| Page Range | 57331-57536 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 57535 - World AIDS Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 57533 - National Impaired Driving Prevention Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 57433 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 57392 - Implementation of Statutory Amendments Requiring the Modification of the Definition of Hard Cider; Delayed Compliance Date for the Hard Cider Tax Class Labeling Statement Requirement; Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 57351 - Implementation of Statutory Amendments Requiring the Modification of the Definition of Hard Cider; Delayed Compliance Date of the Hard Cider Tax Class Labeling Statement Requirement | |
| 82 FR 57346 - Emergency Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ethnological Materials From Libya | |
| 82 FR 57468 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 57468 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 57509 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 57491 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 57419 - Requirements of the Vessel Monitoring System Type-Approval | |
| 82 FR 57462 - Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 82 FR 57460 - Food and Drug Administration Categorization of Investigational Device Exemption Devices To Assist the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services With Coverage Decisions; Guidance for Sponsors, Clinical Investigators, Industry, Institutional Review Boards, and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 82 FR 57331 - Inflation Catch-Up Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts | |
| 82 FR 57464 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 57463 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 57465 - Incidental Take Permit Applications Received To Participate in the American Burying-Beetle Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan in Oklahoma | |
| 82 FR 57431 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Disaster Response Cooperative Agreements | |
| 82 FR 57443 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Continuous Release Reporting Requirements; Reporting Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Wastes at Farms Under CERCLA Section 103 | |
| 82 FR 57418 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Removal of Source-Specific Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Facilities | |
| 82 FR 57415 - Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Logan Airport Parking Freeze | |
| 82 FR 57432 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 57526 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 57528 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 57529 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 720X | |
| 82 FR 57382 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for the State of New Jersey | |
| 82 FR 57527 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8302 | |
| 82 FR 57522 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Application for Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for Small Passenger Vessels | |
| 82 FR 57522 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Title XI Obligation Guarantees | |
| 82 FR 57521 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Request for Waiver of Service Obligation, Request for Deferment of Services Obligation, Application for Review | |
| 82 FR 57523 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Procedures for Determining Vessel Services Categories for Purposes of the Cargo Preference Act | |
| 82 FR 57465 - Change in Regional Partners for Upper Copper River Region for the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council | |
| 82 FR 57467 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 57520 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 57427 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 214A; Consolidated Diesel Company, Enfield, North Carolina | |
| 82 FR 57428 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 57427 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 57444 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 57446 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 57449 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 57446 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 57444 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council | |
| 82 FR 57448 - Information Collection Being Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Emergency Review and Approval | |
| 82 FR 57451 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 57450 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 57426 - Texas A&M AgriLife Research; Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Cotton Genetically Engineered for Ultra-Low Gossypol Levels in the Cottonseed | |
| 82 FR 57424 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Release of Aceria drabae | |
| 82 FR 57370 - Expediting Rate Cases | |
| 82 FR 57425 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Baby Squash and Baby Courgettes From Zambia | |
| 82 FR 57453 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 82 FR 57455 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 82 FR 57454 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 82 FR 57457 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 82 FR 57413 - Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare County, NC | |
| 82 FR 57464 - Accreditation and Approval of AmSpec LLC (Destrehan, LA) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 57356 - International Mailing Services: Mailing Services Product and Price Changes | |
| 82 FR 57354 - Safety Zone; Mamala Bay, Oahu, HI | |
| 82 FR 57430 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Extend Collection 3038-0066: Financial Resource Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations | |
| 82 FR 57436 - National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned FM100 Modernization Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 82 FR 57440 - Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC; TransCameron Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Calcasieu Pass Project | |
| 82 FR 57440 - Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Public Information Session | |
| 82 FR 57438 - WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Billy Creek Storage Field Abandonment Project | |
| 82 FR 57441 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 57466 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Did You Feel It? Earthquake Questionnaire | |
| 82 FR 57427 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 57434 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 57435 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 57433 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; College Affordability and Transparency Explanation Form (CATEF) 2018-2020 | |
| 82 FR 57497 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To List and Trade Shares of the JPMorgan Long/Short ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E | |
| 82 FR 57494 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Shell Structure for the Nasdaq Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 57492 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Shell Structure for the BX Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 57505 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Shell Structure for the ISE Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 57495 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Shell Structure for the MRX Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 57516 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Shell Structure for the GEMX Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 57518 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section (a)(i)(D) of Rule 1012, Series of Options Open for Trading | |
| 82 FR 57508 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Shell Structure for the Phlx Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 57501 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Amended, To Amend Interpretation and Policy .07 of Exchange Rule 4.11, Position Limits, To Increase the Position Limits for Options on Certain Exchange Traded Products | |
| 82 FR 57510 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the Brandes Value NextShares Fund | |
| 82 FR 57497 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To List and Trade Shares of the Hartford Municipal Opportunities ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E | |
| 82 FR 57492 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 57492 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 57524 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request for the IRS Taxpayer Burden Surveys | |
| 82 FR 57458 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comments Request; New Data Collection; National Center on Law and Elder Rights (NCLER) | |
| 82 FR 57523 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 57506 - American Century ETF Trust and American Century Investment Management, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 57487 - Submission for Review: Request to Disability Annuitant for Information on Physical Condition and Employment, RI 30-1 | |
| 82 FR 57487 - Submission for Review: Representative Payee Application, RI 20-7 and Information Necessary for a Competency Determination, RI 30-3 | |
| 82 FR 57423 - Notice of Request for a Revision to and Extension of an Information Collection; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 57488 - Submission for Review: Initial Certification of Full-Time School Attendance, RI 25-41 | |
| 82 FR 57489 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 57484 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 57336 - Procedures Further Implementing the Annual Limitation on Suspension of Deportation and Cancellation of Removal | |
| 82 FR 57439 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 82 FR 57442 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 57441 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 57438 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 57520 - Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Extension of Clearance | |
| 82 FR 57433 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; OSERS Peer Review Data Form | |
| 82 FR 57353 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rigolets Pass, Slidell, LA | |
| 82 FR 57362 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; NOX | |
| 82 FR 57362 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule | |
| 82 FR 57343 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 57390 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters | |
| 82 FR 57340 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 57469 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 82 FR 57367 - 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 82 FR 57395 - Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) | |
| 82 FR 57478 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information | |
| 82 FR 57383 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule amends USDA's civil monetary penalty regulations by making inflation adjustments as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. USDA also removes one obsolete civil monetary penalty (CMP) regulation previously authorized under a statute that is no longer current law.
Effective December 5, 2017.
Heather Self, Esq., OGC, USDA, Room 3311-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1400, (202) 720-5840.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), to improve the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act requires agencies to:
(1) Adjust the level of CMPs with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through a final rulemaking (FR); and
(2) Make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation.
Previously, the Inflation Adjustment Act required agencies to adjust CMP levels every 4 years based on the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the month of June of the prior calendar year exceeded the CPI for the month of June of the calendar year during which the last adjustment was made. The Inflation Adjustment Act also capped the increase for each adjustment at 10 percent and rounded the adjustment based on the size of the penalty (for example, multiple of $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100). The rounding process meant that penalties would often not be increased at all if the inflation factor was not large enough. Furthermore, the cap on increases of 10 percent in tandem with the rounding meant that the formula over time caused penalties to lose value relative to total inflation. The 2015 Act updates these requirements by prescribing that agencies make annual adjustments for inflation based on the CPI for the month of October and round to the nearest dollar after an initial adjustment.
In order to eliminate the inconsistent changes caused by the prior method, the 2015 Act resets the inflation adjustment by excluding prior inflationary adjustments under the Inflation Adjustment Act, which contributed to a decline in the real value of penalty levels. To do this, the 2015 Act provides that the initial adjustment will be the percentage by which the CPI for the month of October 2015 exceeds that of the month of October of the calendar year during which the amount of the CMP was originally established or otherwise adjusted under a provision of law other than the Inflation Adjustment Act. While the 2015 Act does not provide a cap on adjustments going forward, the initial adjustment under the 2015 Act does limit large CMP increases by providing that no initial adjustments may exceed 150 percent of the amount of the CMP as of the date the 2015 Act was enacted, November 2, 2015. Lastly, the 2015 Act requires that agencies publish a final rule with the initial adjustment by July 1, 2016, and have the adjustments take effect no later than August 1, 2016. The initial adjustment under the 2015 Act also provides that, following public comment, the head of an agency may reduce the required increase if the agency head determines that the increase will have a negative economic impact or the social costs of the increase outweigh the benefits and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget concurs.
Several USDA agencies administer laws that provide for the imposition of CMPs being adjusted by this final rule. Those agencies are:
(1) Agricultural Marketing Service;
(2) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;
(3) Food and Nutrition Service;
(4) Food Safety and Inspection Service;
(5) Forest Service;
(6) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration;
(7) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation;
(8) Rural Housing Service,
(9) Farm Service Agency,
(10) Commodity Credit Corporation, and
(11) Office of the Secretary.
The CMPs in this final rule are listed according to the applicable administering agency.
In developing this final rule, we are waiving the usual notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures contained in 5 U.S.C. 553. We have determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for dispensing with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule. Specifically the rulemaking comports with and is consistent with the statutory authority required by Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, as amended, with no issue of policy discretion. Accordingly, we have determined that opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and we are issuing this revised regulation as a final rule that will apply to all future cases.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this regulatory action in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and has determined that it does not meet the criteria for significant regulatory action. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant
As indicated above, the provisions of this final rulemaking contain inflation adjustments in compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The great majority of individuals, organizations, and entities affected participating in the programs affected by this regulation do not engage in prohibited activities and practices that would result in civil monetary penalties being incurred. Accordingly, we believe that any aggregate economic impact of this revised regulation will be minimal, affecting only the limited number of program participants that may engage in prohibited behavior in violation of the statutes.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) are not applicable to this final rule because USDA was not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.
Administrative practice and procedure, Debt management, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, USDA amends 7 CFR part 3 as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a) * * *
(1)
(2)
(b)
(ii) Civil penalty for a violation of the unfair conduct rule under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, in lieu of license revocation or suspension, codified at 7 U.S.C. 499b(5), has a maximum of $4,928.
(iii) Civil penalty for violation of the licensing requirements under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 499c(a), has a maximum of $1,573 for each such offense and not more than $393 for each day it continues, or a maximum of $393 for each offense if the Secretary determines the violation was not willful.
(iv) Civil penalty in lieu of license suspension under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 499h(e), has a maximum penalty of $3,145 for each violative transaction or each day the violation continues.
(v) Civil penalty for a violation of the Export Apple Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 586, has a minimum of $144 and a maximum of $14,372.
(vi) Civil penalty for a violation of the Export Grape and Plum Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 596, has a minimum of $275 and a maximum of $27,500.
(vii) Civil penalty for a violation of an order issued by the Secretary under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, codified at 7 U.S.C. 608c(14)(B), has a maximum of $2,750. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(viii) Civil penalty for failure to file certain reports under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, reenacted by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, codified at 7 U.S.C. 610(c), has a maximum of $275.
(ix) Civil penalty for a violation of a seed program under the Federal Seed Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1596(b), has a minimum of $94 and a maximum of $1,875.
(x) Civil penalty for failure to collect any assessment or fee for a violation of the Cotton Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2112(b), has a maximum of $2,750.
(xi) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee for a violation of a program under the Potato Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2621(b)(1), has a minimum of $1,232 and a maximum of $12,319.
(xii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Potato Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2621(b)(3), has a maximum of $1,232. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xiii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2714(b)(1), has a minimum of $1,425 and a maximum of $14,023.
(xiv) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2714(b)(3), has a maximum of $1,425. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xv) Civil penalty for failure to remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Beef Research and Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2908(a)(2), has a maximum of $11,119.
(xvi) Civil penalty for failure to remit any assessment or for a violation of a program regarding wheat and wheat foods research, codified at 7 U.S.C. 3410(b), has a maximum of $2,750.
(xvii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Floral Research and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4314(b)(1), has a minimum of $1,294 and a maximum of $12,941.
(xviii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Floral Research and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4314(b)(3), has a maximum of $1,294. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xix) Civil penalty for violation of an order under the Dairy Promotion Program, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4510(b), has a maximum of $2,393.
(xx) Civil penalty for pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4610(b)(1), has a minimum of $737 and a maximum of $7,370.
(xxi) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4610(b)(3), has a maximum of $737. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxii) Civil penalty for a violation of a program under the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4815(b)(1)(A)(i), has a maximum of $2,224.
(xxiii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4815(b)(3)(A), has a maximum of $1,112. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxiv) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4910(b)(1), has a minimum of $1,112 and a maximum of $11,119.
(xxv) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4910(b)(3), has a maximum of $1,112. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxvi) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Pecan Promotion and Research Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6009(c)(1), has a minimum of $1,811 and a maximum of $18,107.
(xxvii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Pecan Promotion and Research Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6009(e), has a maximum of $1,811.
(xxviii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6107(c)(1), has a minimum of $880 and a maximum of $8,797.
(xxix) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6107(e), has a maximum of $880. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxx) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of the Lime Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6207(c)(1), has a minimum of $880 and a maximum of $8,797.
(xxxi) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Lime Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6207(e), has a maximum of $880. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxxii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, codified a 7 U.S.C. 6307(c)(1)(A), has a maximum of $1,811.
(xxxiii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6307(e), has a maximum of $9,054. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxxiv) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6411(c)(1)(A), has a minimum of $880 and a maximum of $8,797, or in the case of a violation that is willful, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6411(c)(1)(B), has a minimum of $17,593 and a maximum of $175,931.
(xxxv) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6411(e), has a maximum of $9,054. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxxvi) Civil penalty for knowingly labeling or selling a product as organic except in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6519(c), has a maximum of $17,593.
(xxxvii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act of 1993, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6808(c)(1)(A)(i), has a minimum of $830 and a maximum of $8,295.
(xxxviii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act of 1993, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6808(e)(1), has a maximum of $8,295. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxxix) Civil penalty for a violation of a program under the Sheep Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1994, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7107(c)(1)(A), has a maximum of $1,617.
(xl) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Sheep Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1994, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7107(e), has a maximum of $808. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xli) Civil penalty for a violation of an order or regulation issued under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7419(c)(1), has a minimum of $1,527 and a maximum of $15,270 for each violation.
(xlii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7419(e), has a minimum of $1,527 and a maximum of $15,270. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xliii) Civil penalty for a violation of an order or regulation issued under the Canola and Rapeseed Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7448(c)(1)(A)(i), has a maximum of $1,527 for each violation.
(xliv) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Canola and Rapeseed Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7448(e), has a maximum of $7,635. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xlv) Civil penalty for violation of an order or regulation issued under the National Kiwifruit Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7468(c)(1), has a minimum of $764 and a maximum of $7,635 for each violation.
(xlvi) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the National Kiwifruit Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7468(e), has a maximum of $764. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xlvii) Civil penalty for a violation of an order or regulation under the Popcorn Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7487(a), has a maximum of $1,527 for each violation.
(xlviii) Civil penalty for certain violations under the Egg Products Inspection Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. 1041(c)(1)(A), has a maximum of $8,797 for each violation.
(xlix) Civil penalty for violation of an order or regulation issued under the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 2000, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7807(c)(1)(A)(i), has a minimum of $1,389 and a maximum of $13,893 for each violation.
(l) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 2000, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7807(e)(1), has a maximum of
(li) Civil penalty for violation of certain provisions of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999, codified a 7 U.S.C. 1636b(a)(1), has a maximum of $14,372 for each violation.
(lii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999, codified a 7 U.S.C. 1636b(g)(3), has a maximum of $14,372 for each violation. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(liii) Civil penalty for failure to obey an order of the Secretary issued pursuant to the Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting program, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1637b(c)(4)(D)(iii), has a maximum of $13,893 for each offense.
(liv) Civil penalty for a willful violation of the Country of Origin Labeling program by a retailer or person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1638b(b)(2), has a maximum of $1,116 for each violation.
(lv) Civil penalty for violations of the Dairy Research Program, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4535 & 4510(b), has a maximum of $2,393 for each violation.
(ii) Civil penalty for a violation of the Animal Welfare Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2149(b), has a maximum of $11,162, and knowing failure to obey a cease and desist order has a civil penalty of $1,674.
(iii) Civil penalty for any person that causes harm to, or interferes with, an animal used for the purposes of official inspection by the Department, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2279e(a), has a maximum of $13,893.
(iv) Civil penalty for a violation of the Swine Health Protection Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 3805(a), has a maximum of $27,500.
(v) Civil penalty for any person that violates the Plant Protection Act (PPA), or that forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys any certificate, permit, or other document provided for in the PPA, codified a 7 U.S.C. 7734(b)(1), has a maximum of the greater of: $69,463 in the case of any individual (except that the civil penalty may not exceed $1,389 in the case of an initial violation of the PPA by an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain), $347,313 in the case of any other person for each violation, $558,078 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding if the violations do not include a willful violation, and $1,116,156 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding if the violations include a willful violation; or twice the gross gain or gross loss for any violation, forgery, counterfeiting, unauthorized us, defacing, or destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document provided for in the PPA that results in the person deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another.
(vi) Civil penalty for any person (except as provided in 7 U.S.C. 8309(d)) that violates the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), or that forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys any certificate, permit, or other document provided under the AHPA, codified at 7 U.S.C. 8313(b)(1), has a maximum of the greater of: $66,666 in the case of any individual, except that the civil penalty may not exceed $1,333 in the case of an initial violation of the AHPA by an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain, $333,328 in the case of any other person for each violation, $558,078 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding if the violations do not include a willful violation, and $1,116,156 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding if the violations include a willful violation; or twice the gross gain or gross loss for any violation, forgery, counterfeiting, unauthorized use, defacing, or destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document provided under the AHPA that results in the person's deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another person.
(vii) Civil penalty for any person that violates certain regulations under the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002 regarding transfers of listed agents and toxins or possession and use of listed agents and toxins, codified at 7 U.S.C. 8401(i)(1), has a maximum of $333,328 in the case of an individual and $666,656 in the case of any other person.
(viii) Civil penalty for violation of the Horse Protection Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1825(b)(1), has a maximum of $5,500.
(ix) Civil penalty for failure to obey Horse Protection Act disqualification, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1825(c), has a maximum of $10,750.
(x) Civil penalty for knowingly violating, or, if in the business as an importer or exporter, violating, with respect to terrestrial plants, any provision of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, any permit or certificate issued thereunder, or any regulation issued pursuant to section 9(a)(1)(A) through (F), (a)(2)(A) through (D), (c), (d) (other than regulations relating to record keeping or filing reports), (f), or (g) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(A) through (F), (a)(2)(A) through (D), (c), (d), (f), and (g)), as set forth at 16 U.S.C. 1540(a), has a maximum of $50,277.
(xi) Civil penalty for knowingly violating, or, if in the business as an importer or exporter, violating, with respect to terrestrial plants, any other regulation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as set forth at 16 U.S.C. 1540(a), has a maximum of $24,133.
(xii) Civil penalty for violation, with respect to terrestrial plants, of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or any regulation, permit, or certificate issued thereunder, as set forth at 16 U.S.C. 1540(a), has a maximum of $1,801.
(xiii) Civil penalty for knowingly and willfully violating 49 U.S.C. 80502 with respect to the transportation of animals by any rail carrier, express carrier, or common carrier (except by air or water), a receiver, trustee, or lessee of one of those carriers, or an owner or master of a vessel, codified at 49 U.S.C. 80502(d), has a minimum of $162 and a maximum of $808.
(xiv) Civil penalty for a violation of the Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act, 7 U.S.C. 1901 note, and its implementing regulations in 9 CFR part 88, as set forth in 9 CFR 88.6, has a maximum of $5000. Each horse transported in violation of Part 88 is a separate violation.
(ii) Civil penalty for trafficking in food coupons, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2021(b)(3)(B), has a maximum of $39,574 for each violation, except that the maximum penalty for violations occurring during a single investigation is $71,262.
(iii) Civil penalty for the sale of firearms, ammunitions, explosives, or controlled substances for coupons, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2021(b)(3)(C), has a maximum of $40,221 for each violation, except that the maximum penalty for violations occurring during a single investigation is $72,428.
(iv) Civil penalty for any entity that submits a bid to supply infant formula to carry out the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
(v) Civil penalty for a vendor convicted of trafficking in food instruments, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1786(o)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 1786(o)(4)(B), has a maximum of $14,740 for each violation, except that the maximum penalty for violations occurring during a single investigation is $58,958.
(vi) Civil penalty for a vendor convicted of selling firearms, ammunition, explosive, or controlled substances in exchange for food instruments, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1786(o)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 1786(o)(4)(B), has a maximum of $14,740 for each violation, except that the maximum penalty for violations occurring during a single investigation is $58,958.
(ii) [Reserved]
(ii) Civil penalty for a violation in disregard of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or the regulations that implement such Act regardless of whether such violation caused the export of unprocessed timber originating from Federal lands, codified at 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(i), has a maximum of $135,803 per violation.
(iii) Civil penalty for a person that should have known that an action was a violation of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or the regulations that implement such Act regardless of whether such violation caused the export of unprocessed timber originating from Federal lands, codified at 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(ii), has a maximum of $90,535 per violation.
(iv) Civil penalty for a willful violation of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or the regulations that implement such Act regardless of whether such violation caused the export of unprocessed timber originating from Federal lands, codified at 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(iii), has a maximum of $905,353.
(v) Civil penalty for a violation involving protections of caves, codified at 16 U.S. C. 4307(a)(2), has a maximum of $19,787.
(ii) Civil penalty for a livestock market agency or dealer failure to register, codified at 7 U.S.C. 203, has a maximum of $1,875 and not more than $94 for each day the violation continues.
(iii) Civil penalty for operating without filing, or in violation of, a stockyard rate schedule, or of a regulation or order of the Secretary made thereunder, codified at 7 U.S.C. 207(g), has a maximum of $1,875 and not more than $94 for each day the violation continues.
(iv) Civil penalty for a stockyard owner, livestock market agency, and dealer violation, codified at 7 U.S.C. 213(b), has a maximum of $27,500.
(v) Civil penalty for a stockyard owner, livestock market agency, and dealer compliance order, codified at 7 U.S.C. 215(a), has a maximum of $1,875.
(vi) Civil penalty for live poultry dealer violations, codified at 7 U.S.C. 228b-2(b), has a maximum of $80,000.
(vii) Civil penalty for a violation, codified at 7 U.S.C. 86(c), has a maximum of $268,750.
(ii) [Reserved]
(ii) Civil penalty for equity skimming under section 543(a) of the Housing Act of 1949, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1490s(a)(2), has a maximum of $34,731.
(iii) Civil penalty under section 543b of the Housing Act of 1949 for a violation of regulations or agreements made in accordance with Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, by submitting false information, submitting false certifications, failing to timely submit information, failing to maintain real property in good repair and condition, failing to provide acceptable management for a project, or failing to comply with applicable civil rights statutes and regulations, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1490s(b)(3)(A), has a maximum of the greater of: Twice the damages the Department, guaranteed lender, or project that is secured for a loan under Title V, suffered or would have suffered as a result of the violation; or $69,463 per violation.
(ii) [Reserved]
(ii) Civil penalty for willful failure or refusal to furnish information or willful furnishing of false data by a processor, refiner, or importer of sugar, syrup and molasses under section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7272(g)(5), has a maximum of $15,270 for each violation.
(iii) Civil penalty for filing a false acreage report that exceeds tolerance under section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7272(g)(5), has a maximum of $15,270 for each violation.
(iv) Civil penalty for knowingly violating any regulation of the Secretary of the Commodity Credit Corporation pertaining to flexible marketing allotments for sugar under section 359h(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1359hh(b), has a maximum of $11,162 for each violation.
(v) Civil penalty for knowing violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary pertaining to cotton insect eradication under section 104(d) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, codified at 7
(ii) Civil penalty for making, presenting, submitting or causing to be made, presented or submitted, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent written statement as defined under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, codified at 31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(2), has a maximum of $10,958.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice is amending the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) regulations governing the annual limitation on cancellation of removal and suspension of deportation decisions. The amendment eliminates certain procedures created in 1998 that were used to convert 8,000 conditional grants of suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal to outright grants before the end of fiscal year 1998. In addition, it authorizes immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to issue final decisions denying applications, without restriction, regardless of whether the annual limitation has been reached.
This rule is effective January 4, 2018.
Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0470 (not a toll-free call).
On November 30, 2016, the Department published in the
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, added section 240A(e) to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or the “Act”), Public Law 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8, 18, and 22 U.S.C.), by establishing an annual limitation on the number of aliens who may be granted suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal followed by adjustment of status. The annual limitation is as follows:
[T]he Attorney General may not cancel the removal and adjust the status under this section, nor suspend the deportation and adjust the status under section 244(a) (as in effect before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996), of a total of more than 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year.
On October 3, 1997, the Department issued an interim rule, which authorized immigration judges and the Board to grant applications for suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal only on a “conditional basis.” 62 FR 51760, 51762 (Oct. 3, 1997). This interim rule was a temporary measure to give the Department time to decide how best to implement the annual statutory limitation. Pursuant to the rule, the Chief Immigration Judge instructed immigration judges to convert previously reserved grants of suspension and cancellation to conditional grants.
On November 19, 1997, Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), Public Law 105-100, title II, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193-2201, which amended section 240A(e) of the Act. NACARA reaffirmed the annual limitation of 4,000 grants but exempted from the limitation certain nationals of Guatemala, El Salvador, and the former Soviet bloc countries.
On September 30, 1998, the Department issued the current interim rule, which eliminated the “conditional grant” process established in the October 1997 interim rule and provided new procedures for immigration judges and the Board to follow with respect to implementing the numerical limitation on suspension and cancellation of removal imposed by IIRIRA and NACARA, 63 FR 52134 (Sept. 30, 1998) (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21 (as in effect prior to publication of this rule)).
First, the interim rule created a process to address a discrete issue that required resolution before the end of fiscal year 1998: The interaction between the October 1997 interim rule authorizing immigration judges and the Board to grant applications for suspension and cancellation on a “conditional basis,”
Second, the interim rule created a new procedure for processing applications for suspension and cancellation in order to avoid exceeding the annual limitation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule “Procedures Further Implementing the Annual Limitation on Suspension of Deportation and Cancellation of Removal,”
The final rule makes three amendments to the current interim regulation. First, the final rule eliminates the text of 8 CFR 1240.21(b) (as in effect prior to publication of this rule), which, as discussed above, established a procedure to convert 8,000 conditional grants of suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal to outright grants before the end of fiscal year 1998 and to convert some conditional grants to grants of adjustment of status under NACARA. The need for such procedures ceased to exist after fiscal year 1998. Second, the final rule amends the interim rule to allow immigration judges and the Board to issue final decisions denying cancellation and suspension applications, without restriction, regardless of whether the annual limitation has been reached. Under the final rule, after the annual limitation has been reached, only grants would be required to be reserved. The final rule will apply prospectively and will have no effect on decisions that were reserved prior to the final rule's effective date. Lastly, the final rule makes a technical amendment to 8 CFR 1240.21(c).
As noted above, the Department received four comments in response to the proposed rule. One comment was from the American Immigration Lawyers Association; one was from an attorney with a private law firm, and two were from individual commenters. The comments are addressed by topic because some commenters raised multiple subjects and some comments overlapped.
None of the commenters expressed concern with the final rule's elimination of certain procedures created in 1998 to convert 8,000 conditional grants of suspension and cancellation to outright grants before the end of fiscal year 1998. Additionally, none of the commenters expressed concern with the final rule's technical amendment to 8 CFR 1240.21(c).
Rather, the commenters focused on the rule's provision authorizing immigration judges and the Board to issue final decisions denying cancellation and suspension applications, without restriction, regardless of whether the annual limitation has been reached. There is nothing in the statutory language suggesting that decisions denying eligibility need to be delayed; the statutory provision only calls for delaying decisions to grant such relief when necessary because the statutory cap has been reached in a particular year. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the purpose of this amendment is to: “decrease the high volume of reserved decisions that result when the annual limitation is reached early in the fiscal year; reduce the associated delays caused by postponing the resolution of pending cases before EOIR; and provide an applicant with knowledge of a decision in the applicant's case on or around the date of the hearing held on the applicant's suspension or cancellation application.” 81 FR 86291.
Moreover, the possibility that an applicant's qualifying relative may “age-out” or die while a decision is reserved exists under the current interim regulations. This final regulation therefore does not create a greater likelihood that an applicant may lose eligibility due to a qualifying relative “aging out” or dying while a decision is reserved.
The Department also notes that an applicant may file a motion to reopen if the applicant's qualifying relative experiences a change in circumstances that may qualify the applicant to receive cancellation of removal after the applicant's application was denied. The same commenter suggests that an applicant may be unable to file a motion to reopen if the applicant has been removed from the United States. EOIR notes, however, that most federal courts of appeal have held that the physical removal of an alien from the United States before a timely motion to reopen is filed does not preclude the alien from pursuing a motion to reopen, notwithstanding the current regulatory
Additionally, as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, immigration judges and the Board will still be required under this final rule to provide a legal and factual analysis for all decision denying cancellation and suspension applications.
The Department has reviewed this regulation in accordance with the RFA (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and the Attorney General certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule will not regulate “small entities,” as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it 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.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
The Department has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Moreover, this rule eliminates existing costs associated with the prior interim rule for purposes of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Specifically, EOIR estimates that this rule will reduce the administrative
First, in cases involving denials, immigration judges will no longer be required to render oral decisions via an audiocassette and ship the audio tape to EOIR headquarters for a transcription but instead can issue an oral or written decision immediately. EOIR estimates that this could save the agency $607,000 annually. Second, in cases involving denials, the new regulation will alleviate the need for the immigration court to both store case files and communicate with parties about the status of cases while reserved, which could save the government $18,000 annually. Third, in cases involving denials, there will no longer be a need to refresh background checks,
This rule has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including consideration of potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. It calls on each agency to periodically review its existing regulations and determine whether any should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives.
