integral part of stress testing.
The adverse and severely adverse scenarios do not prescribe specific operational risk events that covered institutions must consider. Rather, institutions are instructed to identify their own idiosyncratic operational risk exposures as part of the material risk identification and scenario design process.
The OCC proposed to eliminate the Operational Risk Historical Capital subsection and is adopting this proposal as final. In addition, in order to align with the Board's Y-14A reporting requirements, the OCC will only require the Material Risk Identification and Operational Risk Scenarios worksheets for a subset of covered institutions.
One commenter recommended that the OCC revise its instructions to exclude operational losses from idiosyncratic or low-probability events. However, each covered institution is responsible for assessing the reasonableness of its operational risk loss projections. The decision of which operational risk events to include or omit is a key part of each covered institution's risk identification and scenario design process, and institutions use a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches, as appropriate, to determine an estimate of operational risk losses. Prohibiting covered institutions from overlaying certain operational risk losses would represent a constraint to the covered institution's risk identification and would prevent the institution from considering its full range of potential operational risk outcomes.
One commenter recommended that the OCC remove the Material Risk Identification worksheet and the Operational Risk Scenarios worksheet from the Operational Risk Schedule. In response to this comment and in order to align with the Board's Y-14A reporting requirements, the OCC will only require the Material Risk Identification and Operational Risk Scenarios worksheet for a subset of covered institutions. Specifically, institutions that are subsidiaries of large, non-complex firms, as defined by the Board, are not required to provide the Material Risk Identification and Operational Risk Scenarios sub-schedules.
Although operational risk is evaluated as part of the OCC ongoing supervision, forecasted operational risk losses can significantly influence a covered institution's capital and earnings projections. Operational risk event types and loss projections may vary considerably from firm to firm, but results will provide significant insights on a covered institution's operational risk exposures and potential effect on capital and earnings estimates. Moreover, within each institution, year-over-year comparisons of operational risk estimates may indicate changes in
One commenter requested (a) a minimum of six months between the publication of final changes to the reporting templates and the effective date of the changes; (b) the effective date for changes be aligned with the release of the technical instructions related to the changes; (c) clarifying questions be addressed before the effective date of a change; and (d) the technical instructions accompanying any proposed changes in the reporting templates be subject to public notice and comment. The OCC recognizes the challenges with implementing changes in a timely and controlled manner, especially when the changes are finalized close to the effective date. The OCC continues to balance the need to collect additional information with the objective of providing as much time as is feasible in advance of implementation.
In regards to the proposed changes contained in this notice, the OCC notes that the changes related to collecting components of the Supplementary Leverage Ratio on the Capital worksheet of the Summary Schedule allow for the incorporation of key measures of regulatory capital adequacy into the stress test. In the Operational Risk Schedule, the Material Risk Identification and Operational Risk Scenarios sub-schedules, which are not required for firms deemed “Large and Non-Complex,” are often provided as part of the DFAST review in response to follow-up supervisory requests, so filling out these worksheets would simply formalize an existing process. Other changes are clarifying in nature: Streamlining the instructions, removing information, or aligning with the Board's FR Y-14A data collection. The OCC will continue to publish technical instructions as early as feasible.
The OCC believes that the systems covered institutions use to prepare the FR Y-14 reporting templates to submit to the Board will also be used to prepare the reporting templates described in this notice. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Treasury.
Notice.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, notice is hereby given of the agreement between the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concerning the conduct of TIGTA's computer matching program.
Comments or inquires may be mailed to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Attn: Office of Chief Counsel, 1401 H St. NW., Suite 469, Washington, DC 20005, or via electronic mail to
Office of Chief Counsel, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, (202) 622-4068.
TIGTA's computer matching program assists in the detection and deterrence of fraud, waste, and abuse in the programs and operations of the IRS and related entities as well as protects against attempts to corrupt or interfere with tax administration. TIGTA's computer matching program is also designed to proactively detect and to deter criminal and administrative misconduct by IRS employees. Computer matching is the most feasible method of performing comprehensive analysis of data.
Notice
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for February 15, 2017.
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
Betty Birdsong, Acting United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6525.
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
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 March 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor,
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, that the National Research Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 2017, in Conference Room 730, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. This meeting is open to the public.
The agenda will include introduction to the new Chief of Research & Development Officer, annual Ethics training, new initiatives, Research priorities and Service updates.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Members of the public wanting to attend may contact Ms. Melissa Cooper, Designated Federal Officer, ORD (10P9), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20420, at (202) 461-6044, or by email at
Federal Communications Commission.
Review of regulations; comments requested.
This document invites members of the public to comment on the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC's or Commission's) rules to be reviewed pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA). The purpose of the review is to determine whether Commission rules whose ten-year anniversary dates are in the years 2011-2014, as contained in the Appendix, should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded in order to minimize any significant impact the rules may have on a substantial number of small entities. Upon receipt of comments from the public, the Commission will evaluate those comments and consider whether action should be taken to rescind or amend the relevant rule(s).
Comments may be filed on or before May 4, 2017.
Chana S. Wilkerson, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO), Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-0990. People with disabilities may contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Each year the Commission will publish a list of ten-year old rules for review and comment by interested parties pursuant to the requirements of section 610 of the RFA.
1. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
2. This document lists the FCC regulations to be reviewed during the next twelve months. The Commission will issue separately plans for the review of rules adopted in succeeding years.
3. In reviewing each rule in a manner consistent with the requirements of section 610 the FCC will consider the following factors:
(a) The continued need for the rule;
(b) The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;
(c) The complexity of the rule;
(d) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and
(e) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
4. Appropriate information has been provided for each rule, including a
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS may be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To obtain filing instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Again, please include the docket (proceeding) and “DA” number.
The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.
• Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
• All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Comments in this proceeding will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300 or 800-378-3160, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via email at
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
For information on the requirements of the RFA, the public may contact Chana S. Wilkerson, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Communications Business Opportunities, 202-418-0990 or visit
List of rules for review pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. Section 610, for the ten-year period beginning in the year 2001 and ending in the year 2004. All listed rules are in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The exception in section 51.711(c) provides that a state commission, pending further proceedings before the Commission, must establish the rates that certain licensees may assess upon other carriers for the transport and termination of telecommunications traffic.
The annual E-rate Eligible Services List (ESL) [formerly 54.506(a)-(b)].
Section 64.1300(a) defines a “Completing Carrier” for purposes of determining payphone service compensation requirements and methodology under subpart M rules.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Final rule.
The Board is adopting a final rule that revises the capital plan and stress test rules for bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) of foreign banking organizations. Under the final rule, large and noncomplex firms (those with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion but less than $250 billion, nonbank assets of less than $75 billion, and that are not U.S. global-systemically important banks) are no longer subject to the provisions of the Board's capital plan rule whereby the Board may object to a capital plan on the basis of qualitative deficiencies in the firm's capital planning process. Accordingly, these firms will no longer be subject to the qualitative component of the annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). The final rule also modifies certain regulatory reports to collect additional information on nonbank assets and to reduce reporting burdens for large and noncomplex firms. For all bank holding companies subject to the capital plan rule, the final rule simplifies the initial applicability provisions of both the capital plan and the stress test rules, reduces the amount of additional capital distributions that a bank holding company may make during a capital plan cycle without seeking the Board's prior approval, and extends the range of potential as-of dates the Board may use for the trading and counterparty scenario component used in the stress test rules.
The final rule does not apply to bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $50 billion or to any state member bank or savings and loan holding company.
Lisa Ryu, Associate Director, (202) 263-4833, Richard Naylor, Associate Director, (202) 728-5854, Molly Mahar, Deputy Associate Director, (202) 973-7360, Constance Horsley, Assistant Director, (202) 452-5239, Mona Touma Elliot, Manager, (202) 912-4688, Celeste Molleur, Manager (202) 452-2783, Elizabeth MacDonald, Manager, (202) 475-6316, Christine Graham, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-3005, Seth Ruhter, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-3997, Joseph Cox, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-3216, Kevin Tran, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2309, or Hillel Kipnis, Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2924, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; Laurie Schaffer, Associate General Counsel, (202) 452-2272, Benjamin McDonough, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 452-2036, Julie Anthony, Counsel, (202) 475-6682, Brian Chernoff, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-2952, or Amber Hay, Senior Attorney, (202) 973-6997, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551. Users of Telecommunication Device for Deaf (TDD) only, call (202) 263-4869.
Capital planning and stress testing are two key components of the Federal Reserve's supervisory framework for large financial companies.
On September 26, 2016, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invited comment on a proposal to reduce the burden of capital planning and stress testing requirements for certain firms with a lower risk profile, while continuing to hold the largest and most complex firms to the highest standards.
Additionally, the proposal would have reduced the de minimis exception amount for capital distributions under the capital plan rule. Generally, the capital plan rule provides that a bank holding company must obtain the Federal Reserve's prior approval before making capital distributions above the dollar amount described in its capital plan.
The proposal would have amended the de minimis exception in two ways for all bank holding companies subject to the capital plan rule. First, the proposal would have lowered the de minimis amount from 1.00 percent to 0.25 percent of a bank holding company's tier 1 capital, beginning April 1, 2017. Second, the proposal would have established a one-quarter “blackout period” while the Federal Reserve is conducting CCAR (the second quarter of a calendar year), during which bank holding companies would not be able to submit a notice to use the de minimis exception or to request prior approval from the Federal Reserve to make additional capital distributions.
The proposal also would have modified the range of starting dates for the trading and counterparty component of the stress test. Under the Board's stress test rules, the Board may require a bank holding company with significant trading activity to include a trading and counterparty component (global market shock) in its adverse and severely adverse scenarios for its company-run stress tests.
Finally, the proposal would have modified associated regulatory reporting requirements for large and noncomplex firms to collect less detailed information on stress test results and raise the materiality threshold for reporting on specific portfolios. The proposal also would have simplified the timing of the initial applicability of the capital plan and stress test rules for all bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets.