The Department is issuing this final rule consistent with these Executive Orders. This rule would allow the adjudication of suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal cases, without unnecessary delays, in appropriate cases where the immigration judge or the Board determines that the application for such relief should be denied. The Department expects this rule would reduce the number of reserved suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal cases once the annual limitation has been reached. Further, this rule will have a positive economic impact on Department functions because it will significantly reduce the administrative work and scheduling complications associated with suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal cases subject to the annual limitation. While this rule would remove the current restrictions on issuing denials, immigration judges and the Board will still be required to provide a legal analysis for all decisions denying a suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal application. Accordingly, the Department does not foresee any burdens to the public as a result of this rule. To the contrary, it will benefit the public by saving administrative costs and allowing earlier resolution of cases.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal services, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Justice amends 8 CFR part 1240 as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1182, 1182, 1186a, 1186b, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1252 note, 1361, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. L. 105-100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681).
(c)
(1)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; and Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the lower rib foot angle of the center wing box did not match with the bottom skin panel inner surface. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the external bottom skin in certain areas on the left and right wings, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 9, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 9, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; and Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0222, dated November 7, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; and Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During installation in production of new wing box ribs on post-mod 39729 aeroplanes, it was discovered that the centre wing lower rib foot angle was not matching with the bottom skin panel inner surface.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could induce fatigue cracking of the skin panel at the rib foot attachment, with possible detrimental effect on wing structural integrity.
This condition was initially addressed by Airbus on the production line through adaptation mod 152155, then through mod 152200. For affected aeroplanes in service, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-57-1205, providing instructions for repetitive detailed inspections (DET) or special detailed inspections (SDI), and SB A320-57-1207, providing modification instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections (DET or SDI) of the wing bottom skin lower surface for crack detection and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also includes reference to an optional modification (Airbus SB A320-57-1207), providing terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.
The corrective action for cracking is to repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.
Delta Airlines asked for another “Contacting the Manufacturer” subparagraph acknowledging Technical Adaptations from Airbus to be added under paragraph (j) of the proposed AD, “Other FAA AD Provisions.” Delta observed that the FAA provision for contacting the manufacturer in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD would provide allowances for corrective actions without alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). Delta noted that operators often receive Technical Adaptations that include an EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA)
We disagree with the commenter. The “Contacting the Manufacturer” paragraph in ADs only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. This paragraph states, in part, that for any requirement in an AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. We do not agree to extend this allowance to other AD requirements. All deviations from the service information sections that are marked “RC” (Required for Compliance) require AMOC approval unless otherwise stated in the AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1205, dated May 26, 2016. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the external bottom skin for cracking in the area of the rib 2 attachment between stringer 8 and stringer 11 on both wings, and repairing any cracks.
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1207, including Appendix 01 and Appendix 02, dated May 26, 2016. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the lower rib feet (rib 2) and the bottom skin upper surface on both wings for cracking, modifying the wings by installing shims between the lower rib foot (rib 2) and the bottom skin upper surface, and repairing any cracks.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 10 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of the optional modification of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 9, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 39729 was embodied in production, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 152155 or Modification 152200 was embodied in production.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the lower rib foot angle of the center wing box did not match with the bottom skin panel inner surface. Misalignment of the lower rib foot angle of the center wing box with the bottom skin panel inner surface could induce fatigue cracking of the skin panel at the rib foot attachment. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the external bottom skin in the area of the rib 2 attachment of the wings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before exceeding the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection or a special detailed inspection for cracking of the external bottom skin in the area of the rib 2 attachment between stringer 8 and stringer 11 of the left and right wings, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1205, dated May 26, 2016. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals, based on the method used for the most recent inspection, as specified in table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Airbus Modification 155374 defines the minimum airplane configuration for operation on Commonwealth of Independent States runway profiles.
Repair of an airplane, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD unless otherwise specified in the instructions obtained using the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
Modification of the wings including a detailed inspection of the lower rib feet (rib 2) and bottom skin upper surface of the wings for cracking and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1207, including Appendix 01 and Appendix 02, dated May 26, 2016, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane. If, during modification of an airplane as specified in this paragraph, accomplishment of any modification instruction is not possible due to configuration difficulties, accomplish the modification using the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0222, dated November 7, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1205, dated May 26, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1207, including Appendix 01 and Appendix 02, dated May 26, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found at a certain fuselage frame inner chord. This AD requires repetitive inspections for any cracking of a certain fuselage frame inner chord; identification of the material of a certain fuselage frame inner chord for certain airplanes; and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 9, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 9, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5205; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. FedEx and United Airlines supported the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (82 FR 22915, May 19, 2017) as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Boeing requested credit for previous accomplishment of the inspections in the NPRM. Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016 (referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information), was published on November 8, 2016. Boeing commented that the effective date of the AD could be more than 7 months later than publication date of the service information. Boeing stated that it is likely that some Model 757 operators have already accomplished the inspections in accordance with the service information by the time the AD takes effect; therefore, the AD should provide credit for those inspections.
We acknowledge the commenter's request and agree to clarify. Paragraph (f) of this AD states to accomplish the actions within the compliance times specified, unless those actions are already done. Therefore, if operators have accomplished the inspections in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, before the effective date of this AD, no further action is necessary. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
Delta Airlines (DAL) stated that it has concerns that the Accomplishment Instructions provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, do not include the corrective action. DAL commented that it will likely accomplish the inspections during 10-day maintenance visit checks, which would not be sufficient time for repair development if a crack is found. DAL also commented that operators would benefit from having corrective actions provided in the service information.
DAL stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, requires operators to repetitively inspect the inner chord, and the service information does not provide an option for an inspection should there be a previously installed FAA-approved repair. DAL commented that a previous repair of the frame has the potential to inhibit the ability to accomplish the inspection. DAL also commented that this leaves operators unable to accomplish the inspection as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, and will require additional instruction as an AMOC.
We infer that DAL is requesting to delay issuance of the final rule until a revision of the service information includes repair data and alternative inspection instructions for previously accomplished repairs.
We disagree with the commenter's request. Including the repair data would delay issuance of this AD. Unique repair configurations may be necessary depending on the cracking that is detected. It is not possible to address each individual repair configuration in one AD. The various repair configurations and locations are unknown and therefore cannot be addressed at this time. Therefore, if cracking is found, it must be repaired before further flight using the corrective actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, or in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. For previously approved repairs that prevent accomplishment of the inspections required by this AD, operators may request approval of an AMOC using the procedures in paragraph (j) of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for any cracking of the fuselage station (STA) 1380 frame inner chord; an identification of the material (an inspection or measurement) of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord; and applicable corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 588 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 9, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found at the fuselage station (STA) 1380 frame inner chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracks, which could result in the cargo door opening during flight, and result in rapid decompression of the airplane and the inability to sustain loads required for continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the surface HFEC inspection, thereafter, at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.
For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, identify the material of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.
(1) If the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord material 2024-T42 aluminum alloy is found during any identification required by paragraph (h) of this AD: No further action is required by this AD for that airplane.
(2) If the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord material 7075-T73 aluminum alloy is found during any identification required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, do a surface HFEC inspection for any cracking of the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the surface HFEC inspection thereafter at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action and identifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5205; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the imposition of emergency import restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological materials from Libya. The Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, United States Department of State, has determined that conditions warrant the imposition of emergency import restrictions on categories of archaeological and ethnological materials from Libya, which represent the cultural heritage of Libya. This document contains the Designated List of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Libya that describes the types of objects or categories of archaeological or ethnological material to which the import restrictions apply. The emergency import restrictions imposed on certain archaeological and ethnological materials from Libya will be in effect for a five-year period. These restrictions are being imposed pursuant to determinations of the United States Department of State made under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
Effective on December 5, 2017.
For regulatory aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0030,
The value of cultural property, whether archaeological or ethnological in nature, is immeasurable. Such items often constitute the very essence of a society and convey important information concerning a people's origin, history, and traditional setting. The importance and popularity of such items regrettably makes them targets of theft, encourages clandestine looting of archaeological sites, and results in their illegal export and import.
The United States shares in the international concern for the need to protect endangered cultural property. The appearance in the United States of stolen or illegally exported artifacts from other countries where there has been pillage has, on occasion, strained our foreign and cultural relations. This situation, combined with the concerns of museum, archaeological, and scholarly communities, was recognized by the President and Congress. It became apparent that it was in the national interest for the United States to join with other countries to control illegal trafficking of such articles in international commerce.
The United States joined international efforts and actively participated in deliberations resulting in the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (hereinafter, “1970 UNESCO Convention” or “the Convention” (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972))). The United States implemented the Convention in U.S. law through the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (hereafter,
Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the United States may enter into international agreements with another State Party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological materials under procedures and requirements prescribed by the Act.
In certain limited circumstances, the Cultural Property Implementation Act authorizes the imposition of restrictions on an emergency basis (19 U.S.C. 2603). The emergency restrictions are effective for no more than five years from the date of the State Party's request and may be extended for three years where it is determined that the emergency condition continues to apply with respect to the covered materials (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(3)). These restrictions may also be continued pursuant to an agreement concluded within the meaning of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(4)).
Under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, as contemplated at 19 U.S.C. 2602(a), the Government of Libya, a State Party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, requested that import restrictions be imposed on certain archaeological and ethnological material, the pillage of which jeopardizes the cultural heritage of Libya. The Act authorizes the President (or designee) to apply import restrictions on an emergency basis if the President determines that an emergency condition applies with respect to any archaeological or ethnological material of any requesting state (19 U.S.C. 2603).
On September 22, 2017, the Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, acting pursuant to delegated authority, made the determinations necessary under the Act for the emergency implementation of import restrictions on categories of archaeological and ethnological material from Libya. The Designated List below sets forth the categories of material that the import restrictions apply to. Thus, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(b) accordingly.
Importation of covered materials from Libya will be restricted for a five-year period until May 30, 2022. Importation of such materials from Libya continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
The Designated List covers archaeological material of Libya and Ottoman ethnological material of Libya (as defined in section 302 of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601)), including, but not limited to, the following types of material. The archaeological materials represent the following periods and cultures: Paleolithic, Neolithic, Punic, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic and Ottoman dating approximately 12,000 B.C. to 1750 A.D. The ethnological materials represent categories of Ottoman objects derived from sites of religious and cultural importance made from 1551 A.D. through 1911 A.D.
The Designated List set forth below is representative only. Any dimensions are approximate.
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
a.
b.
c.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Stucco reliefs, plaques, stelae, and inlays or other architectural decoration in stucco.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Items such as tablets (tabulae), sometimes pierced with holes on the borders and with text written in ink on one or both faces, typically small in size (4 to 12 in. in length), recording sales of property (such as slaves, animals, grain) and other legal documents such as testaments. Approximate date: late 2nd to 4th centuries A.D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
Vessels and containers in glass from mosques, shrines, tombs, and monuments, including glass and enamel mosque lamps and ritual vessels.
In linen, silk, and wool. Religious textiles and fragments from mosques, shrines, tombs, and monuments, including garments, hangings, prayer rugs, and shrine covers.
1.
2.
Ottoman Period paintings may depict courtly themes (
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under section 553(a)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). In addition, CBP has determined that such notice or public procedure would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the action being taken is essential to implement emergency import restrictions (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866 and section 4(a) of Executive Order 13771.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is amended as set forth below.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;
Approved:
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Temporary rule; delay of compliance date.
This temporary rule delays the compliance date of a wine labeling requirement that was established by T.D. TTB-147, a temporary rule published on January 23, 2017. In that rule, TTB required the statement “Tax class 5041(b)(6)” to appear on the container of any wine for which the hard cider tax rate is claimed if it is removed from wine premises or customs custody on or after January 1, 2018. This temporary rule delays the compliance date for that requirement by one year. Specifically, the tax class statement “Tax Class 5041(b)(6)” will not be required to appear on containers of wine that are taxed at the hard cider tax rate until January 1, 2019. Through a notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the
This temporary rule is effective December 5, 2017 through January 23, 2020.
Kara Fontaine, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone (202) 453-1039 ext. 103.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) of the Department of the Treasury administers chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which sets forth the Federal excise taxes on wine and related provisions, including provisions addressing the production and marking of wine (see 26 U.S.C. chapter 51). Section 5041 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5041) imposes six excise tax rates, including the hard cider tax rate, on wines. These tax rates are associated with six tax classes that correspond to section 5041(b), subparagraphs (1) through (6). The tax on wine is determined at the time of removal (generally, removal from a bonded wine premises or release from customs custody) for consumption or sale (26 U.S.C. 5041(a)). Wine so removed must be in containers bearing marks and labels evidencing compliance with the IRC as the Secretary of the Treasury may by regulations prescribe (26 U.S.C. 5368(b)).
TTB administers chapter 51 of the IRC and its implementing regulations pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In addition, the Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these laws. The TTB regulations that implement the provisions of the IRC, as they relate to wine, include regulations in 27 CFR part 24 for domestic wine and 27 CFR part 27 for imported wine.
On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113). Division Q of this Act is titled the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). Section 335(a) of the PATH Act amended the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5041 by modifying the definition of “hard cider” for excise tax classification purposes. Pursuant to section 335(b) of the PATH Act, the amended definition applies to hard cider removed on or after January 1, 2017. This allowed a broader range of products to be eligible for the hard cider tax rate. Effective January 1, 2017, a wine removed from wine premises or customs custody is eligible for the hard cider tax rate of 22.6 cents per gallon if it:
• Contains no more than 0.64 gram of carbon dioxide per 100 milliliters of wine;
• Is derived primarily from apples or pears, or from apple juice concentrate or pear juice concentrate and water;
• Contains no fruit product or fruit flavoring other than apple or pear; and
• Contains at least one-half of 1 percent and less than 8.5 percent alcohol by volume.
In response to the PATH Act, TTB published in the
In T.D. TTB-147, TTB amended its regulations in parts 24 and 27 to require the statement “Tax class 5041(b)(6)” to appear on the container of any wine for which the hard cider tax rate is claimed; see §§ 24.257(a)(4) and 27.59(b). In issuing the temporary rule, TTB recognized that industry members who produce and import hard cider would need time to comply with this requirement. Therefore, in § 24.257(a)(4), TTB provided a one-year grace period before the tax class labeling requirement would go into effect, and, as set forth in T.D. TTB-147, this grace period applies to products removed prior to January 1, 2018. As such, T.D. TTB-147 requires that for wine removed
In response to the request for comments on T.D. TTB-147, TTB received a comment, posted on February 15, 2017, from Ian Flom of Mercier Orchards, indicating that the timeframe to implement the new “Tax Class 5041(b)(6)” labeling statement requirement is insufficient because he buys labels in bulk and has a supply of labels that do not bear the tax class statement that he will not be able to use up before January 1, 2018. Mr. Flom also submitted other comments for TTB consideration.
TTB also was copied on a letter addressed to Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, dated August 1, 2017, from the United States Association of Cider Makers (USACM), which represents approximately one-half of the cider makers in the United States. In its letter, USACM requested a one year delay of the requirement to place the hard cider tax class labeling statement on products claiming the hard cider tax rate removed from wine premises or customs custody after January 1, 2018.
In light of this comment and request, TTB is delaying the compliance date for the labeling statement requirement.
In a February 23, 2017 comment in response to Notice No. 168, USACM formally requested a 60-day extension of the public comment period in order to give its members more time to properly address any of their concerns with the regulatory changes. USACM referred to the outstanding extension request in their August 1, 2017 letter.
Through a notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the
Through publication of this new temporary rule, TTB is amending 27 CFR 24.257(a)(4) to delay until January 1, 2019, the requirement that the tax class statement “Tax class 5041(b)(6)” appear on any container of wine removed from wine premises or customs custody for which the hard cider tax rate is claimed. Because the tax class labeling requirement for imported wine claiming the hard cider tax rate contained in 27 CFR 27.59(b) is a cross-reference to § 24.257(a)(4), no change to the regulatory text in § 27.59(b) is required.
In addition, TTB notes that, under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the hard cider tax class labeling statement information collection requirement under OMB control number 1513-0138. Therefore, TTB is amending §§ 24.257 and 27.59 in this temporary rule to reflect that control number. TTB also is correcting the OMB control number statement in § 24.257 to reflect that the IRC-based wine labeling requirements are covered under OMB control number 1513-0092, Marks on Wine Containers, and not the labeling-related recordkeeping requirements covered under 1513-0115, Usual and Customary Business Records Relating to Wine.
TTB notes that several rule documents published in late 2016 and early 2017 affected 27 CFR part 27, including the authority citation list set out at the beginning of that part. Specifically, T.D. TTB-145, Amendments To Streamline Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine, Beer, Malt Beverages, Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes and Facilitate Use of the International Trade Data System, published on December 22, 2016, at 81 FR 94186, revised the part 27 authority citation list to add 26 U.S.C. 5382 (Cellar Treatment of Natural Wine) and 26 U.S.C. 6109 (Identifying Numbers). However, T.D. TTB-146, Changes to Certain Alcohol-Related Regulations Governing Bond Requirements and Tax Return Filing Periods, published on January 4, 2017, at 82 FR 1108, also revised the part 27 authority citation list to add 26 U.S.C. 6109 but not 26 U.S.C. 5382, resulting in the inadvertent removal of 26 U.S.C. 5382 from the list, and this error was not corrected in T.D. TTB-147. Therefore, in this temporary rule, TTB is correcting the authority citation for 27 CFR part 27 to return 26 U.S.C. 5382 to that part's list of authorities.
To submit comments on the delayed compliance date for the hard cider tax class labeling statement described in this temporary rule, or to submit new comments on any of the hard cider regulations contained in T.D. TTB-147, published in the
Certain TTB regulations issued under the IRC, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The regulatory sections addressed in this temporary rule (27 CFR 24.257 and 27.59) contain collections of information that have been previously reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) and assigned control numbers 1513-0092 and 1513-0138. No changes are being made to the existing approved information collections.
TTB is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended (APA; 5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are
In this temporary rule, TTB is delaying the compliance date for the requirement that the tax class statement “Tax class 5041(b)(6)” appear on containers of wine for which the hard cider tax class is claimed, from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019. TTB finds that prior notice and comment is unnecessary because a delayed compliance date will provide additional time to industry members to comply with that labeling requirement.
TTB is issuing this temporary rule without a delayed effective date pursuant to authority under section 4(c) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). TTB finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) to dispense with the effective date limitation in 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This temporary rule grants a one-year exemption by delaying the compliance date for a labeling statement requirement that would otherwise become effective on January 1, 2018. Accordingly, the effective date of this temporary rule is December 5, 2017.
Kara Fontaine of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document with the assistance of other Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau personnel.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cider, Claims, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food additives, Fruit juices, Hard Cider, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Scientific equipment, Spices and flavorings, Surety bonds, Vinegar, Warehouses, Wine.
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Beer, Cosmetics, Customs duties and inspections, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB is amending 27 CFR chapter I, parts 24 and 27 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5008, 5041, 5042, 5044, 5061, 5062, 5121, 5122-5124, 5173, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5351, 5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5361, 5362, 5364-5373, 5381-5388, 5391, 5392, 5511, 5551, 5552, 5661, 5662, 5684, 6065, 6091, 6109, 6301, 6302, 6311, 6651, 6676, 7302, 7342, 7502, 7503, 7606, 7805, 7851; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
5 U.S.C. 552(a), 19 U.S.C. 81c, 1202; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5007, 5008, 5010, 5041, 5051, 5054, 5061, 5121, 5122-5124, 5201, 5205, 5207, 5232, 5273, 5301, 5313, 5382, 5555, 6109, 6302, 7805.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Rigolets Pass, mile 0.0, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary to perform maintenance for the continued safe operation of the bridge. This deviation allows for the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position on December 12, 2017, through December 15, 2017. It further requires a one-hour advance notice for openings to facilitate passage of vessel traffic from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on certain dates from December 18, 2017 through January 12, 2018.
This deviation is effective from 4 a.m. on December 12, 2017, through 5 p.m. on January 12, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-1038] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Giselle T. MacDonald, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The CSX Transportation requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the CSX Railroad Swing Bridge across Rigolets Pass, mile 0.0, near Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary to replace the center pivot bearing and the wedge machinery on the south center and southwest end of the swing span.
For the purposes of this deviation, the bridge will be allowed to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 4 a.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2017, through 4 a.m. on Friday, December 15, 2017, and a one-hour advance notice for openings to facilitate passage of vessel traffic from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., each day, on December 18, 2017, through December 22, 2017, and from January 2, 2018 through January 12, 2018. At all other times the bridge will operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5.
The vertical clearance of the bridge is 14.5 feet above mean low water (MLW), elevation 11.9 feet above mean high water (MHW) in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, commercial fishing vessels and some recreational crafts.
For the duration of the repair work, vessels will not be allowed to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position and will not be able to open for emergencies. The alternate route for vessels to pass is the Pearl
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
On October 10, 2017, the commercial fishing vessel PACIFIC PARADISE ran aground approximately 400 yards southwest of Kaimana Beach, in the navigable waters of Mamala Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. The Coast Guard established a temporary safety zone extending 500 yards in all directions around the grounded vessel to facilitate vessel salvage operations. To date, the vessel remains aground. Accordingly, effective December 1, 2017, the Coast Guard hereby extends the temporary safety zone for an additional thirty days to facilitate ongoing salvage and subsequent removal operations. The extension of this temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels and the marine environmental from potential hazards associated with ongoing operations to salvage and remove a grounded vessel in this area. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu.
This rule is effective without actual notice from December 5, 2017 until 8:00 a.m. on December 31, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8:00 a.m. on December 1, 2017 until December 5, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander John Bannon, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 541-4359 or
On October 10, 2017, the commercial fishing vessel PACIFIC PARADISE ran aground approximately 400 yards southwest of Kaimana Beach, in the navigable waters of Mamala Bay, Oahu, Hawaii at position 21°15.69′ N.; 157°49.49′ W. On October 11, 2017, the Coast Guard established a seven-day temporary safety zone encompassing all waters extending 500 yards in all directions around the grounded vessel to facilitate vessel salvage operations and protect personnel, vessels and the marine environment from the hazards associated with them. Due to the emergent nature of the grounding and subsequent removal operations, the temporary final rule (TFR) was not initially published in the
The temporary safety zone continues to encompass all waters extending 500 yards in all directions around the grounded fishing vessel located approximately 400 yards southwest of Kaimana Beach at position 21°15.69′ N.; 157°49.49′ W. When the vessel is off the reef, the stationary safety zone will shift to a moving safety zone extending 500 yards in all directions around the vessel and continue until December 31, 2017 at 8:00 a.m. or until the removal operation is complete, whichever is earlier.
The Coast Guard is extending the existing temporary safety zone without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the initial estimate to salvage the vessel from the grounding was estimated at one week or less. Immediate action remains needed to respond to the safety hazards associated with this fishing vessel salvage effort for an estimated additional thirty days. Therefore, publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to public interest.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1231. On October 10, 2017, the Coast Guard was informed the commercial fishing vessel PACIFIC PARADISE ran aground in Mamala Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, near Waikiki's Kaimana Beach. The COTP Honolulu determined that potential hazards associated with the salvage and removal operations, including high winds and seas, constituted a safety concern. Accordingly, the COTP Honolulu established a temporary safety zone extending 500 yards in all directions around the grounded vessel to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment during ongoing salvage and removal operations.
This rule extends an existing temporary safety zone. This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. on December 1, 2017 through 8:00 a.m. on December 31, 2017, or until salvage operations are complete, whichever is earlier. If the temporary safety zone is terminated prior to 8:00 a.m. on December 1, 2017, the Coast Guard will provide notice via a broadcast notice to mariners.
The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters from the surface of the water to the ocean floor extending 500 yards in all directions around the commercial fishing vessel 400 yards southwest of Kaimana Beach near position 21°15.69′ N.; 157°49.49′ W. The temporary safety zone is currently stationary around the grounded vessel. When the vessel is removed from the reef, it will be towed to a disposal site, at which time the stationary safety zone will shift to a moving safety zone. The zone shall continue to encompass 500 yards in all directions around the commercial fishing vessel PACIFIC PARADISE and remain in effect until December 31, 2017 at 8:00 a.m. or until the disposal operation is complete, whichever is earlier. When the vessel is off the reef and removal operations commence, the Coast Guard will provide notice of the moving safety zone via a broadcast notice to mariners. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone absent the express authorization of the COTP Honolulu or his designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location and duration of the temporary safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this temporary safety zone away from the reef or during the salvage tow, which would impact only a small designated area of the waters off Kaimana Beach and Waikiki where vessel traffic is normally low. Closer to shore, the waterway is used primarily for beach recreation activities. Offshore of the beach, waterway traffic is primarily tourism related operations which will not be affected by the tow due to the open space in the area. Moreover, vessels wishing to enter the zone may seek permission as set forth below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. The temporary safety zone is limited in size and duration, and the grounded vessel is not in an actively used navigable waterway. When the vessel is removed from the reef, it will be towed to a disposal site. The tow evolution will not have a significant impact on existing waterway users. Mariners may request to enter the zone by contacting the COTP, as described below.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in this part.
(2) Entry into, or remaining in, this zone is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the COTP Honolulu or his designated representative.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the temporary stationary or moving safety zone identified in paragraph (a) of this section may contact the COTP at the Command Center telephone number (808) 842-2600 and (808) 842-2601, fax (808) 842-2642 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to seek permission to transit the zone. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP Honolulu or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while in the zone.
(4) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the temporary safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
(d)
(e)
Postal Service
Final rule.
On October 24, 2017, the Postal Service published proposed product and price changes to reflect a notice of price adjustments filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). The PRC has found that price adjustments and product changes contained in the Postal Service's notice may go into effect on January 21, 2018. The Postal Service will revise Notice 123,
Paula Rabkin at 202-268-2537.
In October 2017, the Postal Service filed a notice of mailing services price adjustments with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) for products and services covered by
As stated in the PRC's Order No. 4215, issued on November 9, 2017, the PRC found that the prices in the Postal Service's Notice may go into effect on
The following product changes to the IMM, conforming to the requirements of the Universal Postal Convention limiting the contents of First-Class Mail International postcard, letter, and large envelope (flat) mail to personal correspondence and non-dutiable documents, were also accepted without comment and will accordingly be posted in the January 21, 2018, revision of the IMM on
The Postal Service hereby adopts the following changes to
Foreign relations, International postal services.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 20 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 407, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
Letter-post mail (First-Class Mail International, IPA and ISAL items, and First-Class Package International Service) must be separated based on contents into Documents and Merchandise categories. Merchandise consists of items other than documents that are considered potentially dutiable, as well as documents that may be subject to customs duties. Mailers must declare a value and place a customs form on each merchandise item. If any item (merchandise or document) weighs more than 16 ounces, a mailer must place a customs form on it, regardless of the content.
In Exhibit 123.61, the “Type of Item” column has several references to “documents.” For this purpose, “documents” refers only to any piece of written, drawn, or printed information, excluding objects of merchandise. Documents do not include digital and electronic storage media or devices such
a. Audit and business records.
b. Personal correspondence.
c. Circulars.
d. Pamphlets.
e. Advertisements.
f. Written instruments not intended to be resold.
g. Money orders, checks, and similar items that cannot be negotiated or converted into cash without forgery.
The following are examples of items that are required to bear a customs declaration form and to declare a value:
a. CDs, DVDs, flash drives, video and cassette tapes, and other digital and electronic storage media—regardless of whether they are blank or contain electronic documents or other prerecorded media.
b. Artwork.
c. Collector or antique document items.
d. Books.
e. Periodicals.
f. Printed music.
g. Printed educational or test material.
h. Player piano rolls.
i. Commercial engineering drawings.
j. Commercial blueprints.
k. Film.
l. Negatives.
m. X-rays.
n. Separation negatives.
o. Commercial photographs.
First-Class Mail International is a generic term for mailpieces that are postcard size, letter-size or flat-size and weigh 4 pounds or less. First-Class Mail International items may contain any letter-size or flat-size mailable correspondence or nondutiable documents that are not prohibited by the destination country. * * *
At the sender's option, extra services, such as Registered Mail and return receipt, may be added on a country-specific basis.
Subject to applicable weight and size limits, only correspondence and nondutiable documents that are otherwise acceptable and not prohibited by the Postal Service or the country of destination may be mailed at the First-Class Mail International price.
No merchandise, whether dutiable or nondutiable, may be mailed using First-Class Mail International Service. Items containing merchandise may be sent by Global Express Guaranteed service, Priority Mail Express International service, Priority Mail International service, or First-Class Package International Service; commercial mailers may also use IPA packages (small packets) and ISAL packages (small packets).
Mailers may use a permit imprint for mailing identical- or nonidentical-weight First-Class Mail International items. Any of the First-Class Mail International permit imprint formats shown in Exhibit 152.64 is acceptable. Permit imprints must not denote “bulk mail,” “nonprofit,” or other domestic or special mail markings. For items requiring a customs form (First-Class Mail International letter-size and flat-size mailpieces weighing more than 16 ounces), mailers must also meet the following requirements: * * *
Free when sent as First-Class Mail International (documents only), First-Class Package International Service, Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes, or Priority Mail International Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes. Weight limit: 4 pounds.
Traveler's checks, precious stones, jewelry, and other valuable articles are admitted only in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Coins; banknotes; currency; securities of any kind payable to bearer; traveler's checks; platinum, gold, and silver (manufactured or not); precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles, unless they are sent by First-Class Package International Service with Registered Mail Service.
1. First-Class Package International Service items containing dutiable articles must be registered.
Coins; banknotes; currency; securities of any kind payable to bearer; traveler's checks; platinum, gold, and silver (manufactured or not); precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles, unless they are sent in First-Class
Postage stamps are admitted only in First-Class Package International Service with Registered Mail service shipments.
1. First-Class Package International Service items containing dutiable articles must be registered.
1. The following may not be sent as merchandise with First-Class Package International Service if they are liable to customs duty: Works of art (including photographs), printed forms, account books, manuscript books, labels, advertising matter (except trade catalogs and circulars), picture books, almanacs, maps, old paper, and old newspapers serving as packing paper.
Banknotes; currency notes; and securities payable to bearer may be sent only as First-Class Package International Service with Registered Mail service.
Coins; banknotes; currency notes; securities payable to bearer; traveler's checks; gold, silver, platinum, manufactured or not; jewelry; and other valuable articles may be sent only by First-Class Package International Service with Registered Mail service.
Coins sent to or from collectors or dealers may be mailed in ordinary (uninsured) parcels.
1. First-Class Package International Service items containing dutiable articles must be registered.
Coins; banknotes; currency; securities of any kind payable to bearer; traveler's checks; platinum, gold, and silver (manufactured or not); precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles, unless they are sent in registered First-Class Package International Service.