The Board received twelve comments in response to the proposal from the public, banking organizations, and trade associations. Commenters generally expressed support for the proposal, and provided alternative views on certain aspects of the proposed rule, including the definition of a large and noncomplex firm and the proposed reduction of the de minimis exception amount for capital distributions not included in a firm's capital plan.
Under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Board is required to establish enhanced prudential standards for bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.
The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the enhanced prudential standards established by the Board to increase in stringency based on several factors, including the size and risk characteristics of the bank holding companies subject to the requirements.
Consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act mandate, the Board conducts an annual assessment of the capital planning and post-stress capital adequacy of bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.
In CCAR, the Board assesses the internal capital planning processes of bank holding companies and these companies' ability to maintain sufficient capital to continue their operations under expected and stressful conditions. Pursuant to the capital plan rule, each bank holding company must submit an annual capital plan to the Board that describes its capital planning processes and capital adequacy assessment. In the current CCAR process, the Federal Reserve conducts a qualitative assessment of the strength of each bank holding company's internal capital planning process and a quantitative assessment of each bank holding company's capital adequacy. In the qualitative assessment, the Federal Reserve evaluates the extent to which the analysis underlying each bank holding company's capital plan comprehensively captures and addresses potential risks stemming from company-wide activities. In addition, the Federal Reserve evaluates the reasonableness of a bank holding company's capital plan, the assumptions and analysis underlying the plan, and the robustness of the bank holding company's capital planning process. Under the capital plan rule, the Board may object to a bank holding company's capital plan if the Board determines that (1) the bank holding company has material unresolved supervisory issues, including but not limited to issues associated with its capital adequacy process; (2) the assumptions and analysis underlying the bank holding company's capital plan, or the bank holding company's methodologies for reviewing its capital adequacy process, are not reasonable or appropriate;
If the Federal Reserve objects to a bank holding company's capital plan, the bank holding company may not make any capital distributions unless the Federal Reserve indicates in writing that it does not object to such distributions.
Pursuant to the Board's stress test rules, the Board conducts supervisory stress tests of bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and these bank holding companies are required to conduct annual and mid-cycle company-run stress tests.
The Board has different expectations for sound capital planning and capital adequacy depending on the size, scope of operations, activity, and systemic risk profile of a firm.
Under the proposal, the Federal Reserve would have conducted its supervisory assessment of a large and noncomplex firm's risk-management and capital planning practices through the regular supervisory process and targeted, horizontal assessments of particular aspects of capital planning, rather than through the annual CCAR assessment. Further, the preamble noted that the Board would not object to the capital plans of large and noncomplex firms due to qualitative deficiencies in their capital planning process, but rather would incorporate an assessment of these practices into its regular, ongoing supervisory activities. As compared to the annual CCAR assessment, the review process for large and noncomplex firms would have been more limited in scope, include targeted horizontal evaluations of specific areas of the capital planning process, and focus on the standards set forth in the capital plan rule and Supervision and Regulation (SR) Letter 15-19.
Under the proposal, the Board would have continued to perform an annual quantitative assessment of capital plans of the large and noncomplex firms and publicly announce a decision to object or not object to a firm's capital plan on this basis. Consistent with the current capital plan rule, nothing in the proposal would have limited the authority of the Federal Reserve to issue a capital directive, such as a directive to reduce capital distributions, or take any other supervisory enforcement action, including an action to address unsafe or unsound practices or conditions or violations of law, such as an unsafe and unsound capital planning process.
Commenters strongly supported removing large and noncomplex firms from the qualitative component of the annual CCAR assessment and eliminating the qualitative objection for these firms. Commenters expressed the view that the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment was unduly burdensome for large and noncomplex firms because it required the development of large amounts of documentation and sophisticated stress test models to the same degree as the largest firms. The commenters agreed that further tailoring of regulatory requirements for large and noncomplex firms would incentivize such firms to invest in capital planning processes that are appropriate for the risks of those firms.
A commenter recommended that the Federal Reserve clarify how it plans to implement the supervisory review of the capital plans for large and noncomplex firms. Specifically, the commenter sought clarification on whether the Federal Reserve intended to use the “regular” supervisory process and whether the targeted horizontal review would be similar to current horizontal reviews undertaken by the Federal Reserve (such as the shared national credit review). Commenters sought additional information about whether the Federal Reserve would provide advance notice of examination focus in a first day letter, use standard procedures for communicating with management and communicating matters requiring attention, and use standard time frames for addressing any supervisory findings. Commenters also requested that the Board clarify that supervisors will apply the expectations set forth in SR Letter 15-19 for large and noncomplex firms in the capital plan review.
The Federal Reserve intends to conduct the supervisory review of capital plans of large and noncomplex firms in a manner similar to existing supervisory programs, which typically include a distribution of a first day letter in advance of the start of the review, standard communication during the exam, lead time to meet requests for additional information, and sufficient time frames for addressing the findings. With respect to the capital plan review, the Federal Reserve intends to provide large and noncomplex firms with several months' advance notice of the areas of focus of the annual capital plan review. For an individual firm, the review may also cover areas where the firm's practices are changing and issues raised in previous firm-specific supervisory communication.
In addition, as requested by commenters, the Board will ensure that communication and standards are coordinated between any teams conducting targeted horizontal reviews and the dedicated supervisory teams, who will conduct a holistic review of the capital plan at their respective supervised institutions each year. The Board confirms that it will apply capital planning expectations based on the size and complexity of a firm. As such, large and noncomplex firms will continue to be subject to the standards in SR Letter 15-19.
The proposal indicated that the supervisory review of capital plans would likely occur in the third quarter of each calendar year. Commenters requested that the review take place during the second quarter, concurrent with CCAR, to avoid coinciding with the DFAST mid-cycle process, which occurs in the third quarter. While moving the supervisory review to the second quarter may avoid the resource and time constraints resulting from the DFAST mid-cycle process occurring the same quarter as the supervisory capital plan review, it would also limit the amount of time that a firm would have to prepare supporting documentation. The Federal Reserve intends to provide the first day letter to firms during the first quarter and firms will have additional time to provide supporting documentation after they submit their capital plans. In addition, the timing of the supervisory review of large and noncomplex firms will be separate from the comprehensive CCAR qualitative assessment in order to clarify the differences in the review to the public. For these reasons, the supervisory review of the capital plans of large and noncomplex firms will generally begin in the third quarter of the year.
The proposal would have maintained the minimum elements of a capital plan outlined in the capital plan rule, but would have reduced the supporting documentation a large and noncomplex firm would have been required to be submit with its capital plan. Specifically, the proposal would have revised the instructions to Appendix A of the FR Y-14A to remove the requirement that a large and noncomplex firm include in its capital plan submission certain documentation regarding its models, including any model inventory mapping document, methodology documentation, model technical documents, and model validation documentation. The preamble to the proposal noted that large and noncomplex firms would still be required to produce these materials upon request by the Federal Reserve based on the focus of the supervisory review of a large and noncomplex firm's capital plan.
One commenter requested that the Board revise the minimum elements of a capital plan to require firms to submit only the summary portion of their capital plan and not submit the other components of the capital plan (capital policies, planned capital actions, capital planning process, etc.) In addition, commenters questioned whether the proposed revisions to the supporting documentation requirements would meaningfully reduce burden for large and noncomplex firms, as firms would continue to have to update and be prepared to produce the documentation upon request. Commenters recommended that the Board specify the documents it expects firms to maintain, identify the frequency with which documentation needs to be refreshed, and clarify the timeframe within which firms would be required to produce model-related documentation.
The final rule maintains the minimum elements of a capital plan, as these elements, such as a firm's capital policy and description of the firm's capital planning process, are important inputs into the supervisory assessment of the firm's capital plan regardless of whether the assessment occurs through CCAR or though the regular supervisory process. Furthermore, these elements enable the firm's board of directors to understand and approve of the firm's capital adequacy, capital planning processes, and capital-related decisions. The Board is also adopting the proposed revisions to the supporting documentation requirements, and intends to implement these revisions in a manner that will meaningfully reduce burdens for large and noncomplex firms. Large and noncomplex firms will no longer be expected to include this supporting documentation in the capital plans that are vetted by senior management and approved by the board of directors of the firm. In addition, the proposed process will inform firms of the proposed areas of focus and provide them lead time to provide requested documents, which will enable them to prioritize improvements in the Federal Reserve's areas of focus and reduce resource requirements for the firm's capital planning process.
Commenters requested that the Board clarify its expectations for model documentation for large and noncomplex firms, and confirm that the model risk management guidance in SR Letter 11-7 is appropriate for large and noncomplex firms.
Large and noncomplex firms are expected to maintain documentation regarding the loss, revenue, and expense estimation models used for stress scenario analysis, and update that documentation to reflect revisions to the models.
Regarding commenters' questions on the application of SR Letter 11-7, the Board confirms that SR Letter 11-7 continues to apply to all firms, including large and noncomplex firms. SR Letter 15-19 was drafted to be consistent with the standards in SR Letter 11-7 and describes a particular application of SR Letter 11-7 for capital planning. As discussed in SR Letter 15-19, supervisory expectations for various aspects of capital planning processes, including model risk management, for large and noncomplex institutions differ from those for LISCC and large and complex firms. For example, while a large and noncomplex firm should independently validate or otherwise conduct effective challenge of estimation methods used in internal capital planning, it should prioritize those activities only for its material models. Other specific expectations around validation and effective challenge are also reduced relative to the expectations for LISCC and large and complex firms.