Coins; banknotes; currency notes (paper money); securities payable to bearer; traveler's checks; manufactured and unmanufactured platinum, gold, silver; precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles, may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service or insured parcels.
Coins; banknotes; currency notes (paper money); securities payable to bearer; traveler's checks; manufactured and unmanufactured platinum, gold, silver; precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles, may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Banknotes admitted only in registered First-Class Package International Service.
Banknotes; currency notes; securities payable to bearer; traveler's checks; manufactured and unmanufactured platinum, gold, silver; precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles may be sent only in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Banknotes, treasury notes, currency notes, and coins may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments from one bank to another.
Coins; traveler's checks; platinum, gold or silver, manufactured or not; precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles, except banknotes, currency notes (paper money), and securities payable to bearer may be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Banknotes, currency notes; and securities payable to bearer may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Coins; banknotes; currency notes; securities payable to bearer; traveler's
Coins; banknotes; currency notes (paper money); securities payable to bearer; traveler's checks; platinum, gold or silver, manufactured or not; precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Records, films, recording wire, computer cards, QSL cards, and magnetic film are admitted only if sent in First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Postage stamps for philatelic purposes are admitted in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments on condition that the package bears a completed PS Form 2976 and the addressee complies with the Italian financial regulations.
Coins; banknotes; currency notes (paper money); securities payable to bearer; traveler's checks; platinum, gold or silver, manufactured or not; precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments or insured Priority Mail International parcels.
Coins; paper currency; banknotes; currency notes; securities payable to bearer; jewelry; manufactured and unmanufactured platinum, gold, and silver; precious stones; and other valuable articles are admitted only if sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
3. In accordance with Executive Order 12543 of January 7, 1986, merchandise is limited to donations of articles of food, clothing, medicines, and medical supplies that are intended strictly for medical purposes. First-Class Package International Service items and International Priority Airmail (IPA) items are subject to the content restriction. ISAL service is suspended because transportation is not available.
Coins; banknotes; currency notes; traveler's checks; securities payable to bearer; platinum, gold or silver, manufactured or not; precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
1. First-Class Package International Service items and Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes containing dutiable articles must be registered.
Diamonds or precious stones except in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
First-Class Package International Service items containing dutiable articles must be registered.
First-Class Package International Service items containing dutiable articles must be registered.
Banknotes; currency notes; and securities payable to bearer may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Coins, banknotes, currency notes (paper money), traveler's checks, and securities payable to bearer except in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Postage stamps for philatelic purposes are admitted in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments on condition that the package bears a completed PS Form 2976 and the addressee complies with the Italian financial regulations.
First-Class Package International Service items containing dutiable articles must be registered.
Postage stamps, whether used or not, except in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Coins or precious metal sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments may not exceed L5 in value.
Coins except coins for purposes of ornament; banknotes; currency notes; traveler's checks; securities payable to bearer; precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles. However, unmounted precious stones may be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments if authorization is obtained from the Postmaster General of Singapore.
Coins; banknotes; currency; securities of any kind payable to bearer; traveler's checks; platinum, gold, and silver (manufactured or not); precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles, unless they are sent in registered First-Class Package International Service.
Coins; banknotes; currency; securities of any kind payable to bearer; traveler's checks; platinum, gold, and silver (manufactured or not); precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles.
Diamonds or precious stones except in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
3. Coins; banknotes; currency notes (paper money); traveler's checks; platinum, gold, and silver (manufactured or not); precious stones; jewelry; and other valuable articles are admitted only in First-Class Package International Service with Registered Mail service shipments.
Banknotes greater than 2 Sudanese pounds in value are admitted ONLY in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
1. First-Class Package International Service items containing dutiable articles must be registered.
Coins must not exceed 100 shillings in value and must be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Banknotes, currency notes, securities payable to bearer, traveler's checks, may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Coins; banknotes; currency notes (paper money); securities payable to bearer; traveler checks; platinum, gold or silver, manufactured or not; precious stones, jewelry; and other valuable articles, may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
1. In order to be admissible, the food items listed below must * * * (e) be shipped in quantities not to exceed 2 kilograms (4 pounds) when enclosed in a First-Class Package International Service shipment * * *.
Coins, banknotes, currency notes, securities payable to bearer, and traveler's checks may only be sent in registered First-Class Package International Service shipments.
Coins; paper currency; banknotes; currency notes; securities payable to bearer; jewelry; manufactured and unmanufactured platinum, gold, and silver; precious stones; and other valuable articles are admitted only if
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to receipt of adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the direct final rule published on Monday, October 16, 2017, to approve revisions to the West Virginia state implementation plan (SIP). The revisions updated the effective date by which the West Virginia regulations incorporate by reference the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), additional monitoring methods, and additional equivalent monitoring methods.
The direct final rule published at 82 FR 47981, on October 16, 2017, is withdrawn as of December 5, 2017.
Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at
On June 13, 2017, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision to update the State's incorporation by reference of federal standards, ambient air monitoring reference methods, and equivalent monitoring reference methods. The SIP revisions updated the effective date by which the West Virginia regulations incorporate by reference the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), additional monitoring methods, and additional equivalent monitoring methods. This update was intended to add effectively the following to the West Virginia SIP: The 2015 ozone NAAQS; monitoring reference and equivalent methods pertaining to fine particulate matter (PM
In the direct final rule published on Monday, October 16, 2017 (82 FR 47981), EPA stated that if we received adverse comment by November 15, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comment. EPA will address the comments received in a subsequent final rulemaking action based upon the proposed action, also published on Monday, October 16, 2017 (82 FR 48033). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conditionally approving a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing requirements of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under the CSAPR, large electricity generating units in New York are subject to Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring the units to participate in CSAPR federal trading programs for annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule is effective December 5, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID number EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0425. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kenneth Fradkin, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3702, or by email at
EPA is conditionally approving portions of New York's December 1,
Large Electric Generating Units (EGUs) in New York are subject to CSAPR FIPs that require the units to participate in the federal CSAPR NO
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) amended portions of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) in order to incorporate CSAPR requirements into the State's rules and allow the DEC to allocate CSAPR allowances to regulated entities in New York. 6 NYCRR Part 244, “CAIR NO
EPA is conditionally approving this SIP revision, as opposed to fully approving it, because of several deficiencies that New York must address. The conditional approval of portions of New York's SIP submittal is conditioned on New York meeting the commitment, articulated in its letters to EPA dated July 14, 2016, March 4, 2017, and July 6, 2017, to make the necessary changes to 6 NYCRR Parts 200, 244, and 245 to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision to replace EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with state-determined allocations. In a July 6, 2017 letter to EPA, the DEC committed to submitting a SIP revision that addresses EPA identified deficiencies by December 29, 2017.
This action conditionally approves into New York's SIP state-determined allowance allocation procedures for annual NO
New York also repealed 6 NYCRR Part 243, “CAIR NO
This conditional final rule is effective immediately upon publication in the
EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of air pollution. As amended (including the 2016 CSAPR Update), CSAPR requires 27 Eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO
CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-related obligations using either CSAPR's federal emissions trading programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the federal programs.
States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.
Under the second alternative—a “full” SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR federal trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated with the federal trading program, so long as the state trading program is substantively identical to the federal trading program or does not substantively differ from the federal trading program except as discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.
The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First, upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular set of CSAPR FIP requirements, the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA withdrawal action, so long as EPA's approval of the SIP is full and unconditional.
On December 1, 2015, New York submitted to EPA an abbreviated SIP revision that, if approved, would replace the default allowance allocation provisions of the CSAPR SO
The SIP submittal includes the following adopted state rules: 6 NYCRR Part 243, “Transport Rule NO
As discussed in section I, EPA is not acting at this time on the portion of New York's SIP submittal addressing 6
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 29, 2017 (82 FR 40963), EPA proposed to conditionally approve the portion of New York's submittal designed to replace the federal CSAPR SO
Comments on the NPRM were due on September 28, 2017. EPA received no comments on the proposed action.
The EPA is conditionally approving the New York SIP revision submitted on December 1, 2015 concerning allocations to New York units of CSAPR NO
The conditional approval of Parts 200, 244, and 245 is based upon DEC's commitment to make the necessary changes, identified in the July 14, 2016, March 4, 2017, and July 6, 2017 commitment letters, to New York's 6 NYCRR Part 244, “Transport Rule NO
Following the conditional approval of Part 200, Part 244, and Part 245, allocations of CSAPR NO
Under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA may approve a SIP revision based on a commitment by a state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year after the date of final conditional approval. If the state fails to meet its commitment to submit a revised SIP by December 29, 2017 [
Because a FIP already in place satisfies New York's obligations to mitigate interstate transport air pollution, should a disapproval become finalized as noted above, the EPA will not be required to take further action. Additionally, since the SIP submission is not required in response to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 would not apply because the deficiencies are not with respect to a submission that is required under CAA title I part D.
In this rule, with our conditional approval, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing, with our conditional approval, the incorporation by reference revisions to 6 NYCRR Parts 200, entitled “General Provisions”, adopted November 10, 2015, 6 NYCRR Part 244, entitled “Transport Rule NO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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,
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• 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 is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 February 5, 2018. 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).)
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52 chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin in or on food when used in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and/or food processing equipment and utensils. In addition, this regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin when used as an antimicrobial pesticide treatment solution. Albemarle Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin in end-use products applied to food contact surfaces and used for washing raw agricultural commodities. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level of residues of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin resulting from uses consistent with the terms of these exemptions.
This regulation is effective December 5, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 5, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1033, is available at
Steven H. Weiss, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 308-6411; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111),
• Animal production (NAICS code 112),
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311),
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532),
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1033 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 5, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1033, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Exposures to 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin (DBDMH) only occur during the mixing of the treatment solution. These exposures would only be associated with the occupational handling/applying when pouring and mixing with water. When mixed with water, DBDMH rapidly hydrolyzes to 5,5-dimethylhydantion (DMH). DMH is stable in water and is the residue available for dietary exposure.
Most of the toxicology studies submitted to the Agency in support of registration of DBDMH were conducted on DMH (including subchronic oral toxicity in the rat and dog; subchronic dermal toxicity in the rat; chronic toxicity in the dog; combined chronic/oncogenicity in the rat and mouse; oncogenicity in the mouse; developmental toxicity in the rat and rabbit; 2-generation reproductive toxicity in the rat; genotoxicity battery; and general metabolism in the rat). These studies generally show lack of systemic toxicity up to the limit dose. No specific target organs were identified in adult animals tested. No developmental or maternal toxicity was observed. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity. There is also no indication of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the database.
The formation of the bromide ion is also present during the degradation of DBDMH. Based on available data, the Agency has previously determined that bromine does not present adverse systemic effects and therefore no endpoints were identified.
Specific information on the studies received from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
The Agency did not identify any toxicological points of departure because the available data indicate a lack of toxicity for DBDMH and its degradates (DMH and the bromide ion).
1.
2.
3.
EPA has not found 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. Based on the lack of toxicity for DBDMH and its metabolites and degradates, therefore, EPA concludes that 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemical, see EPA's Web site at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
There are adequate pre- and/or post-natal toxicity studies for DMH that show no qualitative or quantitative susceptibility from exposure to DMH. As a result, the Agency has conducted a qualitative assessment in which safety factors were not relevant. Moreover, because of the lack of any threshold effects, the requirement to retain an additional 10X safety factor does not apply.
Based on the toxicological profile of DBDMH, EPA concludes that exposures to the antimicrobial 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin will not pose a risk under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. In order to use this substance as antimicrobial treatment in process water and as a food contact surface sanitizer, the substance must be mixed with water, necessarily resulting in the conversion of DMDBH into DMH and bromine, for which the Agency has not identified any toxicological endpoints of concern. Therefore, the Agency concludes that reasonably foreseeable uses of this substance are safe. Accordingly, EPA finds that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin residues.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Although the petitioner requested exemptions for residues of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin with limitations on the amount of DBDMH in sanitizing and antimicrobial treatment solutions, EPA is establishing exemptions, without the requested limitations, for residues of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin, because of the lack of toxicity of DMDBH and its metabolites and degradates.
Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established for residues of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin as follows: When used in food contact surface sanitizing solutions applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils and when used as an antimicrobial treatment in solutions applied to raw agricultural commodities in treatment facilities.
This action establishes exemptions from tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Residues of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin, including its metabolites and degradates, resulting from the use of 1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin in antimicrobial treatment solutions of raw agricultural commodities in treatment facilities are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance.
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule.
Pursuant to section 11 of the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015 (STB Reauthorization Act), the Surface Transportation Board (Board) is modifying rules pertaining to its rate case procedures.
This rule is effective on December 30, 2017.
Requests for information or questions regarding this final rule should reference Docket No. EP 733 and be in writing addressed to: Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.
Valerie Quinn, (202) 245-0283. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
Section 11 of the STB Reauthorization Act, Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015), directs the Board to “initiate a proceeding to assess procedures that are available to parties in litigation before courts to expedite such litigation and the potential application of any such procedures to rate cases.” In addition, section 11 requires the Board to comply with a new timeline in Stand-Alone Cost (SAC) cases.
In advance of initiating this proceeding, Board staff held informal meetings with stakeholders
On March 31, 2017, the Board issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, addressing the comments on the
Below, the Board addresses the comments and suggestions submitted by parties in response to the
Several stakeholders generally support the Board's proposed pre-complaint period, although some suggested modification to the proposed rule. ACC, TFI, and NITL state that the pre-filing notice would allow parties to begin many functions that would typically occur after a complaint is filed and note that engaging in mediation before the filing of a complaint could potentially avoid the filing of a complaint at all. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 3.) They also suggest that the Board allow for skipping or shortening the pre-complaint period when the statute of limitations would otherwise bar any portion of a complaint that is filed after the notice period expires. (
Coal Shippers/NARUC urge the Board not to adopt the proposed pre-complaint period rules. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 14.) According to Coal Shippers/NARUC, the pre-filing notice requirement would lengthen the rate case schedule. (
Coal Shippers/NARUC urge that, if the Board establishes a pre-filing notice requirement, it should also require railroads to provide common carrier rates and service terms to shippers upon request no later than 90 days prior to the anticipated start of the common carrier service. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 29;
Coal Shippers/NARUC also do not support moving mandatory mediation to the pre-complaint period. According to Coal Shippers/NARUC, by the time a case reaches the Board, it is unlikely that a mediated resolution can be obtained. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 20.) Coal Shippers/NARUC further argue that mediation is more beneficial following a complaint because the complaint provides valuable information to both the defendant carrier and mediator. (
NGFA suggests the Board shorten the mediation period, specifically to no more than 45 days, subject to extension by mutual agreement of the parties. (NGFA NPRM Comments 4; NGFA NPRM Reply 3;
UP opposes Coal Shippers/NARUC's suggestion that the Board require a
The Board continues to believe that establishing a pre-complaint period, during which parties would engage in mediation, would help rate cases proceed more efficiently. The pre-filing notice would put parties on notice as to what they likely will need to produce in discovery and enable parties to begin many activities that typically would occur only after a complaint is filed. In this respect, the pre-complaint period could shorten the rate case schedule by lessening the need for parties to request extensions of time once discovery begins. Establishing a pre-complaint period will also allow parties to engage in mediation before a complaint is filed, enabling parties to focus on mediation without the distractions of fully active litigation.
Additionally, completing Board-sponsored mediation during the pre-complaint period could potentially prevent the filing of a complaint altogether. The Board prefers the resolution of disputes through mediation in lieu of formal Board proceedings whenever possible.
The Board also continues to believe that 70 days is the most appropriate length for the pre-complaint period because it would allow sufficient time for mediation to be completed before the filing of a formal complaint, thus freeing parties to focus on mediating a resolution before litigation begins. The Board is not persuaded by the arguments set forth by Coal Shippers/NARUC and NGFA in support of shorter pre-complaint and mediation periods. Coal Shippers/NARUC provide no support for their claim that 40 days is “more than enough time” for parties to reach a mediated solution.
For these reasons, the Board will adopt the proposal in the
Second, in response to AAR's concern regarding a party's ability to view its own confidential information when such information is referenced in another party's filing, the Board clarifies that the rules adopted here would not affect the parties' ability to negotiate protective orders addressing that situation, as is routinely done now.
The Board declines to adopt Coal Shippers/NARUC's suggestion that the Board require railroads to provide common carrier rates to shippers upon request no later than 90 days prior to the start of that service. The Board agrees with UP that the dates associated with the establishment of common carrier rates are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
The Board also declines to adopt ACC, TFI, and NITL's suggestions that the Board allow the pre-complaint period to be skipped or shortened when the statute of limitations would otherwise bar any portion of a complaint. Adopting such an approach would effectively permit parties to ignore the pre-complaint period established in this final rule. Parties should take the applicable statute of limitations into account when preparing to file a rate case.
a.
Additionally, both Coal Shippers/NARUC and ACC, TFI, and NITL suggest that the Board establish firm deadlines for defendant carriers to produce certain data. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 4; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 15.) ACC, TFI, and NITL argue that defendant carriers should be required to produce traffic data within 90 days of the initial discovery request. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 4-5.) Coal Shippers/NARUC argue that the defendant carrier(s) should be required to produce “Core SAC Data” no later than 70 days after receipt of the shipper's initial discovery requests.
Both AAR and UP dispute the claims that railroads delay discovery. (AAR NPRM Reply 5-6; UP NPRM Reply 2.) They also both claim that production of discovery material in SAC cases, especially production of traffic data, is a resource- and time-intensive task, requiring the development of information not maintained in the ordinary course of business. (AAR NPRM Reply 7-8; UP NPRM Reply 2-3, V.S. Sanford 1 & 3.) According to UP, carriers should not be expected to begin compiling discovery material during the mediation period for several reasons. First, according to UP, doing so would effectively transform the pre-filing notice into a complaint by immediately triggering discovery, yet ignoring the burdens involved in addressing disputes over the scope of discovery. Second, the proposal would cause a waste of resources if mediation succeeds. Third, parties may be able to resolve part of their dispute in mediation and narrow the scope of discovery. (UP NPRM Reply 5-6.)
Additionally, UP argues that the Board need not establish a firm discovery deadline because one already exists. (UP NPRM Reply 3 (“The rules establish a 150-day discovery period, followed by a 60-day period for preparing evidence.”).) According to UP, if the Board were to subdivide and micromanage the discovery period, the Board would generate more litigation by creating new types of disputes for the Board to resolve, imposing additional costs and delay. (
The final rule will adopt the proposal as set forth in the
The Board declines to adopt Coal Shippers/NARUC's recommendation that complainants be permitted to include discovery requests for “Core SAC Data” with their pre-filing notices. Because the scope of discovery could potentially evolve as parties proceed through mediation, the Board believes the appropriate time for parties to submit discovery requests is with the respective filings of the complaint and answer. Parties may resolve certain aspects of the dispute, such as the geographical and temporal limits for the case, and those agreements could significantly affect what data a party is required to produce and could render prior efforts to gather data superfluous.
Additionally, because the Board's rules already provide a default procedural schedule for SAC cases that includes a 150-day deadline for the completion of discovery, the Board need not establish other interim discovery deadlines in this rulemaking.
Lastly, the Board declines to adopt the suggestion made by ACC, TFI, and NITL that the Board include a limit on subsequent discovery requests in the revised regulations. In accordance with 49 CFR 1103.27, the Board expects practitioners to exercise candor and fairness in dealing with other litigants. Attempts to “game” discovery requirements would contravene the canons of ethics governing practitioners before the Board. If a party believes subsequent discovery is overly broad or unduly burdensome, it may move to quash those requests. Additionally, the Board can, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, convene a staff conference to aid in resolving a discovery dispute.
b.
Railroad and shipper interests generally support the Board's proposed meet-and-confer requirement. (AAR NPRM Comments 6-7; ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 5; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 35; NGFA NPRM Comments 5; UP NPRM Reply 2.) Coal Shippers/NARUC ask the Board to clarify whether the proposed meet-and-confer obligation applies to requests for document production.
• Coal Shippers/NARUC ask the Board to clarify whether the requirement in § 1114.31(a) that motions to compel be filed with the Board within 10 days after the failure to obtain a responsive answer applies to requests for document production. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 36-37; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 3-4, 16;
• AAR suggests the proposed meet-and-confer requirement should apply in all Board proceedings, not just rate cases. (AAR NPRM Comments 7 n.24;
• ACC, TFI, and NITL ask the Board to clarify whether parties may continue to mutually agree to toll the 10-day period for filing motions to compel while they engage in negotiations and suggest that 30 days is a more realistic time line for filing motions to compel in SAC cases. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 5;
In general, as noted in the
With respect to the concern from ACC, TFI, and NITL regarding agreements tolling the 10-day period, the Board believes that 10 days is generally sufficient time to confer or attempt to confer with a party before filing a motion to compel under § 1114.31(a), and extending that period any further would unnecessarily delay discovery. If parties have conferred and are unable to reach a negotiated solution within 10 days, they may file a request for extension of time with the Board. Given the recent changes to the statutory deadlines for deciding rate
The Board agrees with the majority of commenters that adding a meet-and-confer requirement modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 would encourage parties to resolve disputes without involving the Board, thus reducing the number of disputes that reach the Board, requiring fewer Board decisions, and avoiding potential delays in processing rate cases. As requested by Coal Shippers/NARUC, the Board will clarify in the final rule adopted here that the requirement that a party filing a motion to compel in a SAC or simplified standards case certify that it has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party serving discovery to settle the dispute without Board intervention will apply to all motions to compel.
a.
AAR and NGFA support the proposal to establish a standard convention for identifying confidential, highly confidential, and sensitive security information. (
ACC, TFI, and NITL do not object to this proposal but question whether it is feasible in practice. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 6.) Specifically, ACC, TFI, and NITL state that, if confidentiality designations are not made until after the highly confidential version has been filed, confidential versions would no longer identify confidential text; as such, parties will have to cross-reference the confidential versions with the redacted public versions to identify confidential text, a process they claim is cumbersome and creates risk of inadvertent disclosures of confidential information. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 6; ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 8.) Coal Shippers/NARUC, however, believe the Board's proposal would be feasible in practice and note that ACC, TFI, and NITL's feasibility concern appears to be premised on a scenario where the Board's proposal is interpreted as not requiring parties to make all bracket designations (
The Board finds that the standard designations for confidential information will help eliminate any confusion caused by parties using different methods of identification and, accordingly, this proposal will be adopted in the final rules. The Board also continues to believe that the proposal to stagger the filing of confidential and public filings will be beneficial and, therefore, will adopt this proposal as well. However, the Board will provide clarification in response to ACC, TFI, and NITL's concern regarding the feasibility of staggering the filings. Under the
b.
ACC, TFI, and NITL also suggest that the Board stagger the submission of final briefs so a complainant would file its final brief two weeks after the defendant files its final brief. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 7.) According to ACC, TFI, and NITL, staggering briefs would ensure that complainants, who have the burden of proof, can respond to the defendant's final brief rather than simply reiterate their rebuttal. (
AAR also asks the Board to reiterate its commitment to policing improper rebuttal evidence, strictly enforcing those rules, and either relieving defendants from the brief limit when responding to improper rebuttal evidence or giving defendants an opportunity to file a separate document (not subject to the brief length limit) that responds to improper rebuttal evidence. (AAR NPRM Comments 8.) ACC, TFI, and NITL object to AAR's proposal, arguing that it would give railroads the right to decide unilaterally when there has been an improper rebuttal and relieve themselves of brief limits. ACC, TFI, and NITL further state that the Board already has procedures for dealing with improper rebuttal evidence through motions to strike. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 8.) Coal Shippers/NARUC also object to AAR's proposal, arguing that it would create a loophole that would defeat the purpose of the proposed rule and deprive shippers of procedural due process because shippers would not have an opportunity to respond to the carrier's claims of improper rebuttal. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 5, 22.)
Lastly, NGFA recommends that the Board tailor final briefs to “specific issues of concern to the Board” by determining whether final briefs are needed on a case-by-case basis and imposing even shorter page limits where the issues do not justify 30 pages. (NGFA NPRM Comments 5-6.) Both Coal Shippers/NARUC and ACC, TFI, and NITL state that they do not object to the Board determining on a case-by-case bases the need for, and length of, final briefs. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 9; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 4-5, 21.)
The Board will adopt the proposed 30-page limit, inclusive of exhibits, on the length of final briefs in SAC and Simplified-SAC cases. The Board believes the page limit will encourage parties to focus their briefs on the most important issues. As the Board noted in the
The Board also declines to adopt ACC, TFI, and NITL's suggestion that the Board stagger the submission of final briefs. First, staggering final briefs would shorten the time between when final briefs are filed and when the Board must render a decision. Second, because parties are not permitted to raise new evidence or arguments in final briefs, a complainant need not respond to a defendant's final brief. Rather, final briefs are intended as a concise summary of the parties' positions to help focus the Board's analysis of the evidence and arguments and facilitate a more efficient resolution of outstanding issues. Nor will the Board adopt AAR's proposal to relieve defendants from the page limit to respond to improper rebuttal evidence or give defendants an opportunity to file a separate document when responding to improper rebuttal evidence. The Board agrees with ACC, TFI, and NITL that the Board's existing procedures for dealing with improper rebuttal evidence are sufficient.
As the Board noted in the
ACC, TFI, and NITL support the Board's proposal, stating that a liaison will improve communications between the parties and with the Board, potentially resolve disagreements,
Coal Shippers/NARUC also generally support the Board's proposal for increased staff involvement in rate cases, but suggest two modifications. (
Second, Coal Shippers/NARUC request the Board clarify that the parties and the liaison must abide by the Board's rules governing ex parte communications. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 27.) Specifically, Coal Shippers/NARUC argue: (1) The liaison should be free to engage in joint communications with counsel for the parties as is done in technical conferences; (2) while it may not be necessary for the liaison to convene joint meetings at all times, all communications between the liaison and any of the parties to a case (
UP argues that the ex parte restrictions proposed by Coal Shippers/NARUC are vague, would have a chilling effect on communications, and would undermine the usefulness of the staff liaison. (UP NPRM Reply 7.) Moreover, UP argues, the Board's ex parte regulations should address any concern shippers have. (
AAR supports increased use of written questions and technical conferences and the appointment a staff liaison to a rate case; however, AAR asks the Board to clarify that the staff liaison and the appointed mediator would be two separate individuals. (AAR NPRM Comments 6; AAR NPRM Reply 3-4.) AAR further suggests the Board modify its regulations to delegate to the liaison the authority to convene a technical conference and to rule on issues raised in such conferences. (AAR NPRM Comments 6.) According to AAR, this modification would enable the liaison to facilitate negotiation among the parties while still providing a clear path for Board oversight, as the liaison's rulings would be subject to the appellate standards for interlocutory appeals under 49 CFR 1115.9(b). (
The Board will adopt the proposal in the
However, the Board will clarify that the liaison would be required to comply with the Board's ex parte regulations.
Additionally, AAR's suggestion that the Board delegate to the liaison the authority to rule on issues exceeds the intended scope of the liaison's role. As noted in the
The final rule adopted by the Board here contains changes to the Board's regulations at 49 CFR parts 1104, 1109, 1111, 1114, and 1130, which are set out below. The final rule would amend the existing procedures for filing and litigating a rate case, as directed by section 11 of the STB Reauthorization Act. While the rules adopted here are largely in response to section 11 of the STB Reauthorization Act, the Board intends to continue to review its rate regulations so that it may propose additional improvements to its rate review process in a subsequent rulemaking proceeding.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
In the
The final rule adopted here revises the rules proposed in the
This modification to an existing collection will be submitted to OMB for review as required under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and 5 CFR 1320.11.
1. The Board adopts the final rule as set forth in this decision. Notice of the adopted rule will be published in the
2. This decision is effective December 30, 2017.
3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board amends title 49, chapter X, parts 1104, 1109, 1111, 1114, and 1130 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5.U.S.C. 553 and 559; 18 U.S.C. 1621; and 49 U.S.C. 1321.
(c)
49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 5 U.S.C. 571
(a)
(b)
(g)
49 U.S.C. 10704, 11701, and 1321.
(a)
(1) Identify the rate to be challenged;
(2) Identify the origin/destination pair(s) to be challenged;
(3) Identify the affected commodities; and
(4) Include a motion for protective order as set forth at 49 CFR 1104.14(c).
(b)
(a)
(1) The carrier or region identifier.
(2) The type of shipment (local, received-terminated, etc.).
(3) The one-way distance of the shipment.
(4) The type of car (by URCS code).
(5) The number of cars.
(6) The car ownership (private or railroad).
(7) The commodity type (STCC code).
(8) The weight of the shipment (in tons per car).
(9) The type of movement (individual, multi-car, or unit train).
(10) A narrative addressing whether there is any feasible transportation alternative for the challenged movements.
(11) For matters for which voluntary, binding arbitration is available pursuant to 49 CFR part 1108, the complaint shall state that arbitration was considered, but rejected, as a means of resolving the dispute.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
A complainant is responsible for serving formal complaints, amended or supplemental complaints, and cross complaints on the defendant(s). Service
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
An answer to a complaint or cross complaint may be accompanied by a motion to dismiss the complaint or cross complaint or a motion to make the complaint or cross complaint more definite. A motion to dismiss can be filed at anytime during a proceeding. A complainant or cross complainant may, within 10 days after an answer is filed, file a motion to make the answer more definite. Any motion to make more definite must specify the defects in the particular pleading and must describe fully the additional information or details thought to be necessary.
If a defendant satisfies a formal complaint, either before or after answering, a statement to that effect signed by the complainant must be filed (original only need be filed), setting forth when and how the complaint has been satisfied. This action should be taken as expeditiously as possible.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(1) Day 0—Complaint filed, discovery period begins.
(2) Day 7 or before—Conference of the parties convened pursuant to § 1111.11(b).
(3) Day 20—Defendant's answer to complaint due.
(4) Day 150—Discovery completed.
(5) Day 210—Complainant files opening evidence on absence of intermodal and intramodal competition, variable cost, and stand-alone cost issues.
(6) Day 270—Defendant files reply evidence to complainant's opening evidence.
(7) Day 305—Complainant files rebuttal evidence to defendant's reply evidence.
(8) Day 335—Complainant and defendant file final briefs.
(9) Day 485 or before—The Board issues its decision.
(b)
(2) Final briefs are limited to 30 pages, inclusive of exhibits.
(c)
(2) In addition, the Board may convene a conference of the parties with Board staff, after discovery requests are served but before any motions to compel may be filed, to discuss discovery matters in stand-alone cost rate cases.
(a)
(1)(i) In cases relying upon the Simplified-SAC methodology:
(A) Day 0—Complaint filed (including complainant's disclosure).
(B) Day 10—Mediation begins.
(C) Day 20—Defendant's answer to complaint (including defendant's initial disclosure).
(D) Day 30—Mediation ends; discovery begins.
(E) Day 140—Defendant's second disclosure.
(F) Day 150—Discovery closes.
(G) Day 220—Opening evidence.
(H) Day 280—Reply evidence.
(I) Day 310—Rebuttal evidence.
(J) Day 320—Technical conference (market dominance and merits).
(K) Day 330—Final briefs.
(ii) In addition, the Board will appoint a liaison within 10 business days of the filing of the complaint.
(2)(i) In cases relying upon the Three-Benchmark methodology:
(A) Day 0—Complaint filed (including complainant's disclosure).
(B) Day 10—Mediation begins. (STB production of unmasked Waybill Sample.)
(C) Day 20—Defendant's answer to complaint (including defendant's initial disclosure).
(D) Day 30—Mediation ends; discovery begins.
(E) Day 60—Discovery closes.
(F) Day 90—Complainant's opening (initial tender of comparison group and opening evidence on market dominance). Defendant's opening (initial tender of comparison group).
(G) Day 95—Technical conference on comparison group.
(H) Day 120—Parties' final tenders on comparison group. Defendant's reply on market dominance.
(I) Day 150—Parties' replies to final tenders. Complainant's rebuttal on market dominance.
(ii) In addition, the Board will appoint a liaison within 10 business days of the filing of the complaint.
(b)
(2) In cases relying upon the Simplified-SAC methodology, final briefs are limited to 30 pages, inclusive of exhibits.
(c)
(1) Identification of all traffic that moved over the routes replicated by the SARR in the Test Year.
(2) Information about those movements, in electronic format, aggregated by origin-destination pair and shipper, showing the origin, destination, volume, and total revenues from each movement.
(3) Total operating and equipment cost calculations for each of those movements, provided in electronic format.
(4) Revenue allocation for the on-SARR portion of each cross-over movement in the traffic group provided in electronic format.
(5) Total trackage rights payments paid or received during the Test Year associated with the route replicated by the SARR.
(6) All workpapers and documentation necessary to support the calculations.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.
(d)
(f)
(a) * * *
(2)
(ii) In a rate case to be considered under the stand-alone cost or simplified standards methodologies, a reply to a motion to compel must be filed with the Board within 10 days of when the motion to compel is filed.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f), 14709.
(a)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS announces that the 2017 summer flounder commercial quota allocated to the State of New Jersey has been harvested. Vessels issued a Federal commercial summer flounder permit may not land summer flounder in New Jersey for the remainder of calendar year 2017, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state. Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery require publication of this notice to advise vessel and dealer permit holders that Federal commercial quota is no longer available to land summer flounder in New Jersey.
Effective November 30, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
Cynthia Hanson, (978) 281-9180, or
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned on a percentage basis among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102.
The coastwide commercial quota for summer flounder for the 2017 calendar year is 5,658,260 lb (2,566,544 kg) (81 FR 93842, December 22, 2016). The percent allocated to vessels landing summer flounder in New Jersey is 16.72499 percent, resulting in an initial commercial quota of 946,512 lb (429,331 kg). New Jersey conducted one quota transfer of 380 lb (172 kg) to Rhode Island on October 4, 2017 (82 FR 46936), reducing its commercial quota to 946,132 lb (429,158 kg).
The NMFS Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Region (Regional Administrator) monitors the state commercial landings and determines when a state's commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish a notice in the
Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal permit holders agree, as a condition of the permit, not to land summer flounder in any state that the Regional Administrator has determined no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, effective November 30, 2017, landing of summer flounder in New Jersey by vessels holding summer flounder commercial Federal fisheries permits is prohibited for the remainder of the 2017 calendar year, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer and is announced in the
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. This action closes the commercial summer flounder fishery for New Jersey through December 31, 2017, under current regulations. The regulations at § 648.103(b) require such action to ensure that summer flounder vessels do not exceed quotas allocated to the states. If implementation of this closure was delayed to solicit prior public comment, the quota for this fishing year will be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan. The Assistant Administrator further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reason stated above.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; Model 757 airplanes; Model 767 airplanes; Model 777 airplanes; and Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fuel crossfeed valves failing to open when activated during flight. This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, revising the airplane flight manual (AFM); and for certain other airplanes, revising the minimum equipment list (MEL) to do an operational check of the fuel crossfeed valve prior to each extended range operations (ETOPS) flight if one fuel crossfeed valve (or the fuel balancing system on Model 787 airplanes) is inoperative. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 19, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6506; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports of fuel crossfeed valves failing to open when activated during flight. The fuel crossfeed valve can fail closed due to electrical or mechanical faults. Such a failure would remain undiscovered until an attempt is made to open the fuel crossfeed valve. Depending on the operational use of the airplane, such a failure could remain latent for multiple flights. Some of the affected airplanes have only one fuel crossfeed valve. Other affected airplanes have two redundant fuel crossfeed valves, but are allowed to be dispatched under their MEL with one of the two fuel crossfeed valves inoperative and locked closed. Model 787 airplanes have a single crossfeed valve and a separate fuel balancing system, either of which allows use of all of the main tank fuel by either engine. The Model 787 MEL allows airplanes to be dispatched with the fuel balancing system inoperative.
If an engine failure occurs during certain portions of the cruise phase of an ETOPS flight and the fuel crossfeed valve cannot be opened, the fuel in the main tank associated with the failed engine cannot be used by the remaining operative engine, potentially resulting in a forced off-airport landing due to exhaustion of the remaining usable fuel and consequent loss of all engine thrust.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type designs.
For airplanes equipped with a single fuel crossfeed valve, this proposed AD would require revising the limitation and normal procedures sections of the AFM by adding an operational check of the fuel crossfeed valve immediately prior to each ETOPS flight. For airplanes equipped with dual fuel crossfeed valves, this proposed AD would require revising the MEL by adding a requirement to do an operational check of the fuel crossfeed valve prior to each ETOPS flight if one fuel crossfeed valve (or the fuel balancing system on Model 787 airplanes) is inoperative.
This proposed AD would allow removal of the AFM limitation required by AD 88-21-03 R1, Amendment 39-6077 (53 FR 46605, November 18, 1988) (“88-21-03 R1”), after the applicable AFM limitations in this proposed AD are incorporated in the AFM.
AD 88-21-03 R1 applies to, among other airplanes, certain Model 737-200, 737-300, 757-200, 767-200, and 767-300 series airplanes. AD 88-21-03 R1 requires revising the AFM to include an operational check of the fuel crossfeed valve during the last hour of cruise flight during each ETOPS flight and log book entry of any fuel crossfeed valve failure conditions, and repair if necessary.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3,252 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 19, 2018.
This AD affects AD 88-21-03 R1, Amendment 39-6077 (53 FR 46605, November 18, 1988).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD.
(1) Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
(2) Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes.
(3) Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes.
(4) Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and -777F series airplanes.
(5) Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28; Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of fuel crossfeed valves failing to open when activated during flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent an airplane from being dispatched on an extended range operations (ETOPS) flight with a single fuel crossfeed valve that cannot be opened. This condition could cause the fuel in the main tank associated with a failed engine to be unavailable to the remaining operative engine, potentially resulting in a forced offairport landing due to exhaustion of the remaining usable fuel and consequent loss of all engine thrust.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Revise “Extended Range Operations” subsection of the “Fuel System Limitations” section of the Section 1 Certificate Limitations of the airplane flight manual (AFM) by incorporating the information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 1 to
(2) Revise the “Extended Range Operations” section of the Section 3 Normal Procedures of the AFM by incorporating the information specified in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD has been included in the “Extended Range Operations” section of Section 3 Normal Procedures of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD having line numbers 1 through 616 inclusive and 618 on which the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0029 (second fuel crossfeed valve installation) have not been done: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. For Model 757 airplanes identified in this paragraph, if the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0029 are done after the effective date of this AD, then the actions specified in this paragraph are no longer required for that airplane and the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD must be done before further flight after performing the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0029.
(1) Revise the “Extended Range Operations” section of the Section 1 Certificate Limitations of the AFM by incorporating the information specified in figure 3 to paragraph (h)(1). This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 3 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD has been included in the “Extended Range Operations” section of the Section 1 Certificate Limitations of the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
(2) Revise the “Extended Range Operations” section of Section 3 Normal Procedures of the AFM by incorporating the information specified in figure 4 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 4 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD has been included in the Extended Range Operations section of Section 3 Normal Procedures of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD having line numbers 1 through 430 inclusive on which the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0034 (second fuel crossfeed valve installation) have not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD. If the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0034 are done after the effective date of this AD, the actions specified in this paragraph are no longer required for that airplane and the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD must be done before further flight.
(1) Revise the “Extended Range Operations” section of the Section 1 Certificate Limitations of the AFM by incorporating the information specified in figure 5 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 5 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD has been included in the “Extended Range Operations” section of the Section 1 Certificate Limitations of the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
(2) Revise the Section 3.1 Normal Procedures of the AFM by incorporating the information specified in figure 6 to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD having line numbers 617, 619, and subsequent; and for airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD having line numbers 1 through 616 inclusive and 618, on which a second fuel crossfeed valve has been installed before the effective date of this AD, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0029: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the operator's FAA-approved MEL by incorporating the information specified in figure 7 to paragraph (j) of this AD as a required operations procedure when dispatching for ETOPS operation with an inoperative fuel crossfeed valve. Specific alternative MEL wording to accomplish the actions specified in figure 7 to paragraph (j) of this AD can be approved by the operator's principal operations inspector (POI).
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD having line numbers 431 and subsequent; and for airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD having line numbers 1 through 430 inclusive on which a second fuel crossfeed valve has been installed before the effective date of this AD, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0034: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the operator's FAA-approved MEL by incorporating the information specified in figure 8 to paragraph (k) of this AD as a required operations procedure when dispatching for ETOPS operation with an inoperative fuel crossfeed valve. Specific alternative MEL wording to accomplish the actions specified in figure 8 to paragraph (k) of this AD can be approved by the operator's POI.
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(4) of this AD: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the operator's FAA-approved MEL by incorporating the information specified in figure 9 to paragraph (l) of this AD as a required operations procedure when dispatching for ETOPS operation with an inoperative fuel crossfeed valve. Specific alternative MEL wording to accomplish the actions specified in figure 9 to paragraph (l) of this AD can be approved by the operator's POI.
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(5) of this AD: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the operator's FAA-approved MEL by incorporating the information specified in figure 10 to paragraph (m) of this AD into the MEL requirements for each of the inoperative items specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this AD. Specific alternative MEL wording to accomplish the actions specified in figure 10 to paragraph (m) of this AD can be approved by the operator's POI.
(1) 28-21-01-01 Pressure Refueling System, Main Tank Inboard Refuel Valve.
(2) 28-22-06 Fuel Balance Switch.
(3) 28-26-01 Defuel/Isolation Valves.
(4) 28-41-01-01 Main Tank Fuel Quantity Indication Systems.
After the applicable AFM limitations specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(1) of this AD are incorporated into an airplane's AFM, operators may remove the AFM limitation required by AD 88-21-03 R1, Amendment 39-6077 (53 FR 46605-01, November 18, 1988), for that airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6506; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-02-07 for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. AD 2017-02-07 currently requires a repetitive inspection and a one-time torque of each hydraulic module plate assembly attachment point (attachment point). Since we issued AD 2017-02-07, a terminating action has been developed to address the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would retain the initial inspection and torque requirements of AD 2017-02-07 and require replacing the attachment point hardware. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 5, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
We issued AD 2017-02-07, Amendment 39-18786 (82 FR 10267, February 10, 2017) (2017-02-07) for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 9750, and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 20110, with a hydraulic module plate assembly part number B291M0003103 with a single locking attachment point installed. AD 2017-02-07 requires a repetitive inspection and a one-time torque of the attachment points. The actions in AD 2017-02-07 are intended to prevent failure of an attachment point, loss of the hydraulic module plate, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2015-0210R1, Revision 1, dated October 28, 2015 (2015-0210R1), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK117 C-2, MBB-BK117 C-2e, MBB-BK117 D-2, and MBB-BK117 D-2m helicopters. EASA advised that the hydraulic plate assembly on certain MBB-BK117 models has four attachment points on the fuselage secured by a single locking mechanism. According to EASA, a design reassessment revealed stiffness of the hydraulic plate may be insufficient to withstand the in-service loads in the event one of the four single locking attachment points fails. EASA stated that if this condition is not detected and corrected, it may lead to loss of the hydraulic module plate and possible loss of control of the helicopter. Therefore, the EASA AD required a repetitive inspection and one-time torque tightening of the attachment points in accordance with Airbus Helicopters' service information.
EASA considered its AD an interim action and stated further AD action may follow. EASA subsequently revised AD 2015-0210R1 and issued AD No. 2015-0210R2, dated December 2, 2016 (2015-0210R2), to exclude from the applicability helicopters with an improved double locking attachment mechanism that is not subject to the unsafe condition.
Since we issued AD 2017-02-07, Airbus Helicopters revised its service information to add procedures to modify single locking attachment mechanisms to double locking attachment mechanisms. EASA subsequently superseded AD 2015-0210R2 with AD No. 2017-0047, dated March 13, 2017, to require installation of double locking attachments.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters and ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 for Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, both Revision 2 and both dated February 1, 2017. Until the attachment points are modified with double locking attachment mechanisms, this service information specifies a repetitive visual inspection for condition and correct installation of the attachment points and replacing the affected parts if there is a crack. This service information also specifies a tightening torque check after the initial inspection and replacing the affected parts if torque cannot be applied. This revision of the service information also specifies procedures to replace the single locking attachment hardware with double locking attachment hardware.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters and ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 for Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, both Revision 1 and both dated October 14, 2016. Revision 1 of this service information contains the same visual inspection and torque tightening check procedures as Revision 2. However, Revision 2 of this service information adds the procedures to replace the single locking attachment hardware with double locking attachment hardware.
This proposed AD would require, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless already done within the last 100 hours TIS, performing a visual inspection of each attachment point of the hydraulic module plate assembly for a crack and proper installation, and applying torque to the nuts of each attachment point. This proposed AD would also require, within 300 hours TIS, replacing each single locking attachment point mechanism with a double locking attachment point mechanism.
The EASA AD specifies performing the visual inspection of each attachment point at intervals not exceeding 400 flight hours. This proposed AD would not require a repetitive inspection. This proposed AD would require the replacement of each single locking attachment point mechanism with a double locking attachment point mechanism within 300 hours TIS instead, which would make subsequent inspections unnecessary.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 134 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. We estimate the cost of labor at $85 per work-hour. Visually inspecting the four attachment points would take about 0.75 work-hour for an estimated cost of $64 per helicopter and $8,576 for the U.S. fleet. Inspecting the torque of the four attachment points would take about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $2,814 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing any of the attachment point parts would take a minimal amount of time and parts would cost about $48 per attachment point. Installing four double locking attachment point mechanisms would take a minimal amount of time and parts would cost about $400 per helicopter and $53,600 for the U.S. fleet.
According to Airbus Helicopters service information, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Airbus Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 9750, and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 20110, with a hydraulic module plate assembly part number B291M0003103 with a single locking attachment point installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a hydraulic module plate assembly attachment point (attachment point). This condition could result in loss of the hydraulic module plate and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes 2017-02-07, Amendment 39-18786 (82 FR 10267, February 10, 2017).
We must receive comments by February 5, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(i) Visually inspect the split pins, castellated nuts, plugs, nuts, and hexagon bolts of each attachment point for a crack and for proper installation by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.1.3.a. through 3.B.1.3.d., of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 (ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003) or Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 (ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001), both Revision 2 and both dated February 1, 2017, as applicable to your model helicopter. Replace any part that has a crack before further flight. If the split pins, castellated nuts, or hexagon bolts are not as depicted in Figure 2 of ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, before further flight, properly install them.
(ii) Apply a torque of 9 to 10 Nm to the left-hand and right-hand nuts of each attachment point. If a torque of 9 to 10 Nm cannot be applied, replace the affected nut before further flight.
(2) Within 300 hours TIS:
(i) Replace each forward single locking attachment hardware with double locking attachment hardware by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.3.3. through 3.B.3.6. on page 11 of ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, as applicable to your model helicopter, except you are not required to discard old parts.
(ii) Replace each aft single locking attachment hardware with double locking attachment hardware by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.3.1. through 3.B.3.3. on page 13 of ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, as applicable to your model helicopter, except you are not required to discard old parts.
Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the procedures specified in AD 2017-02-07, Amendment 39-18786 (82 FR 10267, February 10, 2017) or Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, both Revision 1 and both dated October 14, 2016, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 and ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, both Revision 1 and both dated October 14, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0047, dated March 13, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2900, Hydraulic Power System.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and reopening of comment period.
On January 23, 2017, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) published a temporary rule, T.D. TTB-147, Implementation of Statutory Amendments Requiring the Modification of the Definition of Hard Cider, that amended its regulations to implement changes made to the definition of “hard cider” in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act (PATH Act) of 2015. The amended regulations included a requirement that the statement “Tax class 5041(b)(6)” appear on the container of any wine for which the hard cider tax rate is claimed if the wine is removed from wine premises or customs custody on or after January 1, 2018. Concurrent with the temporary rule, TTB published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 168 requesting comments on the regulatory amendments made by T.D. TTB-147. In response to a comment received from a cider industry trade association, TTB, in a temporary rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Comments on the delayed compliance date referenced in this document (Notice No. 168A) are due on or before February 5, 2018. The comment period for the proposed rule, Notice No. 168, published on January
Please send your comments on Notice No. 168 or Notice No. 168A to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation sections of Notice No. 168 and this document (Notice No. 168A) for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.
You may view copies of this document, Notice No. 168, and any comments made to TTB about the described proposals at
Kara Fontaine, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202) 453-1039, ext. 103.
In T.D. TTB-147, a temporary rule published in the
TTB solicited public comments on the temporary regulations via Notice No. 168, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
In response to this comment request, TTB received a comment, posted on February 15, 2017, from Ian Flom of Mercier Orchards, indicating that the timeframe to implement the new “Tax Class 5041(b)(6)” labeling statement requirement is insufficient because he buys labels in bulk and has a supply of labels that do not bear the tax class statement that he will not be able to use up before January 1, 2018. In addition, TTB received a letter, dated February 23, 2017, from the United States Association of Cider Makers (USACM), a cider industry trade association based in Portland, Oregon, requesting a 60-day extension of the comment period for Notice No. 168. In its letter, the USACM noted that “there was much discussion about these proposed changes” at its annual membership conference and that a number of its members planned to submit comments to TTB. The letter also noted, however, that “orchardists are currently facing time-management challenges due to pruning season,” and that the requested extension “would allow our members time to properly address any of their concerns with the proposed changes to the hard cider definition and related regulatory changes.” The USACM comment period extension request letter is posted as Comment 2 to Notice No. 168 within Docket No. TTB-2016-0014 on the
In addition to USACM's request to TTB to extend the comment period, USACM wrote a letter, on which TTB was copied, to Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, dated August 1, 2017, requesting both a reopening of the comment period of T.D. TTB-147 and a one year delay of the January 1, 2018, hard cider tax class labeling statement requirement. A copy of this USACM letter is posted as Comment 3 to Notice No. 168 within Docket No. TTB-2016-0014 on the
In light of these requests, TTB is delaying the hard cider tax class labeling statement compliance date. Such a delay will provide industry members additional time to come into compliance with the labeling requirement. Through the publication of a temporary rule elsewhere in this issue of the
Further, in response to the USACM request to reopen the comment period for all the regulatory amendments contained in T.D. TTB-147, TTB is reopening the comment period for the related notice of proposed rulemaking, Notice No. 168, for an additional 60 days. TTB believes that this additional 60-day comment period will allow all interested parties to fully consider and comment on the regulatory amendments contained in the hard cider temporary rule.
Therefore, new comments on Notice No. 168 and comments on this document (Notice No. 168A) delaying the compliance date of the hard cider tax class labeling requirement are due to TTB on or before February 5, 2018.
TTB requests comments from interested members of the public on the one-year delay, from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019, of the hard cider tax-class labeling statement requirement contained in 27 CFR 24.257, as described in the temporary rule, T.D. TTB-147A, published elsewhere in this issue of the
You may submit comments by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this proposed rule. Your comments must reference Notice No. 168A or Notice No. 168, as appropriate, and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments and considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your name and position title. In your comment via
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of the proposed rules, the related temporary rules, and any online or mailed comments received about them, within Docket No. TTB-2016-0014 on
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that it considers unsuitable for posting.
You may view copies of the proposed rules, the related temporary rules, and any electronic or mailed comments TTB receives about them by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies for 20 cents per 8.5- × 11-inch page. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at (202) 453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
Since the regulatory text proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking is identical to that contained in the companion temporary rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Kara Fontaine and Michael Hoover of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document with the assistance of other Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau personnel.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cider, Claims, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food additives, Fruit juices, Hard Cider, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Scientific equipment, Spices and flavorings, Surety bonds, Vinegar, Warehouses, Wine.
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Beer, Cosmetics, Customs duties and inspections, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend 27 CFR chapter I, parts 24 and 27, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5008, 5041, 5042, 5044, 5061, 5062, 5121, 5122-5124, 5173, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5351, 5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5361, 5362, 5364-5373, 5381-5388, 5391, 5392, 5511, 5551, 5552, 5661, 5662, 5684, 6065, 6091, 6109, 6301, 6302, 6311, 6651, 6676, 7302, 7342, 7502, 7503, 7606, 7805, 7851; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
5 U.S.C. 552(a), 19 U.S.C. 81c, 1202; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5007, 5008, 5010, 5041, 5051, 5054, 5061, 5121, 5122-5124, 5201, 5205, 5207, 5232, 5273, 5301, 5313, 5382, 5555, 6109, 6302, 7805.
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (Department) is proposing to rescind portions of its tip regulations issued pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act that impose restrictions on employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the full federal minimum wage and do not seek to use a portion of tips as a credit toward their minimum wage obligations. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks the views of the public on the Department's proposed rescission of those portions of the regulations.
Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.
To facilitate the receipt and processing of written comments on this NPRM, the Department encourages interested persons to submit their comments electronically. You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA21, by either of the following methods:
Melissa Smith, Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this NPRM may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0675 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1 (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
Questions of interpretation and/or enforcement of the agency's regulations may be directed to the nearest WHD district office. Locate the nearest office by calling the WHD's toll-free help line at (866) 4US-WAGE ((866) 487-9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time zone, or log onto WHD's Web site at
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) generally requires covered employers to pay employees at least a Federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 per hour.
In 1966, Congress created a tip credit provision within the definition of a “wage” in section 3(m) of the statute that permitted an employer to utilize tips received by its employees to subsidize up to 50 percent of its minimum wage obligations.
(1) [its] employee has been informed by the employer of the provisions of this subsection and (2) all tips received by such employee have been retained by the employee, except that this subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.
Public Law 93-259, 13(e), 88 Stat. 55 (1974). Thus, section 3(m) permits an employer to take a partial credit against its minimum wage obligations on account of tips received by its employees but only if, among other things, its tipped employees retain all of their tips. Section 3(m), however, does not preclude an employer that takes a tip credit from implementing a tip pool in which tips are shared only among those employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips.”
The Department first promulgated regulations implementing the section 3(m) tip credit in 1967.
As discussed below, since 2011 there has been a significant amount of private litigation involving the tip pooling and tip retention practices of employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit. There has also been litigation directly challenging the Department's authority to promulgate the 2011 Final Rule as it applies to employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage. At the same time, there have been changes in state laws that require employers to pay their tipped employees a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage, which have resulted in more employers being unable to claim a tip credit.
In part because of these developments, the Department is concerned about the scope of its current tip regulations as applied to employers that pay the full Federal minimum wage to their tipped employees. The Department is also seriously concerned that it incorrectly construed the statute in promulgating the tip credit regulations that apply to such employers. Additionally, the Department seeks to consider whether it is unnecessary to prohibit the sharing of tips with employees who do not customarily receive tips, including restaurant cooks, dishwashers, and other traditionally lower-wage job classifications, when their employer does not take a tip credit under FLSA section 3(m) and its employees are paid at least the full Federal minimum wage.
The Department is therefore proposing to rescind the parts of its tip regulations that bar tip-sharing arrangements in establishments where the employers pay full Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit against their minimum wage obligations. This proposed rule applies only to employers that pay direct cash wages of at least the Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit. It does not apply to employers who pay less than the Federal minimum wage and take a tip credit.
The proposed removal of the regulatory limitation on an employer's ability to utilize tips if it pays a direct wage of at least the full FLSA minimum wage will allow for employers to provide in their agreements
To estimate the impact of the proposed rule, the Department looked at two occupations that constitute a large percentage of tipped workers (waiters, waitresses, and bartenders) and focused on two industries (drinking places and full-service restaurants). Based on the data used in the regulatory impact analysis below, the Department estimated that there are up to 1,298,231 tipped workers in the selected occupations, and 206,770 full-service restaurants, and 40,095 drinking places.
There are labor market forces that will affect decisions concerning employer use or reallocation of tips. For example, there are certain market factors that may discourage any changes in tip-sharing practices, such as employee resistance and heightened turnover among the customarily tipped employees. The Department is unable to quantify how customers will respond to proposed regulatory changes, which in turn would affect total tipped income and employer behavior. The Department currently lacks data to quantify possible reallocations of tips through newly expanded tip pools to employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips. The Department presents a primarily qualitative approach to assessing the benefits and transfers of the new rule.
The Department estimated the regulatory familiarization costs associated with this proposed rule on an establishment basis and calculated the first year cost to be $3.431 million. The Department discussed other impacts and benefits of the proposed rule qualitatively. For the purposes of E.O. 13771, it is expected that this proposed rule would, if finalized as proposed, qualify as an “E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.”
As noted above, the FLSA's tip credit provision was enacted in 1966. WHD promulgated regulations implementing the FLSA's tip credit provision in 1967.
The 1967 regulations were consistent with
When it amended section 3(m) in 1974, Congress added the requirement that an employer taking a tip credit must permit its tipped employees to retain all of their tips, except for those tips distributed through a mandatory tip pool that includes only employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.
In 2008, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed, among other things, to amend WHD's tip credit regulations to reflect the 1974 amendments to the FLSA.
The Department finalized its revisions to the tip regulations in 2011.
On July 12, 2012, the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association (ORLA), along with the National Restaurant Association, Washington Restaurant Association, Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant & Retailers Association, and others (the ORLA Plaintiffs), challenged the Department's authority to promulgate the 2011 Final Rule as it applies to employers that do not take a tip credit and that pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage.
The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that such tip regulations are contrary to the FLSA's clear statutory language in section 3(m), which places restrictions on an employer's use of tips
On August 21, 2013, the Department appealed the district court's decision to the Ninth Circuit.
On February 23, 2016, the Ninth Circuit, reversing the district court, upheld the validity of the 2011 tip regulations in
On September 6, 2016, the
Judge O'Scannlain, joined by nine other judges, dissented.
The National Restaurant Association (and other plaintiffs in the OLRA litigation) filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking for review of the Ninth Circuit's decision in
As explained further in Part IV, below, more employers are unable to claim a tip credit in 2017 than when the Department's regulations were promulgated in 2011 due to the increased number of states that require employers to pay their tipped employees a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage. Perhaps because of these changes to state law, there has been a significant amount of private litigation in recent years involving the tip pooling and tip retention practices of employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage. Much of that litigation involves the application of the Department's 2011 tip credit regulations that bar employers from retaining and from sharing tips with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, even when the employers have not taken a tip credit. For example, in
Additionally, the Tenth Circuit recently ruled in
The Department has taken into account the changed landscape and extensive litigation since promulgating its 2011 Final Rule. In that regard, the dissent to the denial of the petition for rehearing
As discussed above, Congress amended the FLSA's tip credit provision in 1974 to require an employer that elects to take a tip credit against its minimum wage obligations to permit its tipped employees to retain all tips they receive, except for those distributed through a tip pool limited to customarily and regularly tipped employees.
The language from the 1974 amendments to section 3(m) is essentially the same as the current version of the law.
As explained above, the Department promulgated its initial tip regulations in 1967, one year after Congress created the tip credit in section 3(m), and several years before the 1974 amendments to section 3(m)'s tip provisions. 32 FR 13,575 (Sept. 28, 1967). Consistent with the Department's understanding of the 1966 amendments, the 1967 tip regulations permitted agreements under which tips received by employees would be turned over to the employer, which could then use the tips to pay the Federal minimum wage.
Shortly after the 1974 statutory amendments, however, the Department addressed the impact of the amendments on its tip regulations and stated that its then-existing regulations were superseded by the amendments to the extent tha they were in conflict. Specifically, when asked about the legality of an agreement under which “the employer would retain all monies generated by tips” and directly pay its employees at the minimum wage rate, the Department stated that “[t]he amendments to section 3(m) of the Act,” which specified that an employer's wage credit for tips (up to 50% of the minimum wage) could not exceed the amount of tips actually received by the employee, “would have no meaning or effect unless they prohibit agreements under which tips are credited or turned over to the employer for use by the employer in satisfying the monetary requirements of the Act.”
The Department opined shortly after the 1974 amendments that “an employer may not take advantage of Section 3(m) by using any part of his employee's tips as a credit to meet his monetary obligation unless the employee is permitted to keep all tips” and, if an employer takes tips received by an employee, “then, in order to come into compliance, such employer must return the tips and pay the full statutory minimum wage.” Wage and Hour Opinion Letter WH-310, 1975 WL 40934, at *1 (Feb. 18, 1975);
The opinion letters issued shortly after the 1974 amendments were primarily focused on whether it would constitute an impermissible circumvention of section 3(m) of the Act for an employer to utilize tips received by its employees to satisfy its minimum wage obligations to a greater extent than Congress expressly permitted in the Act's tip credit provision. In a 1989 opinion letter, however, the Department opined that merely requiring tipped employees to participate in a tip pool that is not limited to employees in customarily and regularly tipped occupations—
In 2011, the Department issued a Final Rule addressing tip pooling and other uses of tips.