Commenters requested that the Board specify that large and noncomplex firms would not be subject to the global market shock and large counterparty default components of the supervisory stress test. Currently, only firms with over $500 billion in total consolidated assets who are subject to the market risk rule are subject to the global market shock component, as such, no large and noncomplex firm could qualify for
Under the proposed rule, a bank holding company would have been considered large and noncomplex if, as of December 31 of the calendar year prior to the beginning of the capital plan cycle, the firm had average total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion but less than $250 billion,
Some commenters recommended that the Board replace the proposed thresholds with measures the commenters viewed as being more comprehensive and risk-sensitive, such as the systemic risk indicator approach used to identify global systemically important bank holding companies (GSIBs), and further recommended that the Board apply the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment solely to firms identified as GSIBs. One commenter also argued that only firms identified as GSIBs should be considered large and complex. Another commenter recommended that the Board use a more discretionary, risk-based assessment to identify individual firms for a designation as large and complex.
Firms that are identified as large and complex by the dollar thresholds, but are not GSIBs, still face risks or could present systemic risks that warrant enhanced capital planning expectations and greater supervisory oversight through the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment. Though a firm that exceeds the thresholds in the final rule but that is not a GSIB does not typically present the same level of systemic risk as a GSIB, these firms still tend to be interconnected with the financial system such that a material distress suffered by the firm could create economic disruption or spread quickly to similarly situated firms. Moreover, the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment and more detailed reporting requirements support greater supervisory oversight of these firms. In particular, CCAR and the related reporting requirements help to ensure that these firms are effectively identifying and managing risks that may arise in connection with their greater size and complexity or nonbanking operations in order to mitigate the possibility that these firms may experience material distress.
The Board considered a range of factors, including size, complexity of operations, and interconnectedness with other financial institutions, when considering the applicability of the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment to large banking organizations, which allows the Board to assess the systemic risk and to promote the resiliency of these firms. Banking organizations with total consolidated assets in excess of $250 billion generally have more substantial systemic risk profiles and larger market shares in many sectors of the financial industry and in geographic regions. In particular, the significant types and volume of client services provided by such firms make it more likely that in the event that the firm were to experience distress or failure other market participants could have difficulty in absorbing and replacing all of those services, which may lead to significant disruption. Banking organizations of this size within the current population of firms also have the capacity and often tend to engage in more complex transactions that expose them to a broader range of risks, such as those resulting from transactions with a wide variety of counterparties, exposure to complex products and asset classes, and large trading portfolios.
Commenters also provided specific views on the $10 billion foreign exposure threshold, which included a suggestion that the Board instead use the criteria for identifying U.S. GSIBs to define which firms are subject to the qualitative objection in the capital plan rule.
As a general matter, firms with substantial foreign exposure tend to face risks that arise from maintaining numerous or significant and complex cross-border relationships that require knowledge of and cooperation with multiple jurisdictions. Large cross-border exposures also create greater challenges in recovery and resolution, increasing the need for firms with such a profile to maintain capital and capital planning practices that limit their probability of default or do not pose heightened risk to a firm. However, foreign exposures may also arise from business activities that are not as complex. For example, a firm may offer a simple, non-complex product such as consumer credit in multiple jurisdictions or have foreign exposures as a natural extension of its U.S.-based business that do not make the firm more complex or risky. As a result, a metric aimed at accounting for complexity that is based solely on the size of a firm's foreign exposures, in this context, may be over-inclusive. Including the GSIB requirement mitigates the potential that the proposed foreign exposure test may include firms that are not complex, while ensuring that the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment continues to apply to the most systemically important U.S. banking organizations.
As explained above, the final rule retains the other two prongs of the definition as proposed. Accordingly, this modification has the effect of expanding the applicability of the proposed definition and thereby increasing the number of firms removed from the qualitative component of the CCAR Assessment. For the current population of bank holding companies that would have been identified as large and noncomplex under the proposal but for the size of their foreign exposure, the supervisory capital plan review for large and noncomplex firms should be sufficient. As noted, that process may include a firm-specific review of particular capital planning practices, including management of risks arising specifically from foreign exposure. Under the final rule, the Board will retain the authority to take supervisory actions related to capital planning against large and noncomplex firms, including an action to address unsafe and unsound practices or conditions or violations of law, such as an unsafe and unsound capital planning process. In addition, the Board expects such firms to meet the capital planning standards
Several commenters questioned the proposed $75 billion nonbank asset threshold for determining whether a firm is considered large and noncomplex. One commenter argued that a higher nonbank asset threshold, specifically, one set at $100 billion, would be more appropriate and consistent with a provision in the Board's resolution plan rule (Regulation QQ) that permits a firm to submit a tailored resolution plan.
Commenters' suggestion that the Board use a $100 billion nonbank asset threshold in order to align with the threshold under Regulation QQ that permits a firm to submit a tailored resolution plan misstates the requirement and would result in a more stringent measure than the $75 billion nonbank asset threshold set forth in the proposal. Regulation QQ uses a two-part threshold based on nonbank assets to determine whether a firm is permitted to submit a tailored resolution plan. Specifically, this threshold permits a firm to submit a tailored resolution plan if the firm has less than $100 billion in nonbank assets and insured depository institution assets constitute at least 85 percent of the firm's assets.
Commenters asserted that a threshold based on nonbank assets would not be an appropriate measure for determining whether a firm should be subject to heightened requirements under the capital plan rule, or that such a threshold should be set at a level higher than $75 billion. The Board, in developing the nonbank asset threshold, reviewed the risk profile of the current population of bank holding companies and the effects on U.S. financial stability associated with the distress or failure of large financial firms. A nonbank asset threshold of $75 billion would separate out bank holding companies that are significantly engaged in activities outside the business of banking. Such activities may involve a broader range of risks and result in more interconnections with other financial institutions than those associated with purely banking activities, requiring sophisticated risk management and heightened capital planning standards. For example, bank holding companies with significant nonbank assets are generally engaged in financial intermediation of a different nature and magnitude (such as complex derivatives and capital markets activities like underwriting) than those typically conducted through an insured depository institution. Further, nonbank entities tend to be more vulnerable to funding runs, given that they generally rely to a greater degree on less stable forms of funding than insured depository institutions. In addition, the Board notes that, historically, the distress or failure of firms with significant nonbank assets has coincided with or increased the effects of significant disruptions to the stability of the U.S. financial system.
One commenter requested that the Board clarify whether a firm considered to be part of the LISCC portfolio that reduces its size or complexity to meet the criteria for a large and noncomplex firm would be subject to the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment. The commenter also asked the Board to clarify whether a firm that qualified as a large and complex firm due to the nonbank asset threshold would be subject to the supervisory expectations set forth in SR Letter 15-18 or SR Letter 15-19.
Under the final rule, a LISCC firm that is a large and noncomplex firm would no longer be subject to the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment or the provisions of the capital plan rule whereby the Board may object to the firm's capital plan; however, the firm would remain subject both to the Board's highest expectations for capital planning as set forth in SR Letter 15-18 and to ongoing supervisory scrutiny of its capital planning practices.
The Board is accordingly adopting the proposed total consolidated asset and nonbank asset thresholds to define a large and noncomplex firm without modification. However, because the thresholds are based on static measures of size and nonbank assets, the Board will periodically re-assess the appropriateness of the thresholds for purposes of the requirements of the capital plan and stress test rules to ensure they remain suitable indicators for measuring complexity and risk.
The proposed rule set forth a methodology for calculating nonbank assets for purposes of the $75 billion nonbank asset threshold. The measure of nonbank assets would have included the assets of all nonbank subsidiaries, any direct equity investments in unconsolidated nonbank entities held by the parent, and any nonbanking Edge Act subsidiaries. Beginning on March 31, 2017, bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets would be required to report their nonbank assets on the FR Y-9LP on new line item 17 of PC-B Memoranda, in accordance with the proposed instructions to that form.
Commenters suggested certain changes to the nonbank asset measure. For instance, commenters suggested that the Board exclude bank-permissible assets or cash and high-quality liquid assets held in nonbank entities. Commenters also suggested removing from the calculation intangible assets that are deducted from regulatory capital pursuant to the Board's regulatory capital rules.
The proposal defined nonbank assets to include all assets held by nonbank entities, regardless of the type of asset, in order to quantify the scale of a firm's nonbanking activities. This measure of nonbank activities would have included all assets in nonbank entities because those entities are permitted to conduct a wide range of complex activities, and assets held by those entities, including those that present low inherent risk, may be used in connection with complex activities, including prime brokerage or other trading activities. The proposal focused on the overall amount of nonbank activities because of the need for supervisory scrutiny of those activities when performed outside a banking entity. In addition, as noted above, asset measures are relatively simple and transparent measures of a firm's nonbank activities, and exclusion of specific assets based on risk could undermine the transparency of the measure. Accordingly, the final rule defines nonbank assets to include all assets of a nonbank subsidiary, regardless of type.
The Board requested comment on whether the rule should permit firms to net intercompany exposures among nonbank subsidiaries for purposes of the measurement of nonbank assets for the 2017 capital plan cycle. Commenters expressed support for permitting firms to net intercompany assets between nonbank subsidiaries, and also requested that the Board permit a firm to exclude a broader set of intercompany assets from the nonbank measure, including exposures between a nonbank subsidiary and a foreign parent holding company, if any, and non-U.S. affiliates. The final rule would permit a firm to net intercompany exposures among nonbank subsidiaries for purposes of measuring nonbank assets for the 2017 cycle, in order to avoid double counting those assets. However, the final rule would not permit a firm to net intercompany assets between a nonbank company and an affiliate whose assets are not included in the nonbank asset measure, as the concern of double counting is not present in this case.