Tips are the property of the employee whether or not the employer has taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA. The employer is prohibited from using an employee's tips,
As a result of market forces and changes in state wage laws, the number of employers paying tipped employees a direct cash wage that is equal to or greater than the Federal minimum wage (and thus not claiming a section 3(m) tip credit) has increased since the Department promulgated the 2011 Final Rule. The Department believes that these changes also merit reconsideration of the tip pooling restrictions imposed on employers that do not claim a tip credit under section 3(m).
Historically, six western states (Alaska, California, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) have prohibited employers from using tips received by employees as a credit against their state minimum wages—all of which today equal or exceed the Federal minimum wage—thereby preventing employers in these states from claiming a section 3(m) tip credit to reduce the direct cash wage they pay without incurring liability under state law.
Since the Department promulgated the 2011 Final Rule, a number of additional states have increased the direct cash wage an employer must pay some or all tipped employees under state law. In August 2014, Minnesota—which prohibits employers from taking a tip credit against the state minimum wage—increased its minimum wage for large employers from $6.15 per hour to $8.00 per hour (it was increased on August 1, 2016 to $9.50 per hour) and increased its minimum wage for small employers from $5.25 per hour to $7.25 per hour beginning in August 2015 (it is currently $7.75 per hour).
Due to these changes, the share of servers, bellhops and porters, counter attendants, bartenders, and dining room attendants and bartender helpers
The Department seeks public comments, which should include supporting data whenever possible, on the proposed rescission of those portions of its 2011 tip regulations that apply to employers that pay tipped employees a direct cash wage that is equal to or greater than the Federal minimum wage and that do not claim a tip credit. The Department's current regulations require that tipped employees retain all tips they receive regardless whether the employer takes a
The purpose of section 3(m)'s tip credit provision is to allow an employer to subsidize a portion of its Federal minimum wage obligation by crediting the tips customers give to employees. If an employer takes a tip credit against its wage obligations, section 3(m) applies, along with its attendant protections that restrict the employer's use of tips received by its employees. Where an employer has paid a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and does not take the employee tips directly, a strong argument exists that the statutory protections of section 3(m) do not apply.
This NPRM uses the term “tip pooling” to describe any scenario in which a tip provided by a customer to an employee or group of employees is shared, in whole or in part, with other employees. The Department recognizes that in some workplaces or under State laws, the term “tip pooling” may refer to a narrower set of practices, and that employers and workers may use other terms—for example “tip out,” “tip sharing,” or “tip jar”—to describe certain practices regarding tips. Accordingly, the Department asks commenters to define in their comments any terms they use to describe practices regarding tips. The Department will consider information provided by the public in response to this NPRM in finalizing its proposal to amend 29 CFR part 531, subpart D, as it applies to situations where an employer pays tipped employees a direct cash wage that is at least the Federal minimum wage.
The Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM does not contain a collection of information subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department welcomes comments on this determination.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and review by OMB. 58 FR 51735. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule that: (1) Has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant); (2) creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; it is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
Executive Order 13771 (“E.O. 13771”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs by eliminating at least two existing regulations for each new regulation, and by controlling the cost of planned regulations through the budgeting process.
As explained earlier in Part IV of this notice, more employers are unable to claim a tip credit in 2017 than when the Department's regulations were promulgated in 2011 due to the increased number of states that require employers to pay their tipped
In part because of these developments, the Department has serious concerns that it incorrectly construed the statute in promulgating its current tip regulations as applied to employers that have paid the full Federal minimum wage to their tipped employees, and serious concerns about the regulations as a policy matter, especially under changed circumstances. Additionally, the Department seeks to remove prohibitions on sharing tips with non-customarily tipped employees—including restaurant cooks, dishwashers, and other traditionally lower-wage job classifications—when their employer does not take a tip credit under FLSA section 3(m) and all employees are paid at least the full Federal minimum wage. The Department is therefore proposing to rescind the portions of its tip regulations at 29 CFR part 531, subpart D that limit employee arrangements to share tips by imposing restrictions on employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and do not claim a tip credit against their minimum wage obligation. The Department also issued a nonenforcement policy on July 20, 2017, whereby WHD will not enforce the Department's regulations on the retention of employees' tips with respect to any employee who is paid a cash wage of not less than the full FLSA minimum wage ($7.25) and for whom their employer does not take an FLSA section 3(m) tip credit, either for 18 months or until the completion of this rulemaking, whichever comes first.
This economic analysis provides a quantitative analysis of the rule familiarization costs of the proposed rule, and a qualitative discussion of the benefits and transfers that may result from the proposed rule.
There are labor market forces that will affect employers' decisions on tips that employees receive. For example, there are certain market factors that may cause employers not to change their practices with respect to tips, such as employee resistance and a decline in employee morale, as well as the costs of employee turnover. The Department is unable to quantify how customers will respond to proposed regulatory changes, which in turn would affect total tipped income and employer behavior.
The Department welcomes comments that provide data or information regarding the potential benefits and transfers of this proposed rule, and has asked some specific questions that may help the Department quantify benefits and transfers in the Final Rule analysis.
This section explains the methodology used to estimate the number of workers who are defined as a tipped employee,
For the present analysis, the Department considered these two occupations as they constitute a large percentage of tipped workers.
The Department used the Current Population Survey (CPS), a large, nationally representative sample of the labor force, for data on the number of workers employed in the two occupations mentioned above, the wages for these workers, and their usual hours worked. The CPS, which is sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and BLS, is a monthly survey of about 60,000 households. In any given month, one adult household member reports employment and other information for each member of the household.
The CPS asks respondents whether they usually receive overtime pay, tips, and commissions, which allows the Department to estimate the number of bartenders and wait staff in restaurants
All data tables in this analysis include estimates for the year 2016 as the baseline. Table 1 presents the estimates of the share of bartenders and wait staff in restaurants and drinking places who reported that they usually earned overtime pay, tips, or commissions in 2016. Approximately 61 percent of bartenders and 57 percent of wait staff reported usually earning overtime pay, tips, or commissions in 2016.
The Department used data from BLS' Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) to estimate the familiarization cost (Section VII.B.iv). The Department believes regulatory familiarization will occur at the specific establishment level rather than the broader firm level.
Under this NPRM, employers that pay at least the full FLSA minimum wage directly to tipped employees could utilize some or all of the tips received by employees for purposes currently prohibited by the regulations (
The Department does not attempt to definitively interpret individual state law, and is therefore unable to determine to what extent state law will affect employer behavior in light of the proposed changes. It is assumed, however, that about 30 percent of all waiters and waitresses and bartenders work in states that prohibit employers from obtaining tips received by employees.
1. Among employers that currently pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit, what portion reallocate tips, with other employees? And, among that population of employers, what portion of the total tips do they retain or reallocate?
2. How prevalent are employer-required, or mandatory, tip pools? What factors determine whether an employer institutes a mandatory tip pool? What portion of the tips received by employees do employers anticipate being contributed to the tip pool? What kinds of factors might influence an employer's decision to exclude some tips from inclusion in a mandatory tip pool?
3. Do tipped employees receiving money from a mandatory tip pool typically receive a fixed dollar amount, or a fixed percentage of the pool? Is it common for some employees to receive
4. If this proposed rule were adopted as proposed, what kinds of employees would employers choose to include in mandatory tip pools?
5. If this proposed rule were adopted as proposed, would customers' tipping practices change?
6. If this proposed rule were adopted as proposed, would some employers respond by reallocating tipped income to their non-tipped employees? Would such a response reduce the disparity in take-home earnings between tipped and non-tipped employees in service industry establishments?
7. If this rule were adopted as proposed, what non-regulatory limitations would employers and employees face when deciding whether and how to design a tip pooling arrangement? Are there any market norms or other behavioral reasons why some types of tip pooling are more prevalent than others? To what extent is the endowment effect (that is, customarily and regularly tipped employees potentially valuing tips more than wages of the same average amount) relevant for explaining potential tip behavior in a relatively less-regulated market?
In this subsection, the Department addresses regulatory familiarization costs and recordkeeping costs and cost savings attributable to the proposed rule. The Department also presents a qualitative discussion of potential benefits and the impacts of the proposed rule on wages and employment, as well as possible changes to customers' tipping behavior resulting from employers reallocating tips to other employees.
Regulatory familiarization costs represent direct costs on businesses associated with reviewing the new regulation. It is not clear whether regulatory familiarization costs are a function of the number of establishments or the number of firms. It can be assumed that the headquarters of a firm will conduct the regulatory review for businesses with multiple restaurants, and may also require chain restaurants to familiarize themselves with the regulation at the establishment level. To be conservative, the Department used the number of establishments in its cost estimate—which is larger than the number of firms—and assumes that regulatory familiarization occurs both the headquarters and at the decentralized (
The Department assumes that all establishments will incur some regulatory familiarization costs regardless of whether the employer decides to change its tip practices as a result of the proposed rule. There may be differences in familiarization cost by the size of establishments; however, our analysis does not compute different costs for establishments of different sizes. The estimate of regulatory familiarization cost in the analysis is assumed to be conservative. Further, the change in this regulation is quite straightforward and is unlikely to have a major burden or cost.
To estimate the total regulatory familiarization costs, the Department used: (1) The number of establishments in the two industries, Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) and Full-service Restaurants, employing affected workers; (2) the wage rate for the employees reviewing the rule; and (3) the number of hours that it estimates employees will spend reviewing the rule. Table 2 shows the number of establishments in the two industries. To estimate the number of affected establishments, the Department used data from BLS's QCEW.
For familiarization cost analysis, the Department assumes that a Compensation/benefits specialist (SOC 13-1141) (or a staff member in a similar position) with a median wage of $29.85 per hour in 2016 will review the rule.
If employers that are currently taking the section 3(m) tip credit continue to do so, their recordkeeping responsibilities under the FLSA regulation, 29 CFR 516.28, would not change under the proposed rule. However, if employers decide to pay the full FLSA minimum wage in cash and do not take a section 3(m) tip credit, they may have cost savings, because they will no longer need to keep the specific records required under 29 CFR 516.28.
To the extent that some employers choose to change their practices and pay at least the full FLSA minimum wage in cash and not take a section 3(m) tip credit, they may have to revise their employee handbooks, adjust their payroll systems, and/or advise affected employees. These are generally regarded as adjustment costs that would be imposed by changes in the regulations. The Department recognizes, however, that deciding to pay at least the full FLSA minimum wage in cash and not take a section 3(m) tip credit is a choice some employers may make in responding to the proposed rule, but is not a requirement of the regulation. Due to the many variables and assumptions needed to estimate how employers will respond to the proposed regulatory changes and insufficient information at this time regarding the costs that employers may assume or not incur as a result of the proposed rule, the Department has not quantified a monetary value for any additional costs or cost savings in this NPRM. The Department invites comments regarding any potential costs or cost savings attributable to the proposed rule.
Below the Department provides a summary table of the quantified costs for the RIA.
The purpose of section 3(m)'s tip credit provision is to allow an employer to subsidize a portion of its Federal minimum wage obligation through a credit against the tips given to employees by customers. If an employer takes a tip credit against its wage obligations, section 3(m) applies, along with its attendant provisions that restrict the employer's use of tips received by employees, including the requirement that only tipped employees be included in the tip pool. However, where an employer has paid employees a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage, the proposed rule would allow the employer to reallocate tips received by its employees in a manner currently prohibited by regulation, including distributing tips to non-tipped employees (
It is common in full-service restaurants to have a tip pool. One study suggests that tip pooling contributes to increased service quality, along with enhanced interaction and cooperation between coworkers, especially when team members rely on input or task completion from each other.
Also, research demonstrates a negative correlation between earnings and employee turnover: As earnings increase, employee turnover decreases.
To the extent employers overall decrease use of the tip credit for traditionally tipped employees because of this proposed rule change, that too may provide benefits to traditionally tipped employees. A guaranteed direct cash wage of at least the full federal minimum wage will improve traditionally tipped employees' participation in various aspects of the marketplace that irregular income from changes over time from tip income may impact adversely. As with the previous paragraph, the benefits to one subset of employees (in this case, those who were previously paid a lower direct wage and received tips and now receive an increased direct wage payment from the employer) may be accompanied by harm to another subset (those who newly receive tips while experiencing an offsetting wage reduction).
To the extent employers may otherwise make an arrangement to allocate any customer tips to make capital improvements to their establishments (
Finally, the proposed rule may result in a reduction in litigation. As explained in Part II, above, there has been a significant amount of private litigation in recent years involving the tip pooling and tip retention practices of employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage. Much of that litigation involves the application of the Department's 2011 tip credit regulations providing that an employer's ability to utilize tips received by its employees is restricted even when it has not taken a tip credit. In several cases, employees alleged that their employers, who had paid their tipped employees a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage, improperly retained some or all of the tips received by employees or mandated that they participate in a tip pool that included non-tipped employees. The proposed rule rescinds those portions of the 2011 regulations that restrict employer use of customer tips when the employer pays at least the full Federal minimum wage and does not claim a section 3(m) tip credit, likely reducing litigation in this area.
Reallocation of tips may have implications on employment and earnings, as well as some impact on the tipping behavior of customers. Due to data limitations, it is difficult to quantify these impacts. Accordingly, in this section, the Department provides a qualitative discussion of the possible impacts of the proposed rule on employment and earnings and customer tipping behavior.
Research on how changes in the minimum required cash wage for tipped employees affect their earnings and employment is scarce, making the effects of these policies difficult to gauge. There is need for more research as tipped employment has been growing considerably. From 1990 to 2016 private sector employment grew by 31.8 percent, while employment in full service restaurants grew by 75 percent.
Intuitively, the effect of this proposed rule will be driven by many economic factors, such as the prevailing wages in the local area, the supply and demand elasticity for labor in the local markets, and the demand elasticity for the restaurant's product. For instance, in a given market, if the equilibrium cash wage for tipped employees is above the minimum required cash wage, an employer has less incentive to change its behavior as a result of the changes proposed in the NPRM. Given that the firm is in a perfectly competitive market, any deviation from the market wage may cause the firm to lose its staff. However, if the conditions in the market are such that the equilibrium cash wage for tipped workers is below the minimum required cash wage, and a worker earns sufficient tips that their cash wage plus the tips that they receive is equal to or greater than the applicable full minimum wage, then their employer may have an incentive to increase the wage to the applicable minimum wage and share the tips that tipped employees receive with, for instance, other lower-wage non-tipped employees. In such a case, an increase in the direct cash wage paid to the tipped workers and the transfer of tips from workers to others can be associated with changes in employment. If the employees' new wage is lower than their prior wage plus tips, and if the tips received by employees are not being redistributed to them, then there may be a decline in the quantity of supplied labor of tipped workers, and therefore in their employment. Alternatively, the employer could effectively redistribute tips to other employees and thus reduce its overall wage bill. If it now requires less direct wages to hire their workers, it may increase the employer's demand for labor.
However, for reasons such as “sticky wages”
In the United States, tipping is a common practice in the eating and drinking places industries. The main reasons that a customer would tip are future service, social norms and fairness, and quality of service.
Although consideration of future service is a commonly-stated reason for tipping, evidence suggests that customers do not necessarily regard future service as the main reason for tipping. Even non-repeat customers tip. This leads to the other main cited reason for tipping: Social norms surrounding tipping. Tipping may be the result of a positive utility from feeling generous. In addition, customers often feel empathy for the workers who serve them, and they want to show their
From the employer's standpoint, the theoretical economic justification for tipping is that it incentivizes and rewards good service; In other words, if workers who provide good service earn large tips, they are more likely to retain their jobs, whereas those workers who earn smaller tips are more likely to choose to quit. Tipping can also be a way of monitoring the efforts of service workers. Firms find it difficult and expensive to monitor and control the quality of intangible and highly customized services that are rendered by their employees. Therefore, tipping can allow customers to directly monitor service providers at lower cost than if employers had to directly monitor their employees.
The potential impact of the proposed rule on customers' decisions to leave tips for bartenders and servers may depend on how much information the customer has regarding the employer's tip pooling policy. Assuming customers are aware of the employer's policy, changes to tipping behavior, if they occur at all, may differ depending on whether the tips are redistributed into a tip pool that includes a broader group of employees, or otherwise utilized in part (or in full) by the employer. Tipping may also be affected if the change is not welcomed by the staff, leading to poor morale and reduced service quality.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Department considered two alternatives as part of determining whether to issue this NPRM: (1) Making no regulatory changes; and (2) Removing the regulatory language that addresses an employers' ability to utilize employee tips even when the employer claims a section 3(m) tip credit. The alternatives are discussed in more detail below.
Under the proposed rule, employers would no longer be prohibited from utilizing tips received by employees more broadly so long as they pay at least the full Federal minimum wage in cash and do not claim a section 3(m) tip credit.
For the first alternative, the Department would make no regulatory changes and leave in place the limited nonenforcement policy it announced in July 2013. In
For the second alternative, the Department considered removing the regulatory language that reiterates the statutory restrictions in section 3(m) addressing an employer's ability to utilize tips received by employees even when the employer claims a tip credit. The regulations from which the Department considered removing this language include 29 CFR 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59. Under this alternative, for employers that claim a tip credit, the Department would enforce the tip retention requirements of section 3(m) based only on the text of the statute.
There is a significant risk, however, that this alternative would create confusion as to tipped employees' right to retain tips when their employer claims a tip credit. The removal of the Department's current regulatory guidance could also increase the risk of employer non-compliance with the statute due to the lack of regulatory guidance.
Under the current regulations, employers are prohibited from reallocating tips or including non-tipped employees in a mandatory tip pool “whether or not the employer has taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA.” 29 CFR 531.52. This proposed rule would remove such restrictions on the treatment of tips when an employer does not take a tip credit, and would not introduce any new regulatory requirements in replacement of the requirements proposed for elimination. Therefore, it is expected that this proposed rule would, if finalized as proposed, qualify as a “deregulatory action” for the purposes of E.O. 13771.
As discussed earlier, the Department estimates that this proposed rule would result in Year 1 regulatory familiarization costs of approximately $3.4 million.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. As part of a regulatory proposal, the RFA requires a federal agency to prepare, and make available for public comment, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
The Department has conducted, and is publishing here, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to help small entities better understand the impacts of the proposed rule. The Department invites comments on the number of small entities affected by the proposed rule's requirements, the compliance cost estimates, and whether alternatives exist that will reduce the burden on small entities.
As explained in greater detail earlier in the analysis, the Department has serious concerns that it incorrectly construed the statute in promulgating its current tip regulations to apply to employers that have paid a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage to their tipped employees and serious concerns about those regulations as a policy matter. The Department is therefore proposing to rescind those portions of its tip regulations at 29 CFR part 531, subpart D that impose restrictions on employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and do not claim a tip credit against their minimum wage obligations.
The Department's regulations addressing the treatment of tipped employees under federal law at 29 CFR part 531, subpart D are derived from section 3(m) of the FLSA.
The purpose of Section 3(m)'s tip credit provision is to allow an employer to subsidize a portion of its Federal minimum wage obligation through a credit against the tips given to employees by customers. If an employer pays its tipped employees a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) but reallocates equal or greater amount of the tips received by its employees, there is a question as to whether the employer is circumventing the protections of Section 3(m) because it is utilizing tips received by its employees towards its minimum wage obligations to a greater extent than permitted under the statute. Where, however, an employer has paid employees a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and does not reallocate the employee tips directly, but requires that employee tips be distributed to non-tipped employees through a tip pool, there is a strong argument that the statutory protections of Section 3(m) are not circumvented.
This section describes the industry or economic sector that will be affected by the proposed rule in total and its small and large entity segments, includes a description of the industry or sector at the time of the proposal, and explains any existing dynamics, such as trends in employment or birth of entities.
A “small entity” is one that is “independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation.”
In our analysis, the Department uses the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards, which determine when a business qualifies for small business status.
The Department used data from several different sources to estimate the number of small entities to which the rule will apply,
From annual receipts/sales, the Department can estimate how many firms fall under the size standard. Table 4 below shows the number of private firms in the two industries by revenue. The
To obtain the
To determine the number of tipped bartenders & waiters/waitresses, the Department used 57 percent of all bartenders and waiters/waitresses in both industries, based on the share in the CPS data that report usually receiving tips.
The annual cost per firm is calculated based on the regulatory familiarization cost ($3.4 million), which amounts to $12.17 per establishment. The Department applied this cost to all sizes of firms since this will be incurred by each firm regardless of the number of affected workers. Finally, the impact of this provision is calculated as the ratio of annual cost per firm to receipts per firm. As shown, the per-firm cost incurred in the first year ($12.17) is less than one percent of annual receipts per small firm under this proposed rule; thus, it does not have any significant burden on small entities.
The FLSA sets minimum wage, overtime pay, and recordkeeping requirements for employment subject to its provisions. The FLSA allows an employer to claim a tip credit, as defined by section 3(m) of the statute, toward meeting its minimum wage obligation for employees who customarily and regularly receive more than $30.00 per month in tips. FLSA section 11(c) requires all covered employers to make, keep, and preserve records of employees and of wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. Employers use the records to document compliance with the FLSA, including showing the tips received is not less than the tip credit claimed. The Department has promulgated regulations at 29 CFR part 516 to establish the basic FLSA recordkeeping requirements; this proposal does not alter these recordkeeping requirements. The recordkeeping regulation at 29 CFR 516.28 applies to tipped employees. Since the employees who may be impacted by the proposed changes to the regulations are those for whom the employer pays a direct cash wage of at least the FLSA minimum wage under section 6(a)(1)(C) with no tip credit taken, such employers would not face additional recordkeeping requirements within the scope of 29 CFR 516.28. Therefore, there are no additional recordkeeping requirements beyond those required by other sections of the FLSA under the proposed rule. Similarly, the proposed rule does not
The direct costs to employers, specifically, regulatory familiarization, are quantified in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Regulatory familiarization costs are the costs incurred to read and become familiar with the requirements of the rule. Regardless of business size, the Department estimates that each establishment will spend 15 minutes for regulatory familiarization. As a direct result of this proposed rule, the Department expects total direct employer costs (regulatory familiarization) of $2,362,866 will be incurred by all small entities combined in the first year after the promulgation of the proposed rule: $12.17—the cost of 15 minutes of work by a Compensation/benefits specialist (SOC 13-1141),
As noted above, the SBA size standard for Full-service Restaurants (722511) and Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) (722410) is $7.5 million in annual revenue.
Section 603(c) of the RFA requires that each initial regulatory flexibility analysis contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposal that accomplish the statutory objectives and minimize the significant economic impact of the proposal on small entities. The Department considered the following alternatives:
i. Differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into account the resources available to small entities. This NPRM makes no changes to existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Accordingly, it is not necessary to establish different compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses.
ii. The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for small entities. The proposed rule imposes no new compliance or reporting requirements. The Department makes available a variety of resources to employers for understanding their obligation and for achieving compliance.
iii. The use of performance rather than design standards. Under the proposed rule, employers may achieve compliance through a variety of means. Employers may elect to continue (or not) to take a tip credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA. For those employers who take such a tip credit, the statutory restrictions on employer use of customer tips continue to apply. However, for those employers who pay at least the Federal minimum wage and do not take a section 3(m) tip credit, the proposed rule rescinds those regulatory restrictions. The Department makes available a variety of resources to employers for understanding their obligation and for achieving compliance.
iv. An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities. Creating an exemption from coverage of the NPRM for small businesses is not necessary as this proposed rule proposes to rescind employer restrictions on employer use of customer tips when the employer pays at least the Federal minimum wage in cash and does not take a section 3(m) tip credit.
Due to the deregulatory nature of this rulemaking, the Department does not believe that different compliance and reporting requirements for small entities are required.
The Department is not aware of any federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this NPRM.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing any Federal mandate that may result in excess of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in expenditures in any one year by state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. This rulemaking is not expected to affect state, local, or tribal governments. While this rulemaking would affect employers in the private sector, it is not expected to result in expenditures greater than $100 million in any one year. Please see Section VII.B-C for an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits to the private sector.
The Department has (1) reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism and (2) determined that it does not have federalism implications. The proposed rule would 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 proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The undersigned hereby certifies that the proposed rule would not adversely affect the well-being of families, as discussed under section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
This proposed rule would have no environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.
A review of this proposed rule in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211. It will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 12630 because it does not involve implementation of a policy that has takings implications or that could impose limitations on private property use.
This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. The proposed rule was: (1) Reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities; (2) written to minimize litigation; and (3) written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and to promote burden reduction.
The Department proposes to remove or amend the portions of §§ 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59 that impose restrictions on employers that pay a direct cash wage of least the Federal minimum wage and do not claim the section 3(m) tip credit. The proposed rule deletes the fourth sentence of section 531.52, which currently states that “[t]ips are the property of the employee whether or not the employer has taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA.” The proposed rule also revises the fifth sentence of sections 531.52, the last sentence of section 531.54, and the final sentence of section 531.59(b) to remove language placing restrictions on an employer's use of tips when that employer has not taken a tip credit while retaining language that reflects the statutory restrictions on an employer's use of tips received by its employees when it does take a tip credit.
Employment, Labor, Minimum wages, Wages.
For the reasons set forth above, the Department proposes to amend Title 29, part 531 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Sec. 3(m), 52 Stat. 1060; sec. 2, 75 Stat. 65; sec. 101, 80 Stat. 830; sec. 29(B), 88 Stat. 55, Pub. L. 93-259; Pub. L. 95-151, 29 U.S.C. 203(m) and (t); Pub. L. 104-188, 2105(b); Pub. L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112.
A tip is a sum presented by a customer as a gift or gratuity in recognition of some service performed for him. It is to be distinguished from payment of a charge, if any, made for the service. Whether a tip is to be given, and its amount, are matters determined solely by the customer, who has the right to determine who shall be the recipient of the gratuity. An employer that takes a tip credit is prohibited from using an employee's tips for any reason other than that which is statutorily permitted in section 3(m): As a credit against its minimum wage obligations to the employee, or in furtherance of a valid tip pool. Only tips actually received by an employee as money belonging to the employee may be counted in determining whether the person is a “tipped employee” within the meaning of the Act and in applying the provisions of section 3(m) which govern wage credits for tips.
* * * However, an employer that takes a tip credit must notify its employees of any required tip pool contribution amount, may only take a tip credit for the amount of tips each employee ultimately receives, and may not retain any of the employees' tips for any other purpose.
(b) * * * With the exception of tips contributed to a valid tip pool as described in § 531.54, the tip credit provisions of section 3(m) also require employers that take a tip credit to permit employees to retain all tips received by the employee.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North Carolina in support of construction of the new Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. This temporary safety zone is intended to protect mariners, vessels, and construction crews from the hazards associated with installing the navigation span, and will restrict vessel traffic from the bridge's navigation span as it is under construction by preventing vessel traffic on a portion of Oregon Inlet. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 20, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0964 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, contact Petty Officer Matthew Tyson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC; telephone: (910) 772-2221, email:
On October 10, 2017, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during this construction phase. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone to be enforced from January 8 through March 3, 2018, with alternate dates of March 4 through April 15, 2018. Construction is expected to take place on 33 separate days during this period. The safety zone will be active for 2 hours each of those days, with the exact times announced via Broadcast Notices to Mariners at least 48 hours prior to enforcement. The safety zone will include all navigable waters of Oregon Inlet from approximate position 35°46′23″ N., 75°32′18″ W., thence southeast to 35°46′18″ N., 75°32′12″ W., thence southwest to 35°46′16″ N., 75°32′16″ W., thence northwest to 35°46′20″ N., 75°32′23″ W., thence northeast back to the point of origin, (NAD 1983). This zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during this construction phase. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone during the designated times. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the proposed safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of Oregon Inlet during specific two hour periods on 33 separate days from January 8 through March 3, 2018, with alternate dates of March 4 through April 15, 2018. The specific 2 hour period for each work day will be broadcast at least 48 hours in advance and vessels will be able to transit Oregon Inlet at all other times. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. This portion of Oregon Inlet has been determined to be a medium to low traffic area at this time of the year. This rule does not allow vessels to request permission to enter the safety zone covering the Oregon Inlet navigation channel during the designated times.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting for 2 hours on 33 separate days that would prohibit entry into a portion of Oregon Inlet for bridge construction. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) With the exception of construction crews, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited.
(3) All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes effective must depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, North Carolina can be reached through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina at telephone number 910-343-3882.
(5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d)
(e)
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0590 at
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109—3912, telephone number: (617) 918-1697, email:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Since 1975, Boston Logan International Airport (Logan Airport) has been subject to a freeze on the number of commercial parking spaces available for use by Logan Airport travelers and visitors. In the mid-seventies, EPA developed the Logan Parking Freeze as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce air pollution caused by automobile emissions. The goal was to achieve the ozone and CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The Logan Airport Parking Freeze was reaffirmed and committed to as a Reasonable Available Control Measure (RACM) in the 1979 and 1982 State Implementation Plan revisions required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Through the 1979 and 1982 SIP revisions, the Commonwealth incorporated the Federal Implementation Plan's parking freeze provisions by reference, committing the Commonwealth to implement and enforce the parking freeze as a state regulation, 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.30 Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport)/Logan Airport Parking Freeze, as well as Federal law.
In 1989, the Logan Airport Parking Freeze was amended and the East Boston Parking Freeze was adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Unlike the 1975 Logan Freeze, which targeted only commercial parking, the 1989 state action limited and regulated the management of all major airport-related parking in the Logan Airport and East Boston Parking Freeze areas. The parking supply at Logan Airport was capped at 19,315 parking spaces. In addition, Logan-related park-and-fly and rental car parking spaces in East Boston were capped at existing levels. On April 26, 1991, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) certified the parking freeze numbers for the East Boston Parking Freeze area at 4,012 rental motor vehicle parking spaces and 2,475 park-and-fly parking spaces. EPA approved the Logan Airport Parking Freeze and East Boston Parking Freeze amendments into the Massachusetts SIP on March 16, 1993. See 58 FR 14153-14157.