Commenters also requested technical clarifications on the nonbank assets measure for purposes of the capital plan cycle beginning January 1, 2017. For instance, commenters requested that the Board clarify that the “Investments in nonbank subsidiaries” in line item 2.a reflects the underlying assets of those nonbank subsidiaries. Commenters also requested that the Board clarify whether the elimination of investments in line item 15a from line item 2a is intended to avoid double counting nonbank assets, because line item 15a of Schedule PCB reflects the underlying assets of a firm's nonbank subsidiaries. As described in the instructions to the FR Y-9LP, investments in nonbank subsidiaries should reflect the total amount of equity investments in nonbank subsidiaries and associated companies under the equity method of accounting, as prescribed by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The Board is hereby clarifying that for purposes of the capital plan cycle that began on January 1, 2017, the elimination of investments in nonbank subsidiaries that are reflected in line 2a of Schedule PC-A was intended to eliminate double counting in the measure.
Commenters also provided views on the frequency of the calculation of the proposed nonbank asset measure on FR Y-9LP. The proposal requested views on whether the proposed nonbank asset measure should be calculated on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Commenters requested that the Board finalize the calculation on a monthly basis, and indicated that monthly calculation would provide the necessary information without further burdening firms. Consistent with the comments, the final revision to the FR Y-9LP will require firms to perform the calculation on a monthly basis. The new line item will be reported quarterly on the FR Y-9LP and reflect the average nonbank assets measure for that quarter. The initial filing of the line item should be the actual amount as of December 2016, not a four-quarter average.
The de minimis exception in the capital plan rule allows a well-capitalized bank holding company to
Commenters argued that the Federal Reserve should maintain the current de minimis amount of 1.00 percent in order to permit firms to address unforeseen events, such as changes in economic conditions, market disruptions, or mergers and acquisitions. Commenters noted that the Board already has the capacity to require changes or object to a de minimis capital distribution request within a 15-day period. Commenters also asserted that it is not clear that firms that have relied on the de minimis exception under the current rule have fallen below prudent capital levels or otherwise become more vulnerable to financial distress.
As described in the proposal, the Board has observed a pattern of certain bank holding companies using the de minimis exception to increase their common stock repurchases by the maximum amount allowed under the exception, even in the absence of unforeseen circumstances. For example, since July 1, 2016, the start of the first quarter subsequent to the publication of the results of CCAR 2016, the Federal Reserve has received de minimis requests from 13 of the 25 U.S. bank holding companies that participated in CCAR 2016. Ten of these firms provided requests in excess of 0.75 percent of the firm's tier 1 capital. Some firms have increased their common stock repurchases by approximately 30 percent above the amount that had been approved in their capital plans six months prior. The Federal Reserve reviewed the circumstances associated with these additional capital distributions, and this review indicated that certain firms may be treating the de minimis exception as an add-on to approved common stock distributions under the bank holding company's capital plan, rather than to address unanticipated events. While these distributions have not resulted in any given firm's capital levels falling below prudent capital levels to date, they call into question the strength of a firm's capital planning practices, as requesting additional distributions that do not directly respond to unanticipated events suggests some firms may not have a rigorous capital planning process.
Commenters also requested that the Board consider allowing a firm to continue to make de minimis distributions equal to or less than 1.00 percent of tier 1 capital if the firm demonstrates capital ratios above those submitted in its baseline scenario projections, therefore allowing the firm to maintain its target capital ratios. Firms submit baseline projections of their capital ratios to the Federal Reserve as part of the capital plan submission: These are referred to as the BHC baseline scenario projections. The Board's current standards for reviewing a de minimis distribution request already account for a firm's performance relative to expected conditions, but do not include a requirement for the distribution to respond to an unanticipated event that improves a firm's capital levels.
One commenter requested that the Board provide an exemption from the lower de minimis exception amount for IHCs, as IHCs are closely held and thus less likely than public companies to face external pressure to engage in additional capital distributions to meet the demand of shareholders. Further, the commenter asserted that these firms are more likely to keep capital distributed from an IHC within the larger banking organization. As described above, the intended purpose of the de minimis exception is to provide flexibility for well-capitalized bank holding companies to distribute small, additional amounts of capital without the need for a complete re-assessment of the firm's capital plan, a consideration that applies equally to IHCs as well as to publicly traded companies, and is not dependent on whether distributions are made to parent companies or third-party shareholders. Like U.S.-domiciled bank holding companies, IHCs would maintain the ability under the capital plan rule to submit requests for Board approval of additional capital distributions.
In addition, commenters requested that the Board delay finalization of the proposed change to the de minimis exception until after the Board completes its broad retrospective review of the capital planning and stress-testing frameworks. As noted, the Federal Reserve has observed that many firms are using the de minimis exception in a manner that may undermine the credibility of a firm's capital plan. Accordingly, it is important to implement this proposed change for this capital planning cycle to strengthen firms' capital planning processes. The Board will consider any necessary harmonization in developing proposed revisions to the capital plan and stress test rules, which would be issued through the notice and comment process.
For all these reasons, the Board is adopting the proposed change to the de minimis amount, from 1.00 percent to 0.25 percent of tier 1 capital, without modification. Firms will still be able to execute capital distributions consistent with meeting their targeted capital ratios as part of the next capital planning cycle. For example, firms can address small fluctuations in capital levels by providing prior notice that the firms intend to use the de minimis exception to distribute additional capital.
As noted in the proposal, one important factor in the Board's decision on a capital distribution request is the size and complexity of the bank holding company making the request. All else equal, a capital distribution request from a LISCC or large and complex firm would likely require stronger justification than a request from a large and noncomplex firm. For instance, a request from a LISCC or large and complex firm directly related to an unforeseeable event at the time of the last capital plan submission that has a positive expected impact on current or future capital ratios would likely require more supporting evidence (for instance, updated stress test results) than a similar request from a large and noncomplex firm. This difference reflects the Federal Reserve's elevated expectations for capital planning at LISCC and large and complex firms, where any revision to a firm's capital plan to increase capital distributions following the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment requires strong evidence and support.
The proposal would have established a one-quarter “blackout period” during the second quarter of a calendar year,
Commenters questioned the need for the proposed blackout period for incremental distribution requests during the second quarter. For instance, commenters noted that the Board can already stop or impose restrictions on inappropriate distributions requested either under the de minimis exception or the additional distributions not included in a firm's approved capital plan. Commenters also requested the removal of the blackout period for IHCs to allow these firms to freely distribute capital or liquidity to their FBO parent as may be necessary to support the safety and soundness of the entire organization.
The proposed blackout period was intended to ensure that the Board's analysis in CCAR would represent a comprehensive and current evaluation of the bank holding company's capital adequacy. To the extent an unanticipated event arises, the Board generally expects that a firm could provide notice or seek approval in the third quarter, following the CCAR assessment. Were an exigent circumstance to arise (for example, one similar to the circumstance contemplated by commenters regarding distributions by an IHC to support the safety and soundness of the broader foreign banking organization), the firm could determine that there had been or will be a material change in the firm's risk profile, financial condition, or corporate structure since the bank holding company last submitted the capital plan, and resubmit its capital plan.
Commenters also requested that the Board allow firms to request additional capital distributions for business activities, such as mergers and acquisitions or acquiring troubled assets in times of market disruptions, during the second quarter. With respect to mergers and acquisitions and similar predictable actions, firms should be planning in advance for business changes and ensure that the change is reflected in the firm's capital plan. In addition, if a firm is changing its business activities, the capital impact of the business change should be examined as part of the evaluation of a firm's capital plan to ensure the new entity is adequately capitalized.
The blackout period facilitates the sound assessment of firms' capital plans because it allows the assessment to be based on information that is as accurate and complete as possible. Accordingly, a firm should include all distributions it intends to make during the projection horizon to allow for a comprehensive analysis of distributions in CCAR. In the absence of this modification, the Federal Reserve's analysis in CCAR may not in all cases represent a comprehensive evaluation of the bank holding company's capital adequacy and the appropriateness of the bank holding company's planned capital actions in CCAR, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the evaluation. Moreover, firms should be able to plan the capital distributions for the quarter that CCAR is being conducted and include those planned distributions in their CCAR exercise. As noted above, a firm that experiences unanticipated events that materially change its risk profile, financial condition, or corporate structure during the second quarter must resubmit its capital plan for review, and based on the circumstances of the transaction and prevailing market conditions, the Board may expedite its review of the resubmitted capital plan. The Board is finalizing this aspect of the proposal without change.
The proposal would have modified the series of reports used to support supervisory stress testing to reduce burdens for large and noncomplex firms. The series of reports, the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing Report (FR Y-14 series of reports; OMB No. 7100-0341), consists of three reports: the semi-annual FR Y-14A, the quarterly FR Y-14Q, and monthly FR Y-14M. Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed revisions to the reporting forms, while providing views on specific revisions, as discussed below.
First, the proposal would have increased the materiality thresholds for filing schedules on the FR Y-14Q report and the FR Y-14M report for large and noncomplex firms. The FR Y-14 instructions currently define material portfolios as those with asset balances greater than $5 billion or asset balances greater than five percent of tier 1 capital, each measured as an average for the four quarters preceding the reporting quarter.
While commenters were supportive of the proposal's goal of increasing materiality thresholds, they argued that the 10 percent materiality threshold was too low to substantially reduce reporting burdens. However, increasing the materiality threshold to 10 percent of tier 1 capital would relieve burden on a number of firms. For example, the Board found that the number of firms required to submit a particular Y-14M sub-schedule fell from 20 to 12 under the new threshold.
Some commenters requested that the Board also apply the median loss rate to immaterial portfolios held at large and complex firms, instead of a loss rate equal to the 75th percentile among firms that report data to the Federal Reserve. In order to avoid discouraging firms from reporting a portfolio as immaterial, the final rule applies the median loss rate on immaterial portfolios held at all firms subject to the supervisory stress test.
In addition, a commenter requested that the Board exempt a firm from reporting historical data on a portfolio if the portfolio currently meets the materiality threshold but did not meet the materiality threshold in the past. Historical data is required for stress testing modeling purposes, and, for schedules that require submission of historical data, firms must continue to submit complete historical data for material portfolios even if the portfolios did not meet the materiality threshold during the entire historical period.
Under the proposal, large and noncomplex firms would no longer have been required to complete several elements of the FR Y-14A Schedule A (Summary).
The Board did not propose any changes to the Y-14A reporting requirements related to the adverse scenario, but commenters also suggested that the Federal Reserve reduce the reporting requirements for the adverse scenario, and some commenters requested that the Federal Reserve remove the requirement to perform a stress test in the adverse scenario. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, firms are required to perform the stress test under three scenarios: baseline, adverse, and severely adverse.
Commenters also requested that the Federal Reserve require the firms to report the FR Y-14M on a quarterly, rather than monthly, basis. Moving to quarterly reporting of the FR Y-14M would substantially affect the quality and usability of the data for loss projections. As such, the final rule does not modify the reporting period for the FR Y-14M.
A commenter also requested that the Board increase the edit check thresholds for the FR Y-14 and increase the “permanent closure option” for edit checks. The current edit check thresholds and permanent closure of edit checks are varied and have been determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the data item to which the edit check pertains. Given the disparate nature of the data items being collected, it would be inappropriate to create uniform minimum thresholds across all schedules. The Board will continue to work with the firms and the modeling teams to review the appropriateness of edit checks and will consider feedback regarding specific edits on a case-by-case basis with the objective of improving the edit checks or reducing the burden of the edit check process.
Commenters requested that the Federal Reserve undertake a periodic, full-scale review of the data required in the FR Y-14 submissions. The Federal Reserve regularly reviews the required elements of the FR Y-14 submissions, as demonstrated by this rule, and will continue to review the requirements to ensure they are appropriate.
For the reasons described above, the Board is finalizing the revision to the FR Y-14 as proposed, and will continue to review the FR Y-14 reporting requirements to identify areas for further burden reduction.
The proposal would have aligned the provisions for the capital plan and stress test rules that determine when a firm that crosses the threshold of with $50 billion in total consolidated assets must initially comply with the capital plan rule (subparts E and F of the Board's Regulation YY, hereafter subparts E and F) and would have provided additional time before the application of these requirements for bank holding companies that cross the $50 billion asset threshold close to the April 5 capital plan submission and stress test date. The capital plan rule provides that a bank holding company that crosses the $50 billion asset threshold on or before December 31 of a calendar year must submit a capital plan by April 5 of the following year. Under the proposal, the cutoff date for the capital plan rule would be moved to September 30, such that a firm that crosses the $50 billion asset threshold in the fourth quarter of a calendar year would not have been required to submit a capital plan until
The proposal also would have aligned the cutoff date for initial application of the stress test rules in subparts E and F with the proposed September 30 cutoff date for the initial application of the capital plan rule. Under the stress test rules, a bank holding company that crosses the $50 billion asset threshold before March 31 of a given year becomes subject to the stress test rules under subparts E and F beginning in the following year, and accordingly, may have only nine months before its first stress test under these subparts. Under the proposal, a bank holding company would have become subject to the stress test rules in subparts E and F in the year following the first year in which the bank holding company submitted a capital plan. As a result, a firm would have had at least a year before it would have been subject to its initial stress tests under subparts E and F.
The proposal would also have provided an extended onboarding period for regulatory reporting requirements for a bank holding company after it first crosses the $50 billion asset threshold. Currently, a bank holding company that crosses the $50 billion asset threshold must prepare FR Y-14M reports as of the end of the month in which it crosses the threshold, and must submit its first FR Y-14M within 90 days after the end of the month (at which time, data for the three intervening months is due). For example, if a firm crosses the threshold as of September 30, 2017 the firm is required to submit data for the months of September, October, and November 2017 at the end of December 2017. The proposal would have required a bank holding company to begin preparing its initial FR Y-14M as of the end of the
Commenters were generally supportive of the modifications to the initial applicability of the capital plan and stress test rules, as the changes would simplify the application of the capital plan and stress test rules and allow for a more orderly onboarding process for new FR Y-14 filers. One commenter further requested that a newly formed IHC be provided an additional year after becoming subject to the capital plan rule prior to being subject to a qualitative objection to its capital plan. As the Board has previously indicated, newly formed IHCs will be evaluated under the same process used to evaluate all new entrants into the stress testing program.
In addition, commenters requested that a large and noncomplex firm that crosses the total consolidated asset or nonbank assets threshold or is identified as a U.S. GSIB and becomes a large and complex firm under the capital plan rule be provided a transition year before becoming subject to the qualitative component of the CCAR assessment and objection. As the thresholds for becoming a large and complex firm are calculated either on a four-quarter average or as of year-end, a firm should be able to anticipate whether it will become a large and complex firm and prepare to meet the heightened expectations set forth in SR Letter 15-18, as implemented by the CCAR qualitative review. Accordingly, the Board is finalizing the modifications to the initial applicability of the capital plan and stress test rules as proposed.
For LISCC firms and large and complex firms, the proposal would have maintained the current comprehensive assessment of capital planning processes, including the qualitative objection to a firm's capital plan.
The proposal would have allowed the Board to select any date between October 1 of the prior year and March 1 of the year of the stress test cycle for the as-of date of the global market shock. Bank holding companies subject to the trading and counterparty component would be notified within two weeks of the selected as-of date for the global market shock, to enable the bank holding company to preserve trading and counterparty exposure data from the as-of date. Under the proposal, this change would take effect for the 2018 stress test cycle.
Commenters generally agreed with this aspect of the proposal, and the Board is finalizing it as proposed. However, some commenters requested
In response, the Board is confirming that the final rule will not change the Federal Reserve's practice of allowing firms to use the data from weekly internal risk reporting and does not change the reporting deadlines for the reporting schedules related to the market shock. The Board will continue to provide the scenario to firms as soon as it is finalized, although the Board must strike a balance between providing the firms with enough time to compute their stress test results and producing scenarios that are reflective of salient risks in the market.
In 2014, the Federal Reserve adjusted the capital planning and stress test cycles from an October 1 as-of date to a January 1 as-of date. The capital plan and stress test rules currently include several provisions reflecting the previous October 1 as-of date, as well as obsolete transition provisions for foreign banking organizations that previously relied on SR Letter 01-01,
The Federal Reserve also received comments that were not directly related to the proposal. A commenter requested that the Board consider a change to potential changes to the capital conservation buffer described in a speech by Governor Tarullo on September 26, 2016, that have not yet been formally proposed.
A commenter requested that the Board simplify guidance related to the development of the BHC baseline scenario. Commenters requested that the Board allow firms to use the supervisory baseline scenario as their BHC baseline scenario if in the firm's assessment it is a reasonable reflection of the current economic outlook. In addition, commenters requested that the Board simplify the reporting for the BHC baseline scenario to reduce reporting burden. Currently, the Board analyzes the BHC baseline scenario as part of the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the capital plan review. As such, the Board will continue to expect a firm that uses the supervisory baseline scenario as its BHC baseline scenario to produce an assessment as to why the supervisory baseline scenario is an appropriate representation of the firm's view of the most likely outlook for the risk factors salient to it.
A commenter requested that the Board not impose the capital plan and stress test requirements on insurance savings and loan holding companies and nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for Supervision by the Board without a separate notice and comment process and tailor capital planning and stress test requirement for these firms. The Board has not applied the capital plan and stress test requirements to such firms at this time, and will continue to consider how best to apply capital planning and stress testing to these firms. The Board intends to establish any such requirements through a notice and comment process.
One commenter requested that the Board describe the potential financial implications of the proposed rule changes. Another commenter expressed concerns about the cumulative impacts of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank and Basel III regulatory regimes for all commercial real estate capital sources. The Federal Reserve performed impact analysis regarding these amendments. Board staff concluded that the rule will result in a cost reduction to the public of less than $100 million. The Federal Reserve did not identify any impact of the regulation on commercial real estate capital sources.
In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control numbers are 7100-0128, 7100-0341, and 7100-0342 for this information collection. The Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB. No specific comments related to the PRA were received.
The final rule contains requirements subject to the PRA. The reporting requirements are found in sections 12 CFR 225.8.
The Board has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of this collection of information. At any time, commenters may submit comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing burden sent to: Nuha Elmaghrabi: Federal Reserve Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Mail Stop K1-148, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, with copies of such comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) desk officer by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by facsimile to 202-3955806, Attention, Agency Desk Officer.
(1)
Nonbank companies, for purposes of this measure, exclude (i) all national banks, state member banks, state nonmember insured banks (including insured industrial banks), federal savings associations, federal savings banks, thrift institutions (collectively for purposes of this proposed item 17, “depository institutions”) and (ii) except for an Edge or Agreement Corporation designated as “Nonbanking” in the box on the front page of the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income for Edge and Agreement Corporations (FR 2886b), any subsidiary of a depository institution (for purposes of this proposed item 17, “depository institution subsidiary”).
All intercompany assets and operating revenue among the nonbank companies should be eliminated, but assets and operating revenue with the reporting holding company; any depository institution; any depository institution subsidiary; and for a reporting holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign banking organization, any branch or agency of the foreign banking organization or any non-U.S. subsidiary, non-U.S. associated company, or non-U.S. corporate joint venture of the foreign banking organization that is not held through the reporting holding company, should be included. For example, eliminate the loans made by one nonbank company to a second nonbank company, but do not eliminate loans made by one nonbank company to the parent holding company; depository institution; depository institution subsidiary; or for a reporting holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign banking organization, any branch or agency of the foreign banking organization or any non-U.S. subsidiary, non-U.S. associated company, or non-U.S. corporate joint venture of the foreign banking organization that is not held through the reporting holding company.