The Logan Airport and East Boston Parking Freezes were designed to meet the following objectives: Mitigating the traffic-related air quality impacts of airport access on both a regional and neighborhood level; reducing the number of vehicle trips (
On March 21, 2001, EPA approved revisions to 310 CMR 7.30 Massport/Logan Airport Parking Freeze and 310 CMR 7.31 City of Boston/East Boston Parking Freeze which allow the permanent relocation of certain categories of parking spaces from the East Boston Parking Freeze area inventory to the Logan Airport Parking Freeze area. See 66 FR 14318. One of the goals of the amendments was to encourage the relocation of the park-and-fly spaces from the East Boston neighborhoods, reducing localized traffic and air quality impacts.
According to the most recent Logan Airport Spaces Inventory, the number of existing Total Parking Freeze Spaces is 21,088. In the Massport Policy Memorandum submitted by MassDEP,
On July 13, 2017, MassDEP submitted amendments to 310 CMR 7.30 Massport/Logan Airport Parking Freeze as a formal revision to the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP). Revised 310 CMR 7.30 increases the total number of commercial spaces in the Logan Parking Freeze area by 5,000 spaces to a total of 26,088. In the event that the remaining 702 park-and-fly spaces in the East Boston Parking Freeze cap were converted to commercial spaces at Logan Airport in the future, the maximum total number of spaces permitted would be 26,790.
The revision also requires Massport to complete the following studies within 24 months of June 30, 2017: (1) Potential
Finally, the revision allows Massport to satisfy its annual reporting requirements through its submission of annual Environmental Data Reports or similar airport-wide documents under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
The Technical Analysis submitted by MassDEP
The Technical Analysis concludes that building more parking spaces meets the current and future parking demand. Parking on site results in fewer trips than drop-off/pick-up modes per air passenger. The air quality analysis shows that emissions of VOC, NO
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(
MassDEP has demonstrated that the addition of 5,000 parking spaces to the Logan Airport Freeze area will result in a decrease in VMT which in turn will reduce VOC, NO
EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate into the Massachusetts SIP revised 310 CMR 7.30 Massport/Logan Airport Parking Freeze submitted on July 13, 2017. The revision increases the total number of commercial parking spaces allowed in the Logan Airport Parking Freeze Area by 5,000 parking spaces.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 310 CMR 7.30 Massport/Logan Airport Parking Freeze. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision pertains to the removal of source-specific SIP requirements for the following five facilities in West Virginia that have permanently shutdown: Mountaineer Carbon Company; Standard Lafarge; Follansbee Steel Corporation; International Mill Service, Inc.; and Columbian Chemicals Company. These sources have permanently ceased operation; therefore, SIP requirements for these sources are obsolete and no longer necessary for attaining and maintaining the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0555 at
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at
The West Virginia SIP at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 52, subpart XX, § 52.2520(d) contains source-specific requirements, which were incorporated into the West Virginia SIP over the course of many years to allow the State to demonstrate attainment with various NAAQS. Subsequently, several of these sources have permanently ceased operation rendering source-specific requirements for these facilities obsolete.
SIP revisions pertaining to the removal of obsolete SIP requirements for sources that have permanently shutdown are considered administrative, non-substantive changes. If a source has permanently shutdown, the emissions are permanently reduced to zero, so removing source-specific SIP requirements for that source will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement.
On August 25, 2017, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision requesting that the consent orders for the sources listed in Table 1 be removed from the West Virginia SIP located at 40 CFR part 52, subpart XX, § 52.2520(d).
According to West Virginia, the five facilities listed in Table 1 have permanently shutdown and ceased operation. West Virginia's August 25, 2017 submittal lists the dates of facility closures and closure inspections, and provides relevant documentation verifying the permanent closure of these sources (
EPA has reviewed West Virginia's SIP revision seeking removal of obsolete source-specific SIP requirements from the West Virginia SIP. These five sources have permanently ceased operation, rendering source-specific SIP requirements for these sources obsolete. EPA has confirmed that all permits have been surrendered and are inactive. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the West Virginia August 25, 2017 SIP revision, which sought removal of source-specific revisions related to five now closed facilities in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to removal of source-specific requirements from the West Virginia SIP, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
All owners of vessels participating in a NOAA Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) program are required to acquire a NMFS-approved Enhanced Mobile Transmitting Unit (EMTU) or Mobile Transmitting Unit (MTU) to comply with the Vessel Monitoring System requirements. This proposed action would amend the existing VMS Type-Approval regulations by removing the requirement for VMS vendors to periodically renew their EMTU/MTU type-approvals. This renewal process has proved to be unnecessary, has cost fishermen and approved VMS vendors additional time and expense, and has imposed unnecessary costs on the government. Removing the type-approval renewal requirement will spare fishermen, VMS vendors and the government the time and expense associated with the renewal process.
Comments must be received January 4, 2018.
You may submit comments on this proposed rule identified by “NOAA-HQ-2017-0141” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Kelly Spalding, Vessel Monitoring System Program Manager, Headquarters: 301-427-8269 or
In December 2014, NMFS published a final rule to codify national VMS type-approval standards for the approval by NMFS of an EMTU/MTU, any associated software, and mobile communications service (MCS; collectively referred to as a VMS) before they are authorized for use in the NMFS VMS program. See 79 FR 77399 (December 24, 2014). Those standards are set out in 50 CFR part 600, subpart Q,
Fishers must comply with applicable Federal fishery VMS regulations, and in doing so, may select from a variety of EMTU/MTU vendors that have been approved by NMFS to participate in the VMS program for specific fisheries. The NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) maintains the list of type-approved VMS units at
This proposed action would remove the two sections of 50 CFR part 600, subpart Q, that require VMS type-approval holders (VMS vendors) to periodically renew their type-approvals. Currently, § 600.1512 of the VMS type approval regulations provides that type-approvals are valid for three years from the date on which NMFS publishes a notice in the
Section 600.1513 of Subpart Q sets out the type-approval renewal process. A VMS vendor seeking renewal of a VMS type-approval must submit a written renewal request and supporting materials to NOAA OLE at least 30 days, but not more than six months, prior to the end of the three-year type approval period. To do so, the type-approval holder must submit a written request letter containing the following information and documentation.
The type-approval holder must certify that the features, components, configuration and services of their type-approved EMTU/MTU and/or MCS remain in compliance with the standards set out in 50 CFR 600.1502 through 600.1509 (or for an MTU, requirements applicable when the MTU was originally type-approved) and with applicable VMS regulations and requirements in effect for the region(s) and Federal fisheries for which they are type-approved. The type-approval holder must also certify that, since the holder's type-approval or last renewal (whichever was later), there have been no modifications to or replacements of any functional component or piece of their type-approved configuration. The renewal request letter must also include a table that lists in one column each requirement set out in §§ 600.1502-600.1509. The subsequent columns must show for each requirement:
(1) Whether the requirement applies to their type-approval;
(2) Whether the requirement is still being met;
(3) Whether any modifications or replacements were made to the type-approved configuration or process since type-approval or the last renewal;
(4) An explanation of any modifications or replacements that were made since type-approval or the last renewal; and
(5) The date that any modifications or replacements were made.
If the type-approval renewal is for an MCS or EMTU/MTU and MCS combined, the renewal request letter must also include vessel position report statistics regarding the processing and transmission of position reports from the onboard EMTUs and MTUs to the MCS or MCSP's VMS data processing center. At a minimum, the statistics must include successful position report transmission and delivery rates, the rate of position report latencies, and the minimum/maximum/average lengths of time for those latencies. The showing must be demonstrated in graph form, be divided out by each NMFS region and any relevant international agreement area and relevant high seas area, and cover 6 full and consecutive months of data for all of the type-approval holder's U.S. federal fishery customers.
Currently, NMFS reviews all documentation, analyses and data, and addresses any omissions, inconsistencies and failures. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete renewal request letter, NMFS notifies the type-approval holder of the approval or partial approval of the renewal request
These type-approval renewal provisions were designed to provide for an in-depth look at the type-approval holder's overall record of compliance with type-approval requirements. However, NMFS' experience with the renewal process has shown that it is cumbersome for both type-approval holders and NMFS OLE. In some cases, type-approval holders have opted to apply for type-approval of newer VMS units rather than seek renewal of their older VMS units. When a type-approval lapses due to non-renewal, fishermen are required to replace their VMS units that are no longer type approved, despite the fact that the unit may still be functional and compliant with all current VMS standards. Doing so imposes unnecessary cost on fishermen who must purchase a new VMS unit and may lead to lost fishing opportunities while the VMS unit is being replaced.
In addition to being costly and burdensome for type-approval holders, fishermen and NMFS, the renewal process is not necessary because § 600.1514 sets out an EMTU type-approval revocation process. In the event that a type-approved EMTU model fails to meet the VMS EMTU specifications, NMFS can remove it from the VMS program through this revocation process. The revocation process provides OLE with a timely way to remove an underperforming EMTU/MTU, if necessary. The VMS Program works with the fishermen and VMS industry on a daily basis and is continuously monitoring issues, concerns and anomalies that arise with any EMTU's performance. When an EMTU has performance issues, or anomalies that cannot be resolved informally, NMFS can initiate the type-approval revocation process as provided in § 600.1514. The type-approval period and renewal process at § 600.1512 and § 600.1513 are therefore unnecessary in addition to being burdensome and costly. With the proposed removal of the three-year period for type-approval and the renewal requirement, type-approval would remain valid indefinitely unless NMFS initiates the revocation process pursuant to § 600.1514, or the type-approval holder chooses or agrees to forfeit their type-approval.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the accompanying Regulatory Impact Review available from October 2016.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for that determination was summarized in the letter to SBA as follows:
The proposed rule would remove the two sections of Subpart Q that require VMS type-approval holders to periodically renew their type-approvals. Section 600.1512 of the VMS type-approval regulations provides that type-approvals are valid for three years, after which time, the VMS vendor must apply for a type-approval renewal pursuant to section 600.1513.
The objective of the proposed action is to eliminate the unnecessary time and cost to the fishermen, VMS vendors, and the government associated with VMS type-approval renewal process. The type-approval renewal provisions were designed to provide for an in-depth look at the type-approval holder's overall record of compliance with type-approval requirements. However, NMFS' experience with the renewal process has shown that it is cumbersome for both type-approval holders and NMFS OLE. The type-approval holder must certify that the features, components, configuration and services of their type-approved EMTU and/or MCS remain in compliance with the standards set out in 50 CFR 600.1502 through 600.1509 and with applicable VMS regulations and requirements in effect for the region(s) and Federal fisheries for which they are type-approved. The type-approval holder must also certify that, since the holder's type-approval or last renewal (whichever was later), there have been no modifications to or replacements of any functional component or piece of their type-approved configuration. The renewal request letter must also include a table that lists each requirement set out in §§ 600.1502-600.1509 and whether those requirements are still being met. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete renewal request letter, NMFS must review the renewal request and notify the type-approval holder of the approval or partial approval of the renewal request or send a letter to the type-approval holder that explains the reasons for denial or partial denial of the request.
The process is not only cumbersome, but also unnecessary because NMFS OLE works with fishermen and the VMS industry on a daily basis and is continuously monitoring issues and anomalies that may arise with the performance and reliability of type-approved VMS units. In the event that NMFS cannot correct the issues through informal discussion with the type-approval holder, section 600.1514 of Subpart Q sets out a VMS type-approval revocation process, which NMFS can initiate to remove a VMS unit from the VMS type-approved list.
The renewal process can also indirectly impose costs on fishers. In some cases, type-approval holders have opted to apply for type-approval of newer VMS units rather than seek renewal of their older VMS units. When a type-approval lapses due to non-renewal, fishermen are required to replace their VMS units that are no longer type approved, despite the fact that the unit may still be functional and compliant with all current VMS standards. Doing so imposes unnecessary cost on fishermen who must purchase a new VMS unit and may lead to lost fishing opportunities while the VMS unit is being replaced.
The economic effects of this proposed rule would not result in any significant adverse economic impacts on the six existing VMS vendors, and would actually reduce the business costs currently associated with the type-approval renewal process every three years. NMFS estimates that this renewal process involves up to 16 hours of engineering labor and 8 hours of product management labor to compile the compliance report for renewal along with any supporting materials. Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, the mean hourly wage for engineers is approximately $46 per hour and for general and operations managers it is approximately $59 per hour. Based on those labor rate estimates, NMFS estimates eliminating the renewal process will result in reduced costs of up to $1,208 per type-approval that would have occurred every three years under the current regulations.
Overall, there would not be a significant economic impact to VMS type-approval holders as a result of this rule. The removal of the type-approval renewal requirement would reduce
Thus, NMFS certifies that this proposed rule to remove the type-approval period and renewal process will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
NMFS requests public comment on this decision, the associated analysis and all other aspects of this proposed rule. Send comments to NMFS Headquarters at the
Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) If a request made pursuant to § 600.1501 (type-approval) is approved or partially approved, NMFS will issue a type approval letter and publish a notice in the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and solicit comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 5, 2018.
Submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information (PII) or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
Ruth Brown, 202-720-8958.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data usage requires more rigorous designs that address the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next 3-years:
All written comments will be available for public inspection at
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment relative to permitting the release of
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 4, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director, Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2237; email:
Hoary cress species (
Hoary cress is a perennial weed that reproduces from seeds and a spreading root system. The root system consists of vertical and lateral roots from which rosettes and shoots arise. Hoary cress inhibits and diminishes recreational opportunities, directly impedes crop production, minimizes grazing potential of affected rangelands, degrades wildlife habitat and native plant communities, and restricts waterfowl use of wetlands and stream banks. As a result, farmers, ranchers, recreationists, sportsmen, hunters, and the general public are adversely affected by hoary cress.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed release are documented in detail in an environmental assessment (EA) entitled “Field release of the gall mite,
The EA may be viewed on the
The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of baby squash and baby courgettes from Zambia into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 5, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of baby squash and baby courgettes from Zambia, contact Ms. Dorothy Wayson, Senior Regulatory Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2036. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Section 319.56-48 provides for the importation of baby squash and baby courgettes from Zambia into the continental United States under certain conditions. These regulations require the use of certain information collection activities, such as inspection of greenhouses, labeling of cartons, maintaining required trapping records, greenhouse approval, greenhouse pest detection notification, and phytosanitary certificates issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Zambia with an additional declaration that the baby squash and/or baby courgettes were produced in accordance with the regulations.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Texas A&M AgriLife Research seeking a determination of nonregulated status of cotton designated as event TAM66274, which has been genetically engineered for ultra-low gossypol levels in the cottonseed. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. We are making the Texas A&M AgriLife Research petition available for review and comment to help us identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 5, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
The petition is also available on the APHIS Web site at:
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 17-292-01p) from Texas A&M AgriLife Research of College Station, TX (Texas A&M), seeking a determination of nonregulated status of cotton (
As described in the petition, TAM66274 cotton was developed through agrobacterium-mediated transformation of
Field tests conducted under APHIS oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the likelihood of persistence in the environment after completion of the tests. Data are gathered on multiple parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and product performance. These and other data are used by APHIS to determine if the new variety poses a plant pest risk.
Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the regulations and our process for soliciting public input when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition is available for public review and comment, and copies are available as indicated under
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Any substantive issues identified by APHIS based on our review of the petition and
Should APHIS determine that an EIS is necessary, APHIS will complete the NEPA EIS process in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508) and APHIS' NEPA implementing regulations (7 CFR part 372).
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
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 Connecticut Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on: Wednesday, December 20, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is to review and approve (vote) on the Advisory Memorandum on Solitary Confinement.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. (EST).
Barbara Delaviez, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-438-5448 and conference call 3640132. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). 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 conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-438-5448 and conference call 3640132.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
On September 26, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, grantee of FTZ 214, requesting the expansion of Subzone 214A subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 214, on behalf of Consolidated Diesel Company, in Enfield, North Carolina.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determination by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on high pressure steel cylinders (Steel Cylinders) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the AD and CVD orders.
Applicable December 5, 2017.
Mark Kennedy, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, or Paul Walker, 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) 482-7883 and (202) 482-0413, respectively.
On June 21, 2012, the Department published in the
As a result of these expedited sunset reviews, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order on Steel Cylinders from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that revocation of the CVD order on Steel Cylinders from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of of countervailable subsidies. The Department, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the dumping margins and countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail should the AD and CVD orders be revoked.
On November 3, 2017, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, the ITC published a notice of its determination that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on Steel Cylinders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The merchandise covered by these orders is seamless steel cylinders designed for storage or transport of compressed or liquefied gas (high pressure steel cylinders). High pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of chrome alloy steel including, but not limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel or chromium magnesium steel, and have permanently impressed into the steel, either before or after importation, the symbol of a U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (DOT)-approved high pressure steel cylinder manufacturer, as well as an approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 3T, or DOT-E (followed by a specific exemption number) in accordance with the requirements of sections 178.36 through 178.68 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or any subsequent amendments thereof. High pressure steel cylinders covered by these investigations have a water capacity up to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging from 8 to 702 cubic feet, regardless of corresponding service pressure levels and regardless of physical dimensions, finish or coatings.
Excluded from the scope of these orders are high pressure steel cylinders manufactured to UN-ISO-9809-1 and 2 specifications and permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols. Also excluded from the investigation are acetylene cylinders, with or without internal porous mass, and permanently impressed with 8A or 8AL in accordance with DOT regulations.
Merchandise covered by these orders is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or 7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD and CVD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD and CVD orders on Steel Cylinders from the PRC.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the
These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 3, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta (pasta) from Italy. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received,
Applicable December 5, 2017.
Joy Zhang (Ghigi/Zara) or George McMahon (Indalco), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1168 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.
On August 3, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of this review, the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin that is above
The Department shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation as modified by the section 129 determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed extension of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 5, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by “OMB Control Number 3038-0066” by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English or, if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Jocelyn Partridge, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, (202) 418-5926, email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires a Federal agency to provide a 60-day notice in the
Section 5b(c)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA or Act)
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in section 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:
There are no capital or start-up costs associated with this information collection, nor are there any operating or maintenance costs associated with this information collection.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Disaster Response Cooperative Agreements for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by January 4, 2018.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Chad Stover at 202-606-6925 or email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day notice requesting public comment was published in the
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD)
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System 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 January 4, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket 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, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System 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 January 4, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket 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, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
The original notice for this meeting was published at 82 FR 55355 on November 21, 2017.
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., November 27, 2017.
This meeting will now occur over the course of two days. The first day is December 6, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The second day is December 18, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Glenn Sklar, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.
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 February 5, 2018.
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 Patricia Wright, 202-245-7620.
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.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 5, 2018.
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 Freddie Cross, 202-453-7224.
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 Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the FM100 Modernization Project involving construction and operation of facilities by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) in Cameron, Clearfield, Elk, McKean, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before December 29, 2017.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on September 14, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF17-10-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF17-10-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
National Fuel plans to abandon, construct, and operate certain pipeline and compressor facilities in order to modernize its system to meet existing delivery requirements. The FM100 Modernization Project would consist of the following facilities and actions:
• Abandonment in place of approximately 12 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline (Line FM120) in Cameron and Elk Counties;
• abandonment in place of approximately 44.9 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline (Line FM100) in Clearfield, Cameron, Elk, and Potter Counties;
• abandonment by removal of the existing Costello Compressor Station in Potter County;
• installation of 28.9 miles of new 12- or 16-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in McKean and Potter Counties;
• installation of the new Marvindale Compressor Station (up to 2,000 horsepower) in McKean County;
• installation of 1.2 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop
• installation of approximately 12.5 miles of 6-inch-diameter FlexSteel
• installation of approximately 355 feet of 6-inch-diameter pipeline and aboveground piping/valves to replace the existing FM120 pipeline in order to keep an existing producer delivery point tied into the system in Cameron County; and
• installation of interconnects, valves, metering, and other appurtenant facilities.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Preliminary calculations are that construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 369 acres of land for the aboveground facilities, insertion, and the construction of the pipelines. Following construction, National Fuel would maintain about 188 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 93 percent of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way. National Fuel is still determining the disturbance required for the abandonment of lines FM100 and FM120.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• socioeconomics;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment.
Once National Fuel files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On June 30, 2017, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (WBI) filed an
On July 17, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
WBI proposes to abandon the Billy Creek Storage Field and related facilities and recover and sell the estimated 2.3 billion cubic feet of cushion gas prior to abandonment of the field. WBI proposes a combination of any of these three options to recover the remaining cushion gas:
1. Utilize and/or modify existing storage field facilities (Option 1);
2. install a temporary 200 horsepower (or less) replacement compressor unit (Option 2); and/or
3. drill one new natural gas recovery well in one of two locations (Option 3).
Following cushion gas withdrawal, WBI would abandon pipeline and aboveground facilities in-place and by removal, including the additional compressor unit and/or recovery well listed in Options 2 and 3. WBI states that the storage field is no longer reliable due to water encroachment and that the firm storage deliverability is now provided by another WBI storage field.
On August 17, 2017, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
On December 13, 2017, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will host a public information session regarding the procedure for relicensing Grand River Dam Authority's (GRDA) Pensacola Hydroelectric Project No. 1494 (Pensacola Project). The project is located on the Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma.
a.
b.
c.
d.
On September 4, 2015, Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC filed an application in Docket No. CP15-550-000 requesting authorization under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to site, construct, and operate new liquefaction facilities. On the same day, TransCameron Pipeline, LLC filed an application in Docket No. CP15-551-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The combined proposed projects are known as the Calcasieu Pass Project (Project) and would liquefy and export 10.0 million tonnes per annum of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
On September 18, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for completion of the final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in March 2018.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC's proposed facilities include nine single mixed refrigerant liquefaction blocks, two LNG storage tanks, a 720 megawatt electric generating plant, a marine terminal consisting of a turning basin and LNG carrier berths, LNG piping, transfer lines, and loading facilities. TransCameron Pipeline, LLC's proposed facilities include approximately 23.4 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline, one meter station, three mainline valves, one pig launcher, and one pig receiver. All facilities would be in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
On October 10, 2014, the Commission staff granted Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC's and TransCameron Pipeline, LLC's joint request to use the FERC's Pre-filing environmental review process and assigned the Calcasieu Pass Project Docket No. PF15-2-000. On January 20, 2015, the Commission issued a
The original and Supplemental NOIs were sent to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes and regional organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. Major issues raised during scoping include project design, alternatives, water resources, wildlife, vegetation, land use, recreation, transportation, traffic, socioeconomics, and cultural resources.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that 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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Continuous Release Reporting Requirements; Reporting Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Wastes at Farms Under CERCLA Section 103” (EPA ICR No. 1445.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0086) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments may be submitted on or before December 15, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency Management, 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8019; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
CERCLA Section 103(a) requires persons in charge of a facility or vessel to immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) of any hazardous substance release that equals or exceeds its reportable quantity (RQ) and is not federally permitted. EPA regulations implementing CERCLA Section 103 is codified in 40 CFR part 302. The information collection for episodic releases (immediate release notification) is covered under OMB Control Number 2050-0046. Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA provides relief from the per-occurrence notification requirements of Section 103(a) for hazardous substance releases that are “continuous,” and “stable in quantity and rate,” provided that such releases are reported “annually, or at such time as there is any statistically significant increase” in the quantity of the release. Section 103(f)(2) contemplates that, in the case of certain “continuous” and “stable” releases, the notification objectives of CERCLA can be achieved with less frequent reporting.
On December 18, 2008, EPA published a final rule, “CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste at Farms,” that exempted farms releasing hazardous substances from animal waste to the air at or above threshold levels from reporting under CERCLA Section 103. The final rule also exempted reporting of such releases under EPCRA section 304 if the farm had fewer animals than a large concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO).
On April 11, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated this final rule, thus eliminating the exemptions. Therefore, farms that were previously not subject to reporting requirements for air releases of hazardous substances from animal wastes are now required to report. This means that farms are now subject to CERCLA Section 103 reporting requirements for air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at the farms. In this ICR, EPA assumes that farms may utilize the streamlined reporting option, Continuous Release Reporting, to report air releases of hazardous substances from animal wastes. This ICR (1445.13) amends the current approved ICR (1445.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0086) to add farms sector and their burden and costs associated with continuous release reporting requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) VI will hold its third meeting.
December 12, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Jeffery Goldthorp, Designated Federal Officer, (202) 418-1096 (voice) or
The meeting will be held on December 12, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will provide recommendations to the FCC to improve the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems. On March 19, 2017, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, renewed the charter for the CSRIC for a period of two years through March 18, 2019. The meeting on December 12, 2017, will be the third meeting of the CSRIC under the current charter. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 5, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a revision of an existing information collection, titled “47 CFR 43.62, Annual Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Services and Circuits.” The purpose of the revision is to obtain OMB approval of the annual reporting requirements under the newly adopted 47 CFR 43.82 which will require that entities holding capacity on submarine cables file electronically annual circuit capacity reports, in a format set out in a Filing Manual.
The Commission is requesting a revision of OMB Control No. 3060-1156 in order to obtain final approval for the requirements in 47 CFR 43.82, the filing manual, and the electronic filing of the data.
Previously, U.S. providers of international services were required to file annual traffic and revenue reports and circuit capacity reports as required by 47 CFR 43.62. The Commission has adopted rules changes that eliminate the traffic and revenue reports and further streamline the circuit capacity reports. Upon OMB approval of this collection, 47 CFR 43.62 will be eliminated and replaced with 47 CFR 43.82 for the filing of circuit capacity reports.
The current title of OMB Control No. 3060-1156 is “47 CFR 43.62, Annual Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Services and Circuits.” The Commission would like to change the title to “47 CFR 43.82, Annual International Circuit Capacity Reports” in order to more accurately describe the information collection requirements under 47 CFR Section 43.82.
The uses to which the Commission puts the information from the annual circuit capacity report, and the Registration Form are as follows:
The circuit capacity reports are comprised of two parts. First, licensees of a submarine cable extending between the United States and a foreign point as of December 31 of the reporting period report the available capacity and planned capacity of the cable—the cable operators report. Second, each cable landing licensee and common carrier that holds capacity on the U.S. end of a submarine cable extending between the United States and a foreign point as of December 31 of the reporting period (“capacity holders”) reports its available capacity on the U.S. end of every submarine cable between the United States and any foreign point on which it holds capacity as of that date—the capacity holders report. A holding of capacity is an interest in the U.S. end of an international submarine cable through cable ownership, an indefeasible right of use (IRU), or an inter-carrier lease (ICL).
The Commission uses the circuit capacity data for such purposes as analyzing international transport markets in merger reviews. More importantly, these data are essential for our national security and public safety responsibilities in regulating communications, an important linchpin of the Commission's statutory authority. Submarine cables are critical infrastructure and the circuit capacity data are important for the Commission's contributions to the national security and defense of the United States. The Commission uses the data, for example, to have a complete understanding of the ownership and use of submarine cable capacity and to assist in the protection, restoration, and resiliency of the infrastructure during national security or public safety emergencies, such as hurricanes. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed comments stating that it also finds this information to be critical to its national and homeland security functions, and states that this information, when combined with other data sources, is used to protect and preserve national security and for its emergency response purposes.
There are no alternative reliable third party commercial sources for the reported data. Although some sources collect general capacity information from cable owners, neither the FCC nor DHS has found any alternative sources for capacity holder data. Commercial source data may include capacity information, but the data are not verified by company officials and do not include capacity holder data. Although the Commission obtains the ownership and location of individual cables through the licensing process, distribution of a cable's capacity among providers is not required to be reported under our current submarine cable licensing rules and is provided only annually through the Circuit Capacity Reports. Further, the Commission's licensing rules do not require an applicant to include the entities that have acquired capacity on the cable through an IRU or ICL.
The Registration Form provides basic information about the filing and about the entity itself—such as address, phone number, email address, and the international Section 214 authorizations and cable landing licenses held by the filer. This information will assist in keeping track of who holds international circuit capacity and how to contact them. The Registration Form also includes a certification by the filing entity to certify the accuracy and completeness of its report. The Registration Form provides the means by which the filing entity may request confidential treatment of the data filed in the report.
The Filing Manual sets forth instructions on how to file the reports.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 5, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Section 15.201(d) of the Commission rules permit the operation of field disturbance sensors in the low VHF region of the spectrum. In order to monitor non-licensed field disturbance sensors operating in the low VHF television bands, a unique procedure for on-site equipment testing of the systems is required to ensure suitable safeguards for the operation of these devices. Data are retained by the holder of the equipment authorized/issued by the Commission and made available only at the request of the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 4, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 4, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
The Commission is requesting emergency OMB processing of the information collection requirements contained in this notice and has requested OMB approval by January 10, 2018.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
(a) Directed the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund (TRS Fund) administrator to continue to use the average cost per minute compensation methodology for the traditional TRS compensation rate;
(b) required TRS providers to submit certain projected TRS-related cost and demand data to the TRS Fund Administrator to be used to calculate the rate; and
(c) directed the TRS Fund administrator to expand its form for providers to itemize their actual and projected costs and demand data, to include specific sections to capture speech-to-speech (STS) and video relay service (VRS) costs and minutes of use.
On November 19, 2007, the Commission released the
(a) Adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate traditional TRS and interstate STS based on the Multi-state Average Rate Structure (MARS) plan, under which interstate
(b) adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate captioned telephone service (CTS), as well as Internet Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS), based on the MARS plan;
(c) adopted a cost recovery methodology for Internet Protocol (IP) Relay based on price caps;
(d) adopted a cost recovery methodology for VRS that adopted tiered rates based on call volume;
(e) clarified the nature and extent that certain categories of costs are compensable from the Fund; and
(f) addressed certain issues concerning the management and oversight of the Fund, including prohibiting financial incentives offered to consumers to make relay calls and the role of the Interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council.
47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D), mandatory minimum standards adopted in the
(a) The per-minute compensation rate(s);
(b) whether the rate applies to session minutes or conversation minutes;
(c) the number of intrastate session minutes; and
(d) the number of intrastate conversation minutes.
47 CFR 64.604(a)(7) requires that in order for VRS providers to be compensated from the TRS Fund for U.S. residents making VRS calls from international points to the U.S., the providers must pre-register the users before they leave the country for the purpose of making VRS calls from international points for up to a maximum period of 4 weeks.
47 CFR 64.604(c)(1) requires each state and interstate TRS provider to maintain a log of consumer complaints and annually file a summary of the complaint log with the Commission.
47 CFR 64.604(c)(2) requires each state and interstate TRS provider to submit contact information to the Commission.
47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(
47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(G) requires each new TRS provider to submit to the TRS Fund administrator a notification of its intent to participate in the TRS Fund 30 days prior to submitting its first report of TRS interstate minutes of use.
47 CFR 64.604(c)(6) provides procedures for consumers to file informal complaints alleging violations of the TRS rules, for TRS providers to respond to these complaints, and for the Commission to refer complaints concerning intrastate TRS to the states.
47 CFR 64.604(c)(7) requires that contracts between state TRS administrators and the TRS vendor provide for the transfer of TRS customer profile data from the outgoing TRS vendor to the incoming TRS vendor.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 5, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Currently, the FCC Form 308 is only available to the public in paper form. The Commission obtained OMB approval of a revised FCC Form 308, in Excel format, that will be made available to the public on the FCC Forms page of the FCC's Web site,
FCC Form 308 applicants now have the option to file their applicants in the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) and make their payment of their application filing fees electronically in the FCC Fee Filer System. Please note that this method is optional rather than mandatory. We believe that the availability of this option will substantially decrease or eliminate paper filings of FCC Form 308's with the Commission. This option will save time for the applicant and Commission staff. There are no other changes to the information collection, including burden estimates.
Without this collection of information, the Commission would not be able to ascertain whether the main studio owner in the U.S. meets various legal requirements or the foreign broadcast facility, which receives and retransmits programming from the main studio in the U.S., meets various technical requirements that prevent harmful interference to other broadcast stations or telecommunications facilities.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 5, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission published a Public Notice in November 1998 which established suggested guidelines for the filing of petitions for preemption pursuant to section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as well as suggested guidelines for the filing of comments opposing such requests for preemption. The Commission will use this information to resolve petitions for preemption of state or local statutes, regulations, or other state or local legal requirements that are alleged to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing a telecommunications service.
Section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which was added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires the Commission, with certain important exceptions, to preempt (to the extent necessary) the enforcement of any state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. The Commission's consideration of preemption under section 253 typically begins with the filing of a petition by an aggrieved party. The Commission typically places such petitions on public notice and requests comment by interested parties. The Commission's decision is based on the public record, generally composed of the petition and comments. The Commission has considered a number of preemption items since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and believes it is in the public interest to inform the public of the information necessary for full consideration of the issues likely to be involved in section 253 preemption proceedings. In order to render a timely and informed decision, the Commission expects petitioners and commenters to provide it with relevant information sufficient to describe the legal regime involved in the controversy and to provide the factual information necessary for a decision.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 5, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Section 20.18(i)(2)(ii)(A) requires that, within three years of the effective date of rules, CMRS providers shall deliver to uncompensated barometric pressure data from any device capable of delivering such data to PSAPs. This requirement is necessary to ensure that PSAPs are receiving all location information possible to be used for dispatch. This requirement is also necessary to ensure that CMRS providers implement a vertical location solution in the event that the proposed “dispatchable location” solution does not function as intended by the three-year mark and beyond.
Section 20.18(i)(2)(ii)(B) requires that the four nationwide providers submit to the Commission for review and approval a reasonable metric for z-axis (vertical) location accuracy no later than 3 years from the effective date of rules. The requirement is critical to ensure that the vertical location framework adopted in the Fourth Report and Order is effectively implemented.
Section 20.18(i)(2)(iii) requires CMRS providers to certify compliance with the Commission's rules at various benchmarks throughout implementation of improved location accuracy. This requirement is necessary to ensure that CMRS providers remain “on track” to reach the goals that they themselves agreed to.
Section 20.18(i)(3)(i) requires that within 12 months of the effective date, the four nationwide CMRS providers must establish the test bed described in the Fourth Report and Order, which will validate technologies intended for indoor location. The test bed is necessary for the compliance certification framework adopted in the Fourth Report and Order.
Section 20.18(i)(3)(ii) requires that beginning 18 months from the effective date of the rules, CMRS providers providing service in any of the six Test Cities identified by ATIS (Atlanta, Denver/Front Range, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Manhattan Borough of New York City) or portions thereof must collect and report aggregate data on the location technologies used for live 911 calls. Nationwide CMRS providers must submit call data on a quarterly basis; non-nationwide CMRS providers need only submit this data every six months. Non-nationwide providers that do not provide service in any of the Test Cities may satisfy this requirement by collecting and reporting data based on the largest county within the carrier's footprint. This reporting requirement is necessary to validate and verify the compliance certifications made by CMRS providers.
The Commission has developed a proposed reporting template to assist CMRS providers in collecting, formatting, and submitting aggregate live 911 call data in accordance with the requirements in the rules. The proposed template will also assist the Commission in evaluating the progress CMRS providers have made toward meeting the 911 location accuracy benchmarks. The proposed template is an Excel spreadsheet and will be available for downloading on the Commission's Web site. The Commission may also develop an online filing mechanism for these reports in the future.
Section 20.18(i)(4)(ii) requires that no later than 18 months from the effective date, each CMRS provider shall submit to the Commission a report on its progress toward implementing improved indoor location accuracy. Non-nationwide CMRS providers will have an additional 6 months to submit their progress reports. All CMRS providers shall provide an additional progress report no later than 36 months from the effective date of the adoption of this rule. The 36-month reports shall indicate what progress the provider has made consistent with its implementation plan.
Section 20.18(i)(4)(iii) requires that prior to activation of the NEAD but no later than 18 months from the effective date of the adoption of this rule, the nationwide CMRS providers shall file with the Commission and request approval for a security and privacy plan for the administration and operation of the NEAD. This requirement is necessary to ensure that the four nationwide CMRS providers are building in privacy and security measures to the NEAD from its inception.
Section 20.18(i)(4)(iv) requires that before use of the NEAD or any information contained therein, CMRS providers must certify that they will not use the NEAD or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except as otherwise required by law. This requirement is necessary to ensure the privacy and security of any personally identifiable information that may be collected by the NEAD.
Section 20.18(j) requires CMRS providers to provide standardized confidence and uncertainty (C/U) data for all wireless 911 calls, whether from outdoor or indoor locations, on a per-call basis upon the request of a PSAP. This requirement will serve to make the use of C/U data easier for PSAPs.
Section 20.18(k) requires that CMRS providers must record information on all live 911 calls, including, but not limited to, the positioning source method used to provide a location fix associated with the call, as well as confidence and uncertainty data. This information must be made available to PSAPs upon request, as a measure to promote transparency and accountability for this set of rules.
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 81 FR 84583-84591, dated November 23, 2016) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Office of Financial Resources, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the title and the mission and function statements for the
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 81 FR 84583-84591 dated November 23, 2016) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the functional statement for the
After the functional statement for the
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 81 FR 84583-84591, dated November 23, 2016) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Office of Infectious Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete and replace the title and the mission and function statements for the
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 81 FR 84583-84591, dated November 23, 2016) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the title for the
Delete in its entirety the title and the mission and function statements for the
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on ACL's intention to collect information from legal and aging/disability service professionals. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by February 5, 2018.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to Omar Valverde at
Omar Valverde at
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
To comply with the above requirement, ACL is publishing a notice regarding the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. ACL contracts with a national legal assistance resource center, the National Center on Law and Elder Rights, to provide the required services. Through the contract, ACL provides aging, disability, and related legal professionals with training and complex case consultations and support for demonstration projects regarding contractually identified priority legal topics.
The purpose of the information requested is for ACL to ensure that the resource center creates and prioritizes the training, case consultations and technical assistance resources it was contracted to provide and to ensure that the center targets the contractually designated aging network practitioners about the priority subject matters. This approach enables ACL to make data-informed decisions about the deployment of its resource center assets. These data are necessary for ACL to evaluate contractual compliance with established performance indicators. These metrics include quantifiable increases in uptake by stakeholders of training, case consultation and technical assistance, and measures of satisfaction with and perceived benefit from these services. For example, the metrics measure successful problem resolution as a result of the services provided,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the following subjects: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
ACL plans to submit the proposed data collection to the Office of Management and Budget for approval following receipt of any comments received in response to this notice. The information to be requested by ACL from legal and aging/disability professionals fall into the following areas: (1) Requests for training, case consultation, and technical assistance through an online, secure Uniform Resource Support Request Tool; (2) general requests for Legal Training (including the volume of Webinar registrations); Case Consultation and Technical Assistance; and (3) information about satisfaction and use of the services and support received in order to enable ACL to measure performance outcomes.
ACL proposes to ask aging/disability service providers and legal service providers who may need various forms of resource support a series of questions regarding appropriate delivery of needed assistance in a targeted and efficient manner. These questions will be presented through a web based Uniform Resource Support Request Tool (URSRT) that will be used for soliciting and accepting requests for Legal Training, Case Consultation, and Technical Assistance (Link to URSRT).
ACL expects to receive (30) responses to questions presented in the URSRT from Legal Assistance Developers (LADs) (Title VII, Section 731) housed in SUAs and (50) responses from Older Americans Act (OAA) Title III-B legal providers in the first year. In subsequent years, the URSRT will be targeted for use by other groups within aging/disability and elder rights networks and may experience a large increase in responses.
The burden hours are calculated as (
ACL proposes to ask legal and aging/disability providers who request Legal Training, Case Consultation, or Technical Assistance through the web-based Uniform Resource Support Request Tool (URSRT) for background information and the following substantive data:
• Type of Organization (Title III-B attorney, Legal Services Corporation attorney, Other Legal Services attorney, Other Elder Law attorney, Other Legal Services professional, Aging and/or Disability Network Professional, Other); and
• Services requested: (Legal Training, Case Consultation, Technical Assistance on Legal Services Delivery, or General Information).
Based on the results of prior data collections, ACL expects between
The burden of hours is calculated at
ACL proposes to ask legal and aging/disability providers, who request Legal Training, Case Consultation or Technical Assistance, the following series of survey questions in order to properly assess audience targeting, participant satisfaction, and outcomes of the training and technical assistance delivered:
• Type of Organization (Title III-B attorney, Legal Services Corporation attorney, Other Legal Services attorney, Other Elder Law attorney, Other Legal Services professional, Aging and/or Disability Network Professional, and Other Job Title (
• Please rank the quality of assistance provided in this (Legal Training/Case Consultation/Technical Assistance);
• Did the assistance provided by this (Legal Training/Case Consultation/Technical Assistance) contribute to a successful resolution of a specific client issue?
• If requesting assistance on legal services delivery, will the assistance provided contribute to the successful completion of legal needs and capacity assessments, legal services delivery plans, legal service delivery standards, or data collection/reporting systems?
ACL expects between
The burden of hours is calculated at
The proposed data collection forms and Attachment A may be found on the ACL Web site for review at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “FDA Categorization of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Devices to Assist the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with Coverage Decisions; Guidance for Sponsors, Clinical Investigators, Industry, Institutional Review Boards, and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” This guidance modifies the FDA's current policy on categorization of investigational device exemption (IDE) devices, which assists the CMS in determining whether or not an IDE device should be covered (reimbursed) by CMS. On December 2, 2015, FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and CMS's Coverage and Analysis Group (CAG) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to streamline and facilitate the efficient categorization of investigational medical devices in order to support CMS's ability to make Medicare coverage (reimbursement) determinations for those devices. This guidance document further explains the framework that FDA intends to follow for such categorization decisions.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Owen Faris, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1682, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6356, or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for sponsors, clinical investigators, industry, institutional review boards, and FDA staff entitled, “FDA Categorization of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Devices to Assist the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with Coverage Decisions; Guidance for Sponsors, Clinical Investigators, Industry, Institutional Review Boards, and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” This guidance modifies the FDA's current policy on categorization of IDE devices. In September 1995, FDA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IA) regarding reimbursement categorization of investigational devices with the Health Care Financing Administration (now known as CMS). FDA would assign a device with an approved IDE based on the level of risk the device presented to patients. The categorization would then be used by CMS as part of its determination of whether or not items and services met the requirements for Medicare coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act. In following with the IA, FDA categorized devices as either Category A (“Experimental”) or Category B (“Nonexperimental/Investigational”). In the more than 20 years since the IA was signed, FDA has received a number of IDEs which do not easily fit into any of the eight sub-categories identified in the IA. There have also been several developments which prompted FDA and CMS to revise their shared understanding regarding the categorization of IDE devices. These include the publication of the guidance document entitled, “Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) for Early Feasibility Medical Device Clinical Studies, Including Certain First in Human (FIH) Studies; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff,” (Ref. 1) and a subsequent increase in submission of early feasibility studies to FDA, as well as modifications to CMS's regulation regarding IDEs (42 CFR 405 Subpart B).
On December 2, 2015, FDA's CDRH and CMS's Coverage and Analysis Group (CAG) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to streamline and facilitate the efficient categorization of investigational medical devices. The MOU became effective as of June 2, 2016. This guidance document describes the process and information that will be used to help determine the appropriate category for a device to be studied. Importantly, the categorization paradigm has shifted from a more rigid approach to one which allows more flexibility and could be of great benefit specifically to manufacturers of, and patients receiving, innovative medical devices. The previous categorization paradigm included several specific criteria upon which a categorization would be based. These criteria were tied to information known about other similar, legally marketed products. The policy has been revised in order to allow FDA to consider information known about investigational devices as well, and provide FDA the flexibility to change categorization as more information regarding a device has been obtained. Therefore, while an innovative medical device may not be reimbursable during early-stage clinical trials, information gained during such studies now can be utilized to potentially help support a category change, and thus full reimbursement, for the device during subsequent studies.
FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance that appeared in the June 1, 2016,
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “FDA Categorization of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Devices to Assist the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with Coverage Decisions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA and CMS regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078. The collections of information in 42 CFR part 405, subpart B have been approved under OMB control number 0938-1250.
The following reference is on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
1. Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) for Early Feasibility Medical Device Clinical Studies, Including Certain First in Human (FIH) Studies; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, available at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” FDA has developed this leapfrog guidance to provide FDA's initial thoughts on technical considerations specific to devices using additive manufacturing, the broad category of manufacturing encompassing 3-dimensional (3D) printing. This guidance outlines technical considerations associated with additive manufacturing processes as well as testing and characterization for final finished devices fabricated using additive manufacturing.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download
Matthew Di Prima, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 62, Rm. 2214, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2507 or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911.
FDA has developed this leapfrog guidance to provide FDA's initial thoughts on technical considerations specific to devices using additive manufacturing (AM), the broad category of manufacturing encompassing 3D printing. In medical device applications, AM has the advantage of facilitating the creation of anatomically-matched devices and surgical instrumentation by using a patient's own medical imaging. Another advantage is the ease in fabricating complex geometric structures, allowing the creation of engineered open lattice structures, tortuous internal channels, and internal support structures that would not be easily possible using traditional (non-additive) manufacturing approaches. However, the unique aspects of the AM process, such as the layer-by-layer fabrication process, and the relative lack of experience and clinical history of with respect to devices manufactured using AM techniques, pose challenges in determining optimal characterization and assessment methods for the final finished device, as well as optimal process validation and verification methods for these devices. To discuss these challenges and obtain initial stakeholder input, the FDA held a public workshop entitled “Additive Manufacturing of Medical Devices: An Interactive Discussion on the Technical Considerations of 3D Printing,” on October 8-9, 2014 (79 FR 28732).
This guidance is a leapfrog guidance; leapfrog guidances are intended to serve as a mechanism by which the Agency can share initial thoughts regarding the content of premarket submissions for emerging technologies and new clinical applications that are likely to be of public health importance very early in product development. This leapfrog guidance represents the Agency's initial thinking, and our recommendations may change as more information becomes available. The Agency strongly encourages manufacturers to engage with CDRH and/or CBER through the Pre-Submission process to obtain more detailed feedback regarding their AM device or process. For more information on Pre-Submissions, please see “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” (
The FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance that appeared in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073. The collections of information in the guidance document “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec LLC (Destrehan, LA), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec LLC (Destrehan, LA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of June 15, 2017.
AmSpec LLC (Destrehan, LA) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of June 15, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2020.
Christopher J. Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec LLC, 14682 Airline Hwy., Destrehan, LA 70047, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. AmSpec LLC is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
AmSpec LLC is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces a change in a regional partner, representing the Upper Copper River region, on the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council (Co-management Council). For the Upper Copper River region, the Copper River Native Association has elected to step down, and the Co-management Council is replacing that partner with the Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission. This action will ensure continuity of the Co-management Council's operations.
The change in representation on the Co-management Council took effect October 1, 2017.
Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786-3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503;
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regulates the subsistence take of migratory birds in Alaska through regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 92. The Service published a notice of decision in the
Since 2000, the Co-management Council partner organization representing the Upper Copper River region has been the Copper River Native Association (CRNA). However, CRNA notified the Service, by letter dated August 11, 2017, of its request to cease the present regional partnership with the Co-management Council, and recommended that the Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission could potentially be a good replacement. A phone poll was conducted of the Co-management Council on August 16, 2017, and they unanimously selected the Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission as their replacement partner.
The new Co-management Council partner organization will ensure continuity of communication with the subsistence users of their regions to establish and maintain local representation on their regional management bodies. Partners are also responsible for coordinating meetings within their regions, soliciting proposals, and keeping the villages informed.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on federally listed American burying-beetle incidental take permit (ITP) applications. The applicants anticipate American burying-beetle take as a result of impacts to habitat the species uses for breeding, feeding, and sheltering in Oklahoma. The take would be incidental to the applicants' activities associated with oil and gas well field and pipeline infrastructure (gathering, transmission, and distribution), including geophysical exploration (seismic), construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation. If approved, the permits would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicants' ITP applications by one of the following methods. Please refer to the proposed permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Review Division, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6078, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6651.
Under the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If approved, the permits would be issued to the applicants under the
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications under the ICP, for incidentally taking the federally-listed American burying-beetle. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (
Applicant requests a permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including oil and gas well field infrastructure geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning, as well as oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation in Oklahoma.
Applicant requests a permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including oil and gas well field infrastructure geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning, as well as oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation in Oklahoma.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under the ESA, section 10(c) (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the USGS is proposing to renew an information collection (IC).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 5, 2018.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Collections Clearance Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS
David Wald, USGS, by email at
We, the USGS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We will release data collected on these forms only in formats that do not include proprietary information volunteered by respondents. This collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2018.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authorities for this action are Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before November 11, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by December 20, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before November 11, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nominations and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
Weeks of December 4, 11, 18, 25, 2017, January 1, 8, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 4, 2017.
9:00 a.m. Hearing on Combined Licenses for Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7: Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act Proceeding (Public Meeting). (Contact: Manny Comar: 301-415-3863).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 18, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 25, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 1, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 8, 2018.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from November 7, 2017, to November 17, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on November 21, 2017.
Comments must be filed by January 4, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by February 5, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2422, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0225, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0225, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS 3.8.1 to reflect the addition of a second qualified offsite circuit at HBRSEP. The proposed change modifies the TS 3.8.1 LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation], Conditions, Required Actions and Completion Times to be more consistent with NUREG-1431 [“Standard Technical Specifications—Westinghouse Plants”]. The AC [alternating current] power systems are not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident with the proposed LCO requiring two qualified offsite circuits between the offsite transmission network and the onsite emergency AC Electrical Power Distribution System to be operable are no different than the consequences of an accident in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4 with the existing LCO that requires the single qualified offsite circuit to be operable. The additional 230kV startup transformer will improve the reliability and availability of offsite power to the emergency
The proposed change will also allow operation of the LTCs on the 115kV and 230kV startup transformers in automatic mode. The only accident previously evaluated where the probability of an accident is potentially affected by the proposed change is a loss of offsite power (LOOP). Failure of a LTC while in the automatic mode of operation that results in decreased voltage to the safety related buses could cause a LOOP if voltage decreased below the degraded grid voltage relay (DGVR) setpoint. The three postulated failure scenarios are: (1) Failure of a primary microcontroller that results in rapidly decreasing voltage supplied to the safety related buses; (2) failure of a primary microcontroller to respond to decreasing grid voltage; and (3) the backup microcontroller overrides the primary microcontroller when not required. For the first scenario, a backup microcontroller is provided for each LTC, which makes this failure unlikely. For the second scenario, operators would have ample time to address the condition utilizing identified procedures since grid voltage changes typically occur relatively slowly. In addition, the frequency of occurrence of all of these failure modes is small, based on the operating history of similar equipment at other plants. Furthermore, in all of the above potential failure modes, operators can take manual control of the LTC to mitigate the effects of the failure. Thus, the probability of a LOOP will not be significantly increased by operation of the LTCs in the automatic mode. The proposed change to allow operation of the LTCs in automatic mode has no effect on the consequences of a LOOP, since the emergency diesel generators (EDGs) provide power to safety related equipment following a LOOP. The design and function of the EDGs are not affected by the proposed change. The LTCs are each equipped with a backup microcontroller, which inhibits gross improper action of the LTC in the event of primary microcontroller failure. Additionally, the operator has procedurally identified actions available to prevent a sustained high voltage condition from occurring. Damage due to overvoltage is time-dependent, requiring a sustained high voltage condition. Therefore, damage to safety related equipment is unlikely, and the consequences of previously evaluated accidents are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS 3.8.1 to reflect the addition of a second qualified offsite circuit at HBRSEP. The proposed change modifies the TS 3.8.1 LCO, Conditions, Required Actions and Completion Times to be more consistent with NUREG-1431. The proposed change also will allow operation of the LTCs on the 115kV and 230kV startup transformers in automatic mode. All aspects of the proposed change involve electrical transformers that provide offsite power to safety-related equipment for accident mitigation. The proposed change does not alter the design, physical configuration or mode of operation of any other plant structure, system or component. No physical changes are being made to any other portion of the plant, so no new accident causal mechanisms are being introduced. The proposed change also does not result in any new mechanisms that could initiate damage to the reactor or its principal safety barriers (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS 3.8.1 to reflect the addition of a second qualified offsite circuit at HBRSEP. The proposed change modifies the TS 3.8.1 LCO, Conditions, Required Actions and Completion Times to be more consistent with NUREG-1431. The new 230kV startup transformer will improve the reliability and availability of offsite power to the emergency buses by increasing the amount of available offsite power sources from one to two. Another improvement to the HBRSEP electrical system configuration as a result of the proposed change is that each emergency bus will be normally aligned to independent startup sources and will not require a fast bus transfer on a unit trip. This reduces the risk of loss of power to the emergency buses caused by power transfer and/or equipment failures. The margin of safety is increased with the proposed change to revise TS 3.8.1 to reflect the additional qualified offsite circuit.
The proposed change will also allow operation of the LTCs on the 115kV and 230kV startup transformers in automatic mode. The inputs or assumptions of any of the analyses that demonstrate the integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant system or containment during accident conditions are unaffected by this proposed change. The allowable values for the degraded voltage protection function are unchanged and will continue to ensure that the degraded voltage protection function actuates when required, but does not actuate prematurely to unnecessarily transfer safety related loads from offsite power to the EDGs. Automatic operation of the LTCs increases the margin of safety by reducing the potential for transferring loads to the EDGs during an undervoltage or overvoltage event on the offsite power sources.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the PNP RFOL to change the full compliance implementation date for the fire protection program transition license condition to allow additional time for completion of the required modifications necessary to achieve full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the PNP RFOL to change the full compliance implementation date for the fire protection program transition license condition to allow additional time for completion of the required modifications necessary to achieve full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the PNP RFOL to change the full compliance implementation date for the fire protection program transition license condition to allow additional time for completion of the required modifications necessary to achieve full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in nature. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The EFW system is not an initiator of any design basis accident or event and, therefore, the proposed change does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change to clarify the conditions in which the current 7-day Completion Time for an inoperable steam supply path to turbine-driven EFW pump does not change the response of the plant to any accidents, since single failure criterion is not applicable when complying with associated TS Actions.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not result in a change in the manner in which the EFW system provides plant protection. Absent a single failure (which is not assumed while in compliance with TS Actions), the EFW system will continue to supply water to the Steam Generators (SGs) to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the SGs, as required. There are no design changes associated with the proposed change. The change to the associated TS Bases does not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios.
The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The associated TS will continue to limit the time in which one steam supply path to the turbine-driven EFW pump may be inoperable.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change applies to a Diverse Actuation System (DAS) Manual Controls Mode 6 note for operability of the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) Stage 4 valves that involves revising the note from reactor internals in place to upper internals in place. In accordance with Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.13 ADS—Shutdown, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Open Applicability and TS 3.3.9, Engineered Safeguards Actuation System Instrumentation, Function 7, the ADS Stage 4 valves are not required to be operable in MODE 6 with the upper internals removed. However, the reactor internals would still be present. The change involves clarification of the note (with no change in required system or device function), such that the appropriate configuration in Mode 6 would be in place and would not conflict with TS 3.4.13 or TS 3.3.9. The revised note previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised note and associated requirements and actions are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing ones. As a result, the consequences are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves revising the existing LCO 3.1.4 operability to be applicable to Rod Cluster Control Assemblies (RCCAs)with accompanying changes in actions and surveillance requirements (with no change in required system or device function), such that more appropriate, albeit less restrictive, actions would be applied. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no set points, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the LCO 3.1.4 for Rod Group Alignment Limits is made less restrictive by eliminating the worth of the [Gray Rod Cluster Assemblies (GRCAs)] in MODES 1 and 2 with k
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity involves the revision of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.17, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to allow the extension of the Type A integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) containment test interval to 15 years, and the extension of the Type C local leakage rate test (LLRT) interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions.
The proposed extensions do not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident.
The change in Type A test frequency to once-per-fifteen years, measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, based on the internal events (IE) probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) is 1.79E-03 person-rem/year for Unit 1 and Unit 2. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A states that a very small population is defined as an increase of ≤1.0 person-rem per year or ≤1% of the total population dose, whichever is less restrictive for the risk impact assessment of the extended ILRT intervals. This is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Final Safety Evaluation for Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01 and EPRI Report No. 1009325. Moreover, the risk
In addition, as documented in NUREG-1493, “Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,” dated September 1995, Types B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The VEGP Type A test history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and (2) time based. Activity-based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. The LLRT requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed test interval extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted under TS Amendment Nos. 130 (VEGP-1) and 108 (VEGP-2), to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for VEGP. These exceptions were for activities that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the unit is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS 5.5.17, Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, involves the extension of the VEGP Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant (
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted under TS Amendment Nos. 130 (VEGP-1) and 108 (VEGP-2), to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for VEGP. These exceptions were for activities that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how the unit is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.17 involves the extension of the VEGP Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leaktightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for VEGP. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusions that Types B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section XI and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted under TS Amendment Nos. 130 (VEGP-1) and 108 (VEGP-2), to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for VEGP. This exception was for an activity that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; therefore, the deletion is solely an administrative action and does not change how the unit is operated and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety as a result of this administrative change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The relocation of the F
For each core reload, each accident analysis addressed in the STP UFSAR will continue to be examined with respect to changes in the cycle-dependent parameters, which are obtained from the use of NRC-approved reload design methodologies, to
Therefore, there is no impact to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated due to the proposed change.
[The licensee stated that the administrative changes proposed to the TSs do not impact the operation of the facility in a manner that involves significant hazards considerations.]
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The relocation of the F
The relocation of the F
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
[The licensee stated that the administrative changes proposed to the TSs do not impact the operation of the facility in a manner that involves significant hazards considerations.]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relocation of the F
The proposed amendment does not affect the design of the facility or system operating parameters, does not physically alter safety-related systems and does not affect the method in which safety-related systems perform their functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not impact margin of safety.
[The licensee stated that the administrative changes proposed to the TSs do not impact the operation of the facility in a manner that involves significant hazards considerations.]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
Additionally, the amendments deleted Conditions 2.D.(e) and 2.D.(c), respectively, of the LSCS Unit 1 and Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses regarding conducting the third Type A test of each 10-year service period when the plant is shut down for the 10-year inservice inspection.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 16, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 15, 2017.
The supplemental letter dated September 25, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated November 17, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 14, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 8, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 8, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 6, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of two amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; and LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The NRC proposes to determine that each amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation.
Comments must be filed by January 4, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by February 5, 2018. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0219, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0219, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. As this amendment request pertains only to the spent fuel pool, only those accidents that are related to movement and storage of fuel assemblies in the SFP could potentially be affected by the proposed change. The proposed change modifies HNP TS 5.6.1.3 to reflect the respective design features of the two BWR rack types utilized in these pools, including adjusted requirements for the Boraflex racks that account for use of neutron absorbing inserts. The change is necessary to ensure that, with continued Boraflex degradation over time, the effective neutron multiplication factor, k
The installation of DREAM [Device for Reactivity Mitigation] rack inserts and credit for soluble boron does not result in a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously analyzed because there are no changes in the manner in which spent fuel is handled, moved, or stored in the rack cells. The probability that a fuel assembly would be dropped or misloaded is unchanged by the installation of the DREAM rack inserts and use of additional administrative controls on BWR fuel storage in these racks. These events involve failures of administrative controls, human performance, and equipment failures that are unaffected by the presence or absence of Boraflex and the rack inserts. The probability of a SFP dilution event is also unchanged. The soluble boron is already present in SFPs A and B and no changes are proposed regarding the manner in which soluble boron is managed. The current controls in place remain applicable.
The installation of the DREAM rack inserts and crediting of soluble boron does not result in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously analyzed because there is no change in the fuel assemblies that provide the source terms used in calculating the radiological consequences of a fuel handling accident. In addition, consistent with the current design, only one fuel assembly will be moved at a time. Thus, the consequences of dropping a fuel assembly onto any other fuel assembly or other structure remain bounded by the previously analyzed fuel handling accident. The proposed change does not affect the effectiveness of the other engineered design features, such as filtration systems, that limit the offsite dose consequences of a fuel handling accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The DREAM rack inserts are being installed to restore the spent fuel pool criticality margin, compensating for the degraded Boraflex neutron absorber. The DREAM rack inserts, once approved for crediting, will replace the existing Boraflex as the credited neutron absorber for controlling spent fuel pool reactivity, even though the Boraflex absorber will remain in place.