While the FR Y-9LP collects another measure of nonbank assets (line item 15 of PC-B Memoranda (Total combined nonbank assets of nonbank subsidiaries)), the new nonbank assets measure differs in several important ways. Specifically, new line item 17 excludes assets of an insured industrial bank, federal savings association, federal savings bank, or thrift institution and includes assets of an Edge or Agreement Corporation designated as “Nonbanking” in the box on the front page of the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income for Edge and Agreement Corporations (FR 2886b). It also includes the value of an investment in an unconsolidated nonbank company that is held directly by the holding company. While these elements may be sourced from other reporting forms, the new line item is necessary to reflect the elimination of intercompany transactions among these nonbank companies, as described above.
(2)
The Capital Assessments and Stress Testing information collection consists of the FR Y-14A, Q, and M reports. The semi-annual FR Y-14A collects quantitative projections of balance sheet, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios.
The final rule increases the materiality thresholds for filing schedules on the FR Y-14Q report and the FR Y-14M report for large and noncomplex firms. The FR Y-14 instructions currently define material portfolios as those with asset balances greater than $5 billion or asset balances greater than five percent of tier 1 capital, each measured as an average for the four quarters preceding the reporting quarter.
In addition, the final rule reduces the supporting documentation a large and noncomplex firm will be required to be submit with its capital plan. Appendix A of the FR Y-14A report outlines qualitative information that a bank holding company should submit in support of its projections, including descriptions of the methodologies used to develop the internal projections of capital across scenarios and other analyses that support the bank holding company's comprehensive capital plans. The final rule revises the instructions to Appendix A of the FR Y-14A to remove the requirement that a large and noncomplex firm include in its capital plan submission certain documentation regarding its models, including any model inventory mapping document, methodology documentation, model technical documents, and model validation documentation. Large and noncomplex firms will still be required to be able to produce these materials upon request by the Federal Reserve, and all or a subset of these firms may be required to provide this documentation depending on the focus of the supervisory review of large and noncomplex firm capital plans. Removing the requirement that a large and noncomplex firm submit this information in connection with its capital plan should reduce the resources needed to prepare the plan for submission and alleviate concerns of an adverse supervisory finding that a capital plan is incomplete based on the failure to provide documentation.
Under the final rule, large and noncomplex firms will no longer be required to complete several elements of the FR Y-14A Schedule A (Summary), including the Securities OTTI methodology sub-schedule, Securities Market Value source sub-schedule, Securities OTTI by security sub-schedule, the Retail repurchase sub-schedule, the Trading sub-schedule, Counterparty sub-schedule, and Advanced RWA sub-schedule.
These changes are expected to decrease burden for the information collection by 56,454 hours. This includes a decrease in the average hours per response for the FR Y-14A due to the elimination of the requirement for large and noncomplex firms to file four Summary sub-schedules and a reduction in the supporting documentation requirements, resulting in a decrease of 6,346 hours. The modification to the materiality threshold for the FR Y-14Q and FR Y-14M reports would be anticipated to reduce the number of firms filing certain schedules on the FR Y-14Q and FR Y-14M reports. Specifically, this would result in a decrease of 1,088 hours on the FR Y-14Q report and 49,020 hours for the FR Y-14M report.
(3)
The final rule defines a large and noncomplex bank holding company as a bank holding company with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more but less than $250 billion, average total nonbank assets of less than $75 billion, and that is not a bank holding company identified as a U.S. GSIB. While the total consolidated assets measure is calculated for purposes of other regulatory requirements, the new average total nonbank assets threshold is not otherwise calculated for purposes of a regulatory requirement.
For the first calculation date (December 31, 2016), firms will be required to calculate nonbank assets by aggregating items reported on other reporting forms. Specifically, nonbank assets will be calculated as (A) total combined nonbank assets of nonbank subsidiaries, as reported on line 15a of Schedule PC-B of the Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Large Holding Companies (FR Y-9LP) as of December 31, 2016; plus (B) the total amount of equity investments in nonbank subsidiaries and associated companies as reported on line 2a of Schedule PC-A of the FR Y-9LP as of December 31, 2016; plus (C) assets of each Edge and Agreement Corporation, as reported on the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income for Edge and Agreement Corporations (FR 2886b) as of December 31, 2016, to the extent such corporation is designated as “Nonbanking” in the box on the front page of the FR 2886b; minus (D) assets of a federal savings association, federal savings bank, or thrift subsidiary, as reported on the Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) as of December 31, 2016. Performing this calculation is expected to require 1 hour per firm.
As noted above, for calculation dates following the initial calculation date, the Federal Reserve is adding a new line item to the FR Y-9LP (Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Large Holding Companies) to collect average total nonbank assets; however, for the December 31, 2016 calculation date, a firm will be required to calculate the line item based on existing line items. The burden associated with this line item will be reflected in that collection.
The Board is providing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to this rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), a small entity includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with total assets of $550 million or less (a small banking organization).
The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of its analysis. A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner and solicited comment on how to make the proposed rule easier to understand. No comments were received on the use of plain language.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Capital planning, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements Securities, Stress testing.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital planning, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Stress testing.
For the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System amends 12 CFR chapter II as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p-1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(1), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3906, 3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801 and 6805.
(a)
(b)
(i) Any top-tier bank holding company domiciled in the United States with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more ($50 billion asset threshold);
(ii) Any other bank holding company domiciled in the United States that is made subject to this section, in whole or in part, by order of the Board;
(iii) Any U.S. intermediate holding company subject to this section pursuant to 12 CFR 252.153; and
(iv) Any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board that is made subject to this section pursuant to a rule or order of the Board.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)
(ii) A bank holding company that meets the $50 billion asset threshold after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this section beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after the bank holding company meets the $50 billion asset threshold, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
(iii) The Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with the concurrence of the Board, may require a bank holding company described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section to comply with any or all of the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(3), (f), or (g) of this section if the Board or appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, determines that the requirement is appropriate on a different date based on the company's risk profile, scope of operation, or financial condition and provides prior notice to the company of the determination.
(2)
(B) A U.S. intermediate holding company required to be established or designated pursuant to 12 CFR 252.153 after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this section beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after the U.S. intermediate holding company is required to be established, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
(C) The Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with the concurrence of the Board, may require a U.S. intermediate holding company described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section to comply with any or all of the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(3), (f), or (g) of this section if the Board or appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, determines that the requirement is appropriate on a different date based on the company's risk profile, scope of operation, or financial condition and provides prior notice to the company of the determination.
(ii)
(B) After the time periods set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, this section will cease to apply to a bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a U.S. intermediate holding company, unless otherwise determined by the Board in writing.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(i) For purposes of the capital plan cycle beginning January 1, 2017:
(A) Total combined nonbank assets of nonbank subsidiaries, as reported on line 15a of Schedule PC-B of the Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Large Holding Companies (FR Y-9LP) as of December 31, 2016; plus
(B) The total amount of equity investments in nonbank subsidiaries and associated companies as reported on line 2a of Schedule PC-A of the FR Y-9LP as of December 31, 2016 (except that any investments reflected in paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of this section may be eliminated); plus
(C) Assets of each Edge and Agreement Corporation, as reported on the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income for Edge and Agreement Corporations (FR 2886b) as of December 31, 2016, to the extent such corporation is designated as “Nonbanking” in the box on the front page of the FR 2886b; minus
(D) Assets of each federal savings association, federal savings bank, or thrift subsidiary, as reported on the Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) as of December 31, 2016.
(ii) For purposes of any capital plan cycles beginning on or after January 1, 2018, the average of the total nonbank assets of a holding company subject to the Federal Reserve Board's capital plan rule, calculated in accordance with the instructions to the FR Y-9LP, for the four most recent consecutive quarters or, if the bank holding company has not filed the FR Y-9LP for each of the four most recent consecutive quarters, for the most recent quarter or consecutive quarters, as applicable.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(i) Has average total consolidated assets of less than $250 billion;
(ii) Has average total nonbank assets of less than $75 billion; and
(iii) Is not a bank holding company that is identified as a global systemically important BHC pursuant to § 217.402.
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(e)
(ii) A bank holding company must submit its complete capital plan to the Board and the appropriate Reserve Bank by April 5 of each calendar year, or such later date as directed by the Board or by the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board.
(iii) The bank holding company's board of directors or a designated committee thereof must at least annually and prior to submission of the capital plan under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section:
(A) Review the robustness of the bank holding company's process for assessing capital adequacy,
(B) Ensure that any deficiencies in the bank holding company's process for assessing capital adequacy are appropriately remedied; and
(C) Approve the bank holding company's capital plan.
(2)
(i) An assessment of the expected uses and sources of capital over the planning horizon that reflects the bank holding company's size, complexity, risk profile, and scope of operations, assuming both expected and stressful conditions, including:
(A) Estimates of projected revenues, losses, reserves, and pro forma capital levels, including any minimum regulatory capital ratios (for example, leverage, tier 1 risk-based, and total risk-based capital ratios) and any additional capital measures deemed relevant by the bank holding company, over the planning horizon under expected conditions and under a range of scenarios, including any scenarios provided by the Federal Reserve and at least one BHC stress scenario;
(B) A discussion of the results of any stress test required by law or regulation, and an explanation of how the capital plan takes these results into account; and
(C) A description of all planned capital actions over the planning horizon.
(ii) A detailed description of the bank holding company's process for assessing capital adequacy, including:
(A) A discussion of how the bank holding company will, under expected and stressful conditions, maintain capital commensurate with its risks, maintain capital above the minimum regulatory capital ratios, and serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary depository institutions;
(B) A discussion of how the bank holding company will, under expected and stressful conditions, maintain sufficient capital to continue its operations by maintaining ready access to funding, meeting its obligations to creditors and other counterparties, and continuing to serve as a credit intermediary;
(iii) The bank holding company's capital policy; and
(iv) A discussion of any expected changes to the bank holding company's business plan that are likely to have a material impact on the bank holding company's capital adequacy or liquidity.
(3)
(i) The bank holding company's financial condition, including its capital;
(ii) The bank holding company's structure;
(iii) Amount and risk characteristics of the bank holding company's on- and off-balance sheet exposures, including exposures within the bank holding company's trading account, other trading-related exposures (such as counterparty-credit risk exposures) or other items sensitive to changes in market factors, including, as appropriate, information about the sensitivity of positions to changes in market rates and prices;
(iv) The bank holding company's relevant policies and procedures, including risk management policies and procedures;
(v) The bank holding company's liquidity profile and management;
(vi) The loss, revenue, and expense estimation models used by the bank holding company for stress scenario analysis, including supporting documentation regarding each model's development and validation; and
(vii) Any other relevant qualitative or quantitative information requested by the Board or by the appropriate Reserve Bank to facilitate review of the bank holding company's capital plan under this section.
(4)
(A) The bank holding company determines there has been or will be a material change in the bank holding company's risk profile, financial condition, or corporate structure since the bank holding company last submitted the capital plan to the Board and the appropriate Reserve Bank under this section; or
(B) The Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, directs the bank holding company in writing to revise and resubmit its capital plan for any of the following reasons:
(
(
(
(
(ii) A bank holding company may resubmit its capital plan to the Federal Reserve if the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank objects to the capital plan.
(iii) The Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, may extend the 30-day period in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section for up to an additional 60 calendar days, or such longer period as the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank, with concurrence of the Board, determines, in its discretion, appropriate.
(iv) Any updated capital plan must satisfy all the requirements of this section; however, a bank holding company may continue to rely on information submitted as part of a previously submitted capital plan to the extent that the information remains accurate and appropriate.
(5)
(f)
(A) The comprehensiveness of the capital plan, including the extent to which the analysis underlying the capital plan captures and addresses potential risks stemming from activities across the firm and the company's capital policy;
(B) The reasonableness of the bank holding company's capital plan, the assumptions and analysis underlying the capital plan, and the robustness of its capital adequacy process; and
(C) The bank holding company's ability to maintain capital above each minimum regulatory capital ratio on a pro forma basis under expected and stressful conditions throughout the planning horizon, including but not limited to any scenarios required under paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(A) and (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
(ii) The Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, will also consider the following information in reviewing a bank holding company's capital plan:
(A) Relevant supervisory information about the bank holding company and its subsidiaries;
(B) The bank holding company's regulatory and financial reports, as well as supporting data that would allow for an analysis of the bank holding company's loss, revenue, and reserve projections;
(C) As applicable, the Federal Reserve's own pro forma estimates of the firm's potential losses, revenues, reserves, and resulting capital adequacy under expected and stressful conditions, including but not limited to any scenarios required under paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(A) and (e)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the results of any stress tests conducted by the bank holding company or the Federal Reserve; and
(D) Other information requested or required by the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank, as well as any other information relevant, or related, to the bank holding company's capital adequacy.
(2)
(A) By June 30 of the calendar year in which a capital plan was submitted pursuant to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section; and
(B) For a capital plan resubmitted pursuant to paragraph (e)(4) of this section, within 75 calendar days after the date on which a capital plan is resubmitted, unless the Board provides notice to the company that it is extending the time period.
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(3)
(A) A bank holding company may submit a written request to the Board requesting reconsideration of the objection, including an explanation of why reconsideration should be granted. Within 15 calendar days of receipt of the bank holding company's request, the Board will notify the company of its decision to affirm or withdraw the objection to the bank holding company's capital plan or a specific capital distribution; or
(B) As an alternative to paragraph (f)(3)(i)(A) of this section, a bank holding company may request an informal hearing on the objection.
(ii)
(B) An informal hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days of a request, if granted, provided that the Board may extend this period upon notice to the requesting party.
(C) Written notice of the final decision of the Board shall be given to the bank holding company within 60 calendar days of the conclusion of any informal hearing ordered by the Board, provided that the Board may extend this period upon notice to the requesting party.
(D) While the Board's final decision is pending and until such time as the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board issues a non-objection to the bank holding company's capital plan, the bank holding company may not make any capital distribution, other than those capital distributions with respect to which the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank has indicated in writing its non-objection.
(4)
(g)
(i) After giving effect to the capital distribution, the bank holding company would not meet a minimum regulatory capital ratio;
(ii) The Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, notifies the company in writing that the Federal Reserve has determined that the capital distribution would result in a material adverse change to the organization's capital or liquidity structure or that the company's earnings were materially underperforming projections;
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the dollar amount of the capital distribution will exceed the amount described in the capital plan for which a non-objection was issued under this section, as measured on an aggregate basis beginning in the third quarter of the planning horizon through the quarter at issue; or
(iv) The capital distribution would occur after the occurrence of an event requiring resubmission under paragraphs (e)(4)(i)(A) or (B) of this section and before the Federal Reserve has acted on the resubmitted capital plan.
(2)
(A) The bank holding company is, and after the capital distribution would remain, well capitalized as defined in § 225.2(r);
(B) The bank holding company's performance and capital levels are, and after the capital distribution would remain, consistent with its projections under expected conditions as set forth in its capital plan under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section;
(C) Until March 31, 2017, the annual aggregate dollar amount of all capital distributions in the period beginning on July 1 of a calendar year and ending on June 30 of the following calendar year would not exceed the total amounts described in the company's capital plan for which the bank holding company received a notice of non-objection by more than 1.00 percent multiplied by the bank holding company's tier 1 capital, as reported to the Federal Reserve on the bank holding company's most recent first-quarter FR Y-9C;
(D) Beginning April 1, 2017, the annual aggregate dollar amount of all capital distributions in the period beginning on July 1 of a calendar year and ending on June 30 of the following calendar year would not exceed the total amounts described in the company's capital plan for which the bank holding company received a notice of non-objection by more than 0.25 percent multiplied by the bank holding
(E) Between July 1 of a calendar year and March 15 of the following calendar year, the bank holding company provides the appropriate Reserve Bank with notice 15 calendar days prior to a capital distribution that includes the elements described in paragraph (g)(4) of this section; and
(F) The Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, does not object to the transaction proposed in the notice. In determining whether to object to the proposed transaction, the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank shall apply the criteria described in paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section.
(ii) The exception in this paragraph (g)(2) shall not apply if the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank notifies the bank holding company in writing that it is ineligible for this exception.
(3)
(ii)
(B)
(C)
(iii)
(A) To the extent that the Board or appropriate Reserve Bank indicates in writing its non-objection pursuant to paragraph (g)(5) of this section, following a request for non-objection from the bank holding company that includes all of the information required to be submitted under paragraph (g)(4) of this section;
(B) To capital distributions arising from the issuance of a regulatory capital instrument eligible for inclusion in the numerator of a minimum regulatory capital ratio that the bank holding company had not included in its capital plan;
(C) To the extent that the bank holding company raised a smaller dollar amount of capital in the category of regulatory capital instruments described in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section due to employee-directed capital issuances related to an employee stock ownership plan;
(D) To the extent that the bank holding company raised a smaller dollar amount of capital in the category of regulatory capital instruments described in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section due to a planned merger or acquisition that is no longer expected to be consummated or for which the consideration paid is lower than the projected price in the capital plan;
(E) Until March 31, 2017, to the extent that the dollar amount by which the bank holding company's net distributions exceed the dollar amount of net distributions included in its capital plan in the category of regulatory capital instruments described in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section, as measured on an aggregate basis beginning in the third quarter of the planning horizon through the end of the current quarter, is less than 1.00 percent of the bank holding company's tier 1 capital, as reported to the Federal Reserve on the bank holding company's most recent first-quarter FR Y-9C; between July 1 of a calendar year and March 15 of the following calendar year, the bank holding company provides the appropriate Reserve Bank with notice 15 calendar days prior to any capital distribution in that category of regulatory capital instruments that includes the elements described in paragraph (g)(4) of this section; and the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, does not object to the transaction proposed in the notice. In determining whether to object to the proposed transaction, the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank shall apply the criteria described in paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section; or
(F) Beginning April 1, 2017, to the extent that the dollar amount by which the bank holding company's net distributions exceed the dollar amount of net distributions included in its capital plan in the category of regulatory capital instruments described in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section, as measured on an aggregate basis beginning in the third quarter of the planning horizon through the end of the current quarter, is less than 0.25 percent of the bank holding company's tier 1 capital, as reported to the Federal Reserve on the bank holding company's most recent first-quarter FR Y-9C; between July 1 of a calendar year and March 15 of the following calendar year, the bank holding company provides the appropriate Reserve Bank with notice 15 calendar days prior to any capital distribution in that category of regulatory capital instruments that includes the elements described in paragraph (g)(4) of this section; and the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, does not object to the transaction proposed in the notice. In determining whether to object to the proposed transaction, the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank shall apply the criteria described in paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section.
(iv) The exceptions in paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of this section shall not apply if the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank notifies the bank holding company in writing that it is ineligible for this exception.
(4)
(A) The bank holding company's current capital plan or an attestation that there have been no changes to the capital plan since it was last submitted to the Federal Reserve;
(B) The purpose of the transaction;
(C) A description of the capital distribution, including for redemptions or repurchases of securities, the gross consideration to be paid and the terms and sources of funding for the transaction, and for dividends, the amount of the dividend(s); and
(D) Any additional information requested by the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank (which may include, among other things, an assessment of the bank holding company's capital adequacy under a revised stress scenario provided by the Federal Reserve, a revised capital plan, and supporting data).
(ii) Any request submitted with respect to a capital distribution described in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section shall also include a plan for restoring the bank holding company's capital to an amount above a minimum level within 30 calendar days and a rationale for why the capital distribution would be appropriate.
(5)
(ii) In acting on a request under this paragraph, the Board or appropriate Reserve Bank will apply the considerations and principles in paragraph (f) of this section. In addition, the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank may disapprove the transaction if the bank holding company does not provide all of the information required to be submitted under paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
(6)
(A) The Board may, in its sole discretion, order an informal hearing if the Board finds that a hearing is appropriate or necessary to resolve disputes regarding material issues of fact.
(B) An informal hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days of a request, if granted, provided that the Board may extend this period upon notice to the requesting party.
(C) Written notice of the final decision of the Board shall be given to the bank holding company within 60 calendar days of the conclusion of any informal hearing ordered by the Board, provided that the Board may extend this period upon notice to the requesting party.
(D) While the Board's final decision is pending and until such time as the Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank with concurrence of the Board, approves the capital distribution at issue, the bank holding company may not make such capital distribution.
12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1844(c), 3101
(p)
The revision reads as follows:
(b)
(2) A bank holding company that becomes a covered company after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this subpart beginning on January 1 of the third calendar year after the bank holding company becomes a covered company, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
(b)
(b)
(k)
(r)
(b)
(2) A bank holding company that becomes a covered company after
(a)
(b)
(2)
(A) For the stress test cycle beginning on January 1, 2017, the data used in this component must be as of a date selected by the Board between January 1, 2017 and March 1, 2017, and the Board will communicate the as-of date and a description of the component to the company no later than March 1, 2017; and
(B) For the stress test cycle beginning on January 1, 2018, and for each stress test cycle beginning thereafter, the data used in this component must be as of a date selected by the Board between October 1 of the previous calendar year and March 1 of the calendar year in which the stress test is performed pursuant to this section, and the Board will communicate the as-of date and a description of the component to the company no later than March 1 of the calendar year in which the stress test is performed pursuant to this section.
(4)
(iii)
(a)
(b) * * *
(4)
(iii)
(a)
(2) A covered company must report the results of the stress test required under § 252.55 to the Board in the manner and form prescribed by the Board. Such results must be submitted by October 5 of the calendar year in which the stress test is performed pursuant to § 252.55, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) A covered company must publicly disclose a summary of the results of the stress test required under § 252.55. This disclosure must occur in the period beginning on October 5 and ending on November 4 of the calendar year in which the stress test is performed pursuant to § 252.55, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
“As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in an appointee position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:
“1. I will not, within 5 years after the termination of my employment as an appointee in any executive agency in which I am appointed to serve, engage in lobbying activities with respect to that agency.
“2. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions.
“3. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraphs 1 and 2, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to engage in lobbying activities with respect to any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.
“4. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
“5. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.
“6. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.
“7. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 6, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment or participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls.
“8. I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate's qualifications, competence, and experience.
“9. I acknowledge that the Executive Order entitled 'Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees,' issued by the President on January 28, 2017, which I have read before signing this document, defines certain terms applicable to the foregoing obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I expressly accept the provisions of that Executive Order as a
(a) “Administration” means all terms of office of the incumbent President serving at the time of the appointment of an appointee covered by this order.
(b) “Appointee” means every full-time, non-career Presidential or Vice-Presidential appointee, non-career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (or other SES-type system), and appointee to a position that has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an executive agency. It does not include any person appointed as a member of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service commissioned officer.
(c) “Covered executive branch official” shall have the definition set forth in the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
(d) “Directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients” shall mean matters in which the appointee's former employer or a former client is a party or represents a party.
(e) “Executive agency” and “agency” mean “executive agency” as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, except that the terms shall include the Executive Office of the President, the United States Postal Service, and the Postal Regulatory Commission, and excludes the Government Accountability Office. As used in paragraph 1 of the pledge, “executive agency” means the entire agency in which the appointee is appointed to serve, except that:
(f) “Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended” means sections 611 through 621 of title 22, United States Code.
(g) “Foreign government” means the “government of a foreign country,” as defined in section 1(e) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 611(e).
(h) “Foreign political party” has the same meaning as that term has in section 1(f) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 611(f).
(i) “Former client” is any person for whom the appointee served personally as agent, attorney, or consultant within the 2 years prior to the date of his or her appointment, but excluding instances where the service provided was limited to a speech or similar appearance. It does not include clients of the appointee's former employer to whom the appointee did not personally provide services.
(j) “Former employer” is any person for whom the appointee has within the 2 years prior to the date of his or her appointment served as an employee, officer, director, trustee, or general partner, except that “former employer” does not include any executive agency or other entity of the Federal Government, State or local government, the District of Columbia, Native American tribe, or any United States territory or possession.
(k) “Gift”
(l) “Government official” means any employee of the executive branch.
(m) “Lobbied” shall mean to have acted as a registered lobbyist.
(n) “Lobbying activities” has the same meaning as that term has in the Lobbying Disclosure Act, except that the term does not include communicating or appearing with regard to: a judicial proceeding; a criminal or civil law enforcement inquiry, investigation, or proceeding; or any agency process for rulemaking, adjudication, or licensing, as defined in and governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 551
(o) “Lobbying Disclosure Act” means sections 1601
(p) “Lobbyist” shall have the definition set forth in the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
(q) “On behalf of another” means on behalf of a person or entity other than the individual signing the pledge or his or her spouse, child, or parent.
(r) “Particular matter” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 207 of title 18, United States Code, and section 2635.402(b)(3) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
(s) “Particular matter involving specific parties” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 2641.201(h) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, except that it shall also include any meeting or other communication relating to the performance of one's official duties with a former employer or former client, unless the communication applies to a particular matter of general applicability and participation in the meeting or other event is open to all interested parties.
(t) “Participate” means to participate personally and substantially.
(u) “Pledge” means the ethics pledge set forth in section 1 of this order.
(v) “Post-employment restrictions” shall include the provisions and exceptions in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, and the implementing regulations.
(w) “Registered lobbyist or lobbying organization” shall mean a lobbyist or an organization filing a registration pursuant to section 1603(a) of title 2, United States Code, and in the case of an organization filing such a registration, “registered lobbyist” shall include each of the lobbyists identified therein.
(x) Terms that are used herein and in the pledge, and also used in section 207 of title 18, United States Code, shall be given the same meaning as they have in section 207 and any implementing regulations issued or to be issued by the Office of Government Ethics, except to the extent those terms are otherwise defined in this order.
(y) All references to provisions of law and regulations shall refer to such provisions as in effect on January 20, 2017.
(b) A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the President or his designee.
(c) A copy of the waiver certification shall be furnished to the person covered by the waiver and provided to the head of the agency in which that person is or was appointed to serve.
(b) With respect to the Executive Office of the President, the duties set forth in section 4(a) shall be the responsibility of the Counsel to the President or such other official or officials to whom the President delegates those duties.
(c) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall:
(i) to carry out the foregoing responsibilities;
(ii) to apply the lobbyist gift ban set forth in paragraph 5 of the pledge to all executive branch employees;
(iii) to authorize limited exceptions to the lobbyist gift ban for circumstances that do not implicate the purposes of the ban;
(iv) to make clear that no person shall have violated the lobbyist gift ban if the person properly disposes of a gift as provided by section 2635.206 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations;
(v) to ensure that existing rules and procedures for Government employees engaged in negotiations for future employment with private businesses that are affected by their official actions do not affect the integrity of the Government's programs and operations; and
(vi) to ensure, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that the requirement set forth in paragraph 8 of the pledge is honored by every employee of the executive branch;
(d) An appointee who has signed the pledge is not required to sign the pledge again upon appointment or detail to a different office, except that a person who has ceased to be an appointee, due to termination of employment in the executive branch or otherwise, shall sign the pledge prior to thereafter assuming office as an appointee.
(e) All pledges signed by appointees, and all waiver certifications with respect thereto, shall be filed with the head of the appointee's agency for permanent retention in the appointee's official personnel folder or equivalent folder.
(b) Any former appointee who is determined, after notice and hearing, by the duly designated authority within any agency, to have violated his or her pledge may be barred from engaging in lobbying activities with respect to that agency for up to 5 years in addition to the 5-year time period covered by the pledge. The head of every executive agency shall, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, establish
(c) The Attorney General or his or her designee is authorized:
(d) In such civil action, the Attorney General or his or her designee is authorized to request any and all relief authorized by law, including but not limited to:
(b) If any provision of this order or the application of such provision is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and other dissimilar applications of such provision shall not be affected.
(c) The pledge and this order are not intended to, and do not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party (other than by the United States) against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The definitions set forth in this order are solely applicable to the terms of this order, and are not otherwise intended to impair or affect existing law.
(e) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(f) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(b) For fiscal year 2017, which is in progress, the heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director).
(c) In furtherance of the requirement of subsection (a) of this section, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. Any agency eliminating existing costs associated with prior regulations under this subsection shall do so in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law.
(d) The Director shall provide the heads of agencies with guidance on the implementation of this section. Such guidance shall address, among other things, processes for standardizing the measurement and estimation of regulatory costs; standards for determining what qualifies as new and offsetting regulations; standards for determining the costs of existing regulations that are considered for elimination; processes for accounting for costs in different fiscal years; methods to oversee the issuance of rules with costs offset by savings at different times or different agencies; and emergencies and other circumstances that might justify individual waivers of the requirements of this section. The Director shall consider phasing in and updating these requirements.
(b) Each regulation approved by the Director during the Presidential budget process shall be included in the Unified Regulatory Agenda required under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or any successor order.
(c) Unless otherwise required by law, no regulation shall be issued by an agency if it was not included on the most recent version or update of the published Unified Regulatory Agenda as required under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or any successor order, unless the issuance of such regulation was approved in advance in writing by the Director.
(d) During the Presidential budget process, the Director shall identify to agencies a total amount of incremental costs that will be allowed for each agency in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations for the next fiscal year. No regulations exceeding the agency's total incremental cost allowance will be permitted in that fiscal year, unless required by law or approved in writing by the Director. The total incremental cost allowance may allow an increase or require a reduction in total regulatory cost.
(e) The Director shall provide the heads of agencies with guidance on the implementation of the requirements in this section.
(a) regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States;
(b) regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel; or
(c) any other category of regulations exempted by the Director.
(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 |