The proposed HNP TS 5.6.1.3.a.1 requires that the BWR spent fuel storage racks with Metamic rack inserts maintain the effective neutron multiplication factor, k
The proposed change provides a method to ensure that k
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) is defined as the lowest ratio of that power which results in the onset of transition boiling to the actual bundle power at the same location. The Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) methodology is applied for each reload to assure that more than 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core are expected to avoid boiling transition for the most severe abnormal operational transient described in LaSalle UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15.0. The new SLMCPRs preserve the existing margin to transition boiling. The SLMCPR satisfies the requirements of General Design Criterion 10 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 regarding acceptable fuel design limits.
The MCPR safety limit is re-evaluated for each reload using NRC-approved methodologies. The analyses for LSCS, Unit 1, Cycle 17, have concluded that a two recirculation loop SLMCPR of ≥ 1.11, based on the application of GNF's NRC-approved SLMCPR methodology, will ensure that this acceptance criterion is met. For single recirculation loop operation, a SLMCPR of ≥ 1.13 also ensures that this acceptance criterion is met. The MCPR operating limits are presented and controlled in accordance with the LSCS, Unit 1 Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
Similarly, the analyses for LSCS, Unit 2, Cycle 17, have concluded that a two recirculation loop SLMCPR of ≥ 1.12, based on the application of GNF's NRC-approved SLMCPR methodology, will ensure that this acceptance criterion is met. For single recirculation loop operation, a SLMCPR of ≥ 1.15 also ensures that this acceptance criterion is met. The MCPR operating limits are presented and controlled in accordance with the LSCS, Unit 2 Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
The requested TS changes do not involve any plant modifications or operational changes that could affect system reliability or performance or that could affect the probability of operator error. The requested changes do not affect any postulated accident precursors, do not affect any accident mitigating systems, and do not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to ensure that during normal operating and during abnormal operational transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using NRC-approved methodology discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, “General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,” Revision 22. The proposed changes do not involve any new modes of operation, any changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications. The proposed revised MCPR safety limits have been shown to be acceptable for Unit 1 Cycle 17 and Unit 2 Cycle 17 operation and will be confirmed in the future on a cycle-specific basis. The core operating limits will continue to be developed using NRC-approved methods. The proposed MCPR safety limits or methods for establishing the core operating limits do not result in the creation of any new precursors to an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There is no reduction in the margin of safety previously approved by the NRC as a result of the proposed change to the SLMCPRs. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using methodology discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, “General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,” Revision 22. The SLMCPRs ensure that during normal operation and during abnormal operational transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling if the limit is not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding integrity. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Merit Systems Accountability and Compliance, Office of the Combined Federal Campaign.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Office of Personnel Management proposes to establish a new OPM system of records titled “OPM/Central-20 National CFC System of Records.” This system of records contains information that OPM collects and maintains about individuals who make charitable contributions to eligible non-profit organizations through the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). This newly established system of records will be included in the Office of Personnel Management's inventory of record systems.
Please submit comments on or before January 4, 2018. This new system is effective upon publication in today's
You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Keith Willingham, 202-606-2564, Director, Office of the Combined Federal Campaign, Office of Personnel Management. For privacy questions, please contact: Kellie Cosgrove Riley,
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Office of Personnel Management proposes to establish a new system of records titled “OPM/Central-20 National CFC System.” This system of records is being established in order to facilitate the Combined Federal Campaign's transition from a largely paper-based, decentralized collection of donations to a centralized, national electronic collection. The system of records contains information that OPM, through its Central Campaign Administrator (CCA) contractor(s), collects, maintains, and uses regarding individuals who make charitable contributions to eligible non-profit organizations through the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC).
The CFC is the largest workplace giving campaign in the world. Since its inception in 1961, Federal employees have pledged more than $8 billion to thousands of qualified local, national, and international charities. Through 2016, the CFC was administered in over 120 local areas across the country and overseas. Charities applied to participate, either as an independent charity or a member of a federation, by submitting an application to either OPM or to one of the local CFC offices. Similarly, Federal, Postal and military personnel donated through the CFC by submitting a completed paper or electronic pledge form to their payroll office and/or the local administrator in their local CFC office. The local administrators, known as Principal Combined Fund Organizations (PCFO), collected and maintained information about the donors, their contribution, and their designated charitable organizations to process and account for donor contributions. The PCFO collected cash, checks, or credit card contributions directly from the donors or from the donors' payroll offices if the donors had chosen to make contributions via payroll deduction. The PCFO then made payments directly to the individual charities or federations chosen by the donors.
Based on recommendations from a Federal Advisory Committee known as the
The records collected from the individual donors and the participating charities will now be maintained in one central location as the OPM/Central-20 National CFC System. This newly established system of records will be included in OPM's inventory of records systems. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), OPM has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
National CFC System, OPM/Central-20.
Unclassified.
The Office of the Combined Federal Campaign, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Suite 6484, Washington, DC 20415, is responsible for this system of records. By contract, CFC's Central Campaign Administrator(s) in Madison, Wisconsin, through its subcontractors, maintains records in a government-approved cloud server accessed through secure data centers in the continental United States.
Director, Office of the Combined Federal Campaign, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Suite 6484, Washington, DC 20415, Phone 202-606-2564 or
Executive Order (EO) 12353 (March 23, 1982), EO 12404 (February 10, 1983), and EO 13743 (October 13, 2016); 5 CFR part 950; Public Law 100-202, and Public Law 102-393 (5 U.S.C. 1101 Note).
The purpose of the system is to permit OPM and its contractors serving as Central Campaign Administrators (CCA) for the CFC, to accurately receive, process, and account for charitable donations made by Federal employees, retirees, and others; make payments to charitable organizations; and address inquiries from donors and other stakeholders, including Federal agencies, charitable organizations, and Congress, as necessary. In addition, information in this system of records that is obtained from charitable organizations is used to approve or deny an applicant's participation in the CFC and to adjudicate appeals by charities that are denied. This system of records also supports the production of summary, de-identified descriptive statistics and analytical studies pertaining to the CFC program.
a. Federal employees, civilian annuitants, military retirees, and contractors who voluntarily participate in the CFC program via a one-time or recurring gift; and
b. Individuals who serve as points of contact for charitable organizations that participate or apply to participate in the CFC.
a. Name;
b. Social Security Number or other employee identification number used by a Federal payroll or retirement system;
c. Work address;
d. Home address;
e. Phone number;
f. Government email address;
g. Secondary email address;
h. Employment information (to include, but not limited to, Federal agency or military branch, department/unit, office, military service, commands, etc.);
i. Charity or charities designated;
j. Amount of donation, in dollars or hours;
k. Credit card information, including credit card number and expiration date;
l. Bank account number and bank routing number;
m. Authorization to release name and other information to charities;
n. Charity and federation application data to meet qualifications of 5 CFR 950;
o. Usernames and passwords for accounts used by donors or applying charities to access the CFC Web sites;
p. Security questions and answers (for resetting passwords); and
q. Help desk ticket information.
Records are obtained from individuals who choose to participate in the CFC; charitable organizations that apply to participate in the CFC; and individuals who contact the CFC help desk.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside OPM as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. To the Department of Justice, including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys; another federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body; another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body; or to a court, adjudicative, or administrative body. Such disclosure is permitted only when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation or proceeding and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
(1) OPM, or any component thereof;
(2) Any employee or former employee of OPM in his or her official capacity;
(3) Any employee or former employee of OPM in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or OPM has agreed to represent the employee;
(4) The United States, a Federal agency, or another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body, upon the OPM General Counsel's approval, pursuant to 5 CFR part 295 or otherwise.
b. To the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates or is relevant to a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
c. To a member of Congress from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
d. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
e. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) OPM suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records,· (2) OPM has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, OPM (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with OPM's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
f. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when OPM determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
g. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for OPM when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to OPM employees.
h. To an individual's payroll office or retirement service to facilitate accurate payroll and annuity deductions requested by the individual.
i. To credit card companies, banks, and other financial institutions in order to process an individual's one-time or recurring donation.
j. To independent public accounting firms to conduct audits of the CFC, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to the specific audit being conducted.
k. To charitable organizations and federations in order to provide them with monetary donations and time pledged and, where individual donors have so authorized, information about the individual donors.
The records in this system of records are encrypted and stored electronically in a government-approved cloud server pursuant to a contract between OPM and the CFC's Central Campaign Administrators.
Records may be retrieved by name or other personal identifier.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 950.604, CFC records must be retained for at least three completed campaign periods. OPM is currently developing a records schedule to submit to the National Archives and Records Administration for approval.
Records in the system are protected from unauthorized access and misuse through various administrative, technical and physical security measures. OPM security measures are in compliance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (Pub. L. 113-283), associated OMB policies, and applicable standards and guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Individuals may access their own records by logging into
Alternatively, individuals seeking notification of and access to their records in this system of records may submit a request in writing to the Office of Personnel Management, Office of the Combined Federal Campaign, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located:
1. Full name.
2. Date of birth.
3. Social Security Number.
4. Signature.
5. Available information regarding the type of information requested.
6. The reason why the individual believes this system contains information about him/her.
7. The address to which the information should be sent.
Individuals requesting access must also comply with OPM's Privacy Act regulations regarding verification of identity and access to records (5 CFR 297).
Individuals may modify or correct their own records by logging into
Alternatively, individuals may request that records about them be amended by writing to the Office of Personnel Management, Office of the Combined Federal Campaign, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415 and furnish the following information for their records to be located:
1. Full name.
2. Date of birth.
3. Social Security Number.
4. Local CFC name or city, state and zip code of their duty station
5. Signature.
6. Precise identification of the information to be amended.
Individuals requesting amendment must also follow OPM's Privacy Act regulations regarding verification of identity and amendment to records (5 CFR 297).
See “Record Access Procedure.”
None.
None.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection, Representative Payee Application, RI 20-7 and Information Necessary for a Competency Determination, RI 30-3.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 4, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0140) was previously published in the
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,
Form RI 20-7 is used by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) to collect information from persons applying to be fiduciaries for annuitants or survivor annuitants who appear to be incapable of handling their own funds or for minor children. RI 30-3 collects medical information regarding the annuitant's competency for OPM's use in evaluating the annuitant's condition.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection, Request to Disability Annuitant for Information on Physical Condition and Employment, RI 30-1.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 4, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0143) was previously published in the
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,
Form RI 30-1 is used by persons who are not yet age 60 and who are receiving a disability annuity and are subject to inquiry regarding their medical condition as OPM deems reasonably necessary. RI 30-1 collects information as to whether the disabling condition has changed.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection, Initial Certification of Full-Time School Attendance, RI 25-41.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 4, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0099) was previously published in the
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,
Form RI 25-41, Initial Certification of Full-Time School Attendance is used to determine whether a child is unmarried and a full-time student in a recognized school. OPM must determine this in order to pay survivor annuity benefits to children who are age 18 or older under title 5, U.S. C. Sections 8341(A)(4) and Chapter 84, Section 8441 (4)(C).
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Survey Analysis, Office of Strategy and Innovation.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to establish a new OPM system of records titled “OPM/Central-21 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey System of Records.” This system of records contains information that OPM collects, maintains, and uses in order to develop and administer the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) and to evaluate and distribute the results of that survey. This system of records will be included in the Office of Personnel Management's inventory of record systems.
Please submit comments on or before January 4, 2018. This new system is effective upon publication in today's
You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Dr. Kimberly J. Wells, Survey Analysis, Office of Strategy and Innovation, Office of Personnel Management at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Office of Personnel Management proposes to establish a new system of records titled “OPM/Central-21 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey System.” This system of records is being established in order to develop and administer the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) and to evaluate and distribute the results of that survey. This system of records contains information that OPM collects, maintains, and uses regarding individuals who are potential or actual survey respondents.
The Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) was first administered in 2002 under OPM general authorities to conduct studies and research in personnel management, with subsequent biennial administrations in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Starting in 2010, the FHCS was rebranded as the “Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey” and conducted annually. These surveys have roots in the long history of OPM-administered Governmentwide surveys going back to the 1979 Federal Employee Attitudes Survey first administered the same year OPM was instituted under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
A 2003 law enacted by Congress (National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004) required each agency to conduct an annual survey of their employees and make results available to the public. As required by the law, OPM issued regulations (5 CFR part 250) in 2006 and revised in 2016 containing survey items covering topic areas prescribed by the law and other general requirements. Both the FEVS and the 2008 FHCS (the survey administered after the regulations went into effect) included the required survey items as part of their overall scope and served as a conduit through which participating executive branch agencies have fulfilled their annual employee survey obligation.
The FEVS is a tool that measures Federal employees' perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions that characterize successful organizations are present in their agencies. The FEVS provides general indicators of how well the Federal government is running its human resources management systems, and gives senior managers critical information needed to make their agency work better. It is administered to evaluate elements of strategic human capital management, to assess the general climate of the Federal workforce and to appraise various programs and human capital topics as necessary. The FEVS covers multiple human capital topic areas, including, but not limited to, those specified in 5 CFR 250.302. Survey questions ask participants to share their attitudes, behaviors, and thoughts on these topic areas. In addition, more agency-specific evaluation questions may be added from time to time. Demographic questions are also included to evaluate differences among subgroups in the way responses were distributed.
In order to administer the FEVS, information about Federal employees is collected from OPM's Enterprise Human Resource Integration (EHRI) system, consistent with the OPM/Govt 1 General Personnel Records system of records. The data from EHRI is used to (1) identify current Federal employees, (2) determine survey eligibility, (3) collect contact information where necessary and available, (4) perform statistical weighting procedures using select demographic information, and (5) support research and reporting functions.
In addition to the EHRI data, additional organizational and employee data are collected from participating agencies. Organizational data includes the hierarchical structure of the agency and the titles associated with all work groups, branches, and divisions of that hierarchy. Employee data can include names, other personal identifiers such as Social Security number and date of birth, email addresses, and work unit identifiers. The combination of organizational data and personnel work unit identifier allows for accurate sampling and reporting of summarized survey results for work units that meet the requirement of meeting or exceeding the minimum number of respondents necessary to adequately protect respondent confidentiality.
Eligible employees selected to participate in the FEVS are sent an email invitation that includes a unique link to the survey. Follow-up emails are sent weekly until the employee either completes the survey or informs OPM that he or she wishes to opt-out. The survey is web-based, designed and operated within OPM using commercial software running on OPM servers. All surveys and survey items are voluntary. That is, employees may choose to respond to all, some, or none of the items. Surveys with at least 25% of the non-demographic items answered are considered complete and will be used. After the survey administration, data cleaning and statistical weighting procedures are executed by OPM and a contractor. Once final data are available, reports of summary survey results are generated and distributed to agencies via an OPM contractor who creates the reports and maintains the distribution platform. At the end of the FEVS cycle, selected summary results and a technical report may be published, and a public release data file released.
The records concerning the potential and actual survey respondents will be maintained in the OPM/Central-21 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey System. This system of records will be included in OPM's inventory of records systems. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), OPM has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey System, OPM/Central-21.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained by the Office of Strategy and Innovation, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, as well as by an OPM contractor in Rockville, Maryland.
Manager, Survey Analysis, Office of Strategy and Innovation, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415,
5 U.S.C. 1103, 4702, and 7101 note (referencing Pub. L. 108-136 section 1128); 5 CFR 5.2(b) and 9.2; 5 CFR part 250; Executive Order 13197.
The purpose of the system is to permit OPM to administer, collect, maintain, and evaluate the results of, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, a comprehensive set of questions posed to selected Federal employees throughout executive branch agencies; to measure Federal employees' perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions that characterize successful organizations are present in their agencies; to obtain general indicators of how well the Federal Government is running its human resources management systems; to assess the general climate of the Federal workforce; to appraise programs and human capital topics as necessary; to provide senior managers with critical information needed to make their agency work better; to provide the results of the survey to individual agencies, Congress, other oversight entities, and the public, as appropriate; to determine individuals' eligibility for the survey; and to conduct statistical weighting procedures. In addition, information in this system of records is used to produce a de-identified, publicly available data file that contains survey responses, select demographics, and limited agency organizational information; as well as to produce reports of summarized survey results for participating agencies, their subcomponents, and others.
Current Federal employees.
a. Full name;
b. Email address;
c. Social Security number, or other unique employee identification number;
d. Agency;
e. Agency subcomponent;
f. Organizational/Work component names and codes (up to nine levels of work unit information may be obtained);
g. Appointment authority;
h. Type of appointment;
i. Work schedule;
j. Tenure;
k. Service computation date;
l. Duty location and core based statistical area;
m. Occupational classification or series;
n. Personnel Office identifier;
o. Pay status;
p. Grade level;
q. Pay plan;
r. Base and adjusted salary;
s. Retirement plan;
t. Supervisory status;
u. Ethnicity and Race/National Origin indicator;
v. Sex;
w. Date of birth;
x. Responses to the FEVS survey questions, including demographic information.
Records are obtained from the Office of Personnel Management's Enterprise Human Resource Integration system, which contains general personnel records from the OPM/Govt 1 General Personnel Records system of records, from the individual Federal agencies that participate in the FEVS, and from the individuals who voluntarily complete the FEVS.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside OPM as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. To the Department of Justice, including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys; another Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body; another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body; or to a court, adjudicative, or administrative body. Such disclosure is permitted only when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation or proceeding and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
(1) OPM, or any component thereof;
(2) Any employee or former employee of OPM in his or her official capacity;
(3) Any employee or former employee of OPM in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or OPM has agreed to represent the employee;
(4) The United States, a Federal agency, or another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body, upon the OPM General Counsel's approval, pursuant to 5 CFR part 295 or otherwise.
b. To the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates or is relevant to a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
c. To a member of Congress from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
d. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
e. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) OPM suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records,· (2) OPM has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, OPM (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with OPM's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
f. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when OPM determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national
g. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for OPM when OPM determines that it is necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to OPM employees.
h. To Federal agencies whose employees participate in the FEVS, and their subcomponents, where OPM determines that assistance may be required in any aspect of administering and reporting on the FEVS.
The records in this system of records are stored electronically on OPM's local area network with access limited to a small number of personnel in the Office of Strategy and Innovation. In addition, records are stored by OPM's contractor at its location with access restricted to authorized users.
Records may be retrieved by name, email address, or other personal identifier but are generally only retrieved in this manner leading up to and during the administration of the FEVS. After the FEVS is administered, personal identifiers are rarely used, to retrieve records or otherwise. Instead, records post-administration of the FEVS are generally retrieved by agency work unit and/or demographics in a manner that is not intended to identify individual survey respondents.
OPM is currently working to develop a records schedule to submit to the National Archives and Records Administration for approval. Until a records schedule is in place, the records will be retained as permanent records.
Records in the system are protected from unauthorized access and misuse through various administrative, technical and physical security measures. OPM security measures are in compliance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (Pub. L. 113-283), associated OMB policies, and applicable standards and guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Individuals seeking notification of and access to their records in this system of records may submit a request in writing to the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Strategy and Innovation, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located:
1. Full name.
2. Date of birth.
3. Social Security Number.
4. Signature.
5. Available information regarding the type of information requested.
6. The reason why the individual believes this system contains information about him/her.
7. The address to which the information should be sent.
Individuals requesting access must also comply with OPM's Privacy Act regulations regarding verification of identity and access to records (5 CFR 297).
Individuals may request that records about them be amended by writing to the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Strategy and Innovation, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415 and furnish the following information for their records to be located:
1. Full name.
2. Date of birth.
3. Social Security Number.
4. Signature.
5. Precise identification of the information to be amended.
Individuals requesting amendment must also follow OPM's Privacy Act regulations regarding verification of identity and amendment to records (5 CFR 297).
See “Record Access Procedure.”
None.
None.
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
1.
2.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 29, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 29, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt a shell structure for the BX rulebook (“Rulebook”) as part of its initiative to structure its Rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 9, 2016, Nasdaq, Inc. acquired the capital stock of U.S. Exchange Holdings, thereby indirectly acquiring all of the interests of the International Securities Exchange, LLC (now Nasdaq ISE, LLC), ISE Gemini, LLC (now Nasdaq GEMX, LLC) (“GEMX”) and ISE Mercury, LLC (now Nasdaq MRX, LLC) (“MRX”).
The Exchange is planning to conform the chapters of the various Nasdaq Entity rulebooks for efficiency, and conformity of certain Nasdaq Entity processes. The Exchange believes that aligning the rules of the Nasdaq Entities will assist market participants in navigating the various rulebooks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a shell structure which would reside alongside the current rulebook. The proposed shell would outline the various chapters of the future rulebook and contains new chapter numbering. A similar shell would be filed to add the same structure to each of the other Nasdaq Entities. The proposed chapters would be similar for each shell filed for each of the Nasdaq Entities. In subsequent rule changes, each of the Nasdaq Entities would file rule changes to move their current rules into the various chapters of the proposed shells for all six markets and delete the migrated rule from the current location in the Rulebook.
The Exchange believes this new structure would align the Nasdaq Entities' rulebooks for ease of use by Members, who are members of more than one Nasdaq Entity. This proposal would not amend the current Rulebook and is therefore not a substantive change. A Member would continue to be able to view the current Rulebook alongside the proposed reorganized Rulebook. Subsequent rule changes will be filed to move the rule text into the shell Rulebook.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because the proposed amendments are non-substantive, are intended to start the process to organize the rules of the Exchange in a manner that will be more user-friendly to Nasdaq Entity members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(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 its 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt a shell structure for the Nasdaq rulebook (“Rulebook”) as part of its initiative to structure its Rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 9, 2016, Nasdaq, Inc. acquired the capital stock of U.S. Exchange Holdings, thereby indirectly acquiring all of the interests of the International Securities Exchange, LLC (now Nasdaq ISE, LLC), ISE Gemini, LLC (now Nasdaq GEMX, LLC) (“GEMX”) and ISE Mercury, LLC (now Nasdaq MRX, LLC) (“MRX”).
The Exchange is planning to conform the chapters of the various Nasdaq Entity rulebooks for efficiency, and conformity of certain Nasdaq Entity processes. The Exchange believes that aligning the rules of the Nasdaq Entities will assist market participants in navigating the various rulebooks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a shell structure which would reside alongside the current rulebook. The proposed shell would outline the various chapters of the future rulebook and contains new chapter numbering. A similar shell would be filed to add the same structure to each of the other Nasdaq Entities. The proposed chapters would be similar for each shell filed for each of the Nasdaq Entities. In subsequent rule changes, each of the Nasdaq Entities would file rule changes to move their current rules into the various chapters of the proposed shells for all six markets and delete the migrated rule from the current location in the Rulebook.
The Exchange believes this new structure would align the Nasdaq Entities' rulebooks for ease of use by Members, who are members of more than one Nasdaq Entity. This proposal would not amend the current Rulebook and is therefore not a substantive change. A Member would continue to be able to view the current Rulebook alongside the proposed reorganized Rulebook. Subsequent rule changes will be filed to move the rule text into the shell Rulebook.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(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 its 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt a shell structure for the MRX rulebook (“Rulebook”) as part of its initiative to structure its Rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 9, 2016, Nasdaq, Inc. acquired the capital stock of U.S. Exchange Holdings, thereby indirectly acquiring all of the interests of the International Securities Exchange, LLC (now Nasdaq ISE, LLC), ISE Gemini, LLC (now Nasdaq GEMX, LLC) and ISE Mercury, LLC (now MRX).
The Exchange is planning to conform the chapters of the various Nasdaq Entity rulebooks for efficiency, and conformity of certain Nasdaq Entity processes. The Exchange believes that aligning the rules of the Nasdaq Entities will assist market participants in navigating the various rulebooks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a shell structure which would reside alongside the current rulebook. The proposed shell would outline the various chapters of the future rulebook and contains new chapter numbering. A similar shell would be filed to add the same structure to each of the other Nasdaq Entities. The proposed chapters would be similar for each shell filed for each of the Nasdaq Entities. In subsequent rule changes, each of the Nasdaq Entities would file rule changes to move their current rules into the various chapters of the proposed shells for all six markets and delete the migrated rule from the current location in the Rulebook.
The Exchange believes this new structure would align the Nasdaq Entities' rulebooks for ease of use by Members, who are members of more than one Nasdaq Entity. This proposal would not amend the current Rulebook and is therefore not a substantive change. A Member would continue to be able to view the current Rulebook alongside the proposed reorganized Rulebook. Subsequent rule changes will be filed to move the rule text into the shell Rulebook.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because the proposed amendments are non-substantive, are intended to start the process to organize the rules of the Exchange in a manner that will be more user-friendly to Nasdaq Entity members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(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 its 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in
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 September 26, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 17, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Funds under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600-E, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Fund and its investment strategies, including the Fund's portfolio holdings and investment restrictions.
The Exchange states that it is submitting this proposed rule change because the portfolio of the Fund will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600-E that apply to the listing of Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange states that the Fund's portfolio will meet all the requirements set forth in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600-E except for those set forth in Commentary .01(b)(1), which requires that components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.
According to the Exchange, the Fund's investment objective is to provide current income that is generally exempt from federal income taxes and to provide long-term total return. Under normal market conditions,
• General obligation bonds;
• Revenue (or limited obligation) bonds;
• Private activity (or industrial development) bonds;
• Municipal notes;
• Municipal lease obligations; and
• Zero-coupon Municipal Securities.
According to the Exchange, while the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Municipal Securities, the Fund may, under normal market conditions, invest up to 20% of its net assets in the aggregate in the following securities and financial instruments described below:
• Exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)
• securities issued or guaranteed as to principal or interest by the U.S. Government or by its agencies or instrumentalities;
• non-agency asset-backed securities;
• registered money market funds that invest in money market instruments, as permitted by regulations adopted under the 1940 Act;
• registered money market funds that invest in money market instruments and other investment company securities as permitted under the 1940 Act;
• repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements;
• securities that are not registered under the 1933 Act (“restricted securities”);
• zero-coupon securities (in addition to zero-coupon Municipal Securities);
• variable rate bonds known as “inverse floaters,” which pay interest at rates that bear an inverse relationship to changes in short-term market interest rates;
• municipal inverse floaters, which are a type of inverse floater in which a municipal bond is deposited with a special purpose vehicle (SPV), which issues, in return, the municipal inverse floater (which comprises a residual interest in the cash flows and assets of the SPV) plus proceeds from the issuance by the SPV of floating rate certificates to third parties; and
• derivative instruments, including interest-rate futures contracts and interest-rate swaps, caps, floors, and collars. The Fund may use derivative instruments to manage portfolio risk, to replicate securities the Fund could buy that are not currently available in the market, or for other investment purposes.
Additionally, the fund may, when its sub-adviser, subject to the overall supervision of the Manager, deems it appropriate, invest some or all of its assets in cash, high-quality money-market instruments,
According to the Exchange, the Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment) deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and the Fund will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets may include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment goal and will not be used to provide multiple returns of a benchmark or to produce leveraged returns.
Under normal market conditions, except for periods of high cash inflows or outflows,
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission also finds that the proposal to list and trade Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The iNAV(which is the Portfolio Indicative Value, as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(3)), will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors or other information providers.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation information from brokers and dealers or pricing services will be available for Municipal Bonds. Price information for money market funds will be available from the applicable investment company's Web site and from market data vendors. Pricing information regarding each asset class in which the Fund will invest will generally be available through nationally recognized data service providers through subscription agreements.
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
The Exchange represents that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. In addition, Commentary .06 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600-E further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio. The Exchange represents that neither the Manager nor Sub-Adviser is a registered broker-dealer but that each is affiliated with a broker-dealer and that the Manager and Sub-Adviser have each implemented a “fire wall” with respect to this broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition of and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances as well as cross-market surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, or by regulatory staff of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange represents that it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following additional representations:
(1) The Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances as well as cross-market surveillances, administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, or by regulatory staff of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange. These surveillances generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
(4) The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, and any ETFs or ETNs held in the Fund's portfolio, with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, and any ETFs or ETNs held in the Fund's portfolio, from these markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, and any ETFs or ETNs held in the Fund's portfolio, from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine. FINRA also can access data obtained from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board relating to municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the Shares.
(5) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in a Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (c) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated iNAV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (d) how information regarding the iNAV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (e) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the
(6) The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
(7) Under normal market conditions, at least 80% of the Fund's net assets must be invested in Municipal Securities.
(8) The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment goal and will not be used to provide multiple returns of a benchmark or to produce leveraged returns.
(9) All ETFs will be listed and traded in the U.S. on a national securities exchange. While the Fund may invest in inverse ETFs, the Fund will not invest in leveraged (
(10) The Fund's portfolio will meet all the requirements set forth in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600-E except for those set forth in Commentary .01(b)(1).
(11) Under normal market conditions, except for periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the Fund will satisfy the following criteria in lieu of the criteria in Commentary .01(b)(1): (a) The Fund will have a minimum of 20 non-affiliated issuers; (b) no single municipal securities issuer will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; (c) no individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; (d) the Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of any one state to 20% of the Fund's total assets and will be diversified among issuers in at least 10 states; and (e) the Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different sectors of the municipal bond market.
(12) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment) deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and the Fund will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets may include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
(13) Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to provide multiple returns of a benchmark or to produce leveraged returns.
The Exchange also represents that all statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares of the Fund on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's initial and continued listing requirements, combined with the Fund's investment criteria that would apply to Municipal Securities in the portfolio, are designed to mitigate the potential for price manipulation of the Shares. This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice, and the Exchange's description of the Fund. The Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply with the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600-E to be listed and traded on the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 15, 2017, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “Cboe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Currently, position limits for options on ETFs and ETNs, such as those subject to this proposal, are determined pursuant to Exchange Rule 4.11, and, with certain exceptions, vary according to the number of outstanding shares and past six-month trading volume of the underlying stocks, ETFs, or ETNs. Options on the securities with the largest numbers of outstanding shares and trading volume have an option position limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and stocks, ETFs, and ETNs with fewer outstanding shares and lower trading volume have position limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000, or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. Options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ are currently subject to the standard position limit of 250,000 contracts as set forth in Exchange Rule 4.11.
The purpose of the proposed rule change, as amended, is to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Exchange Rule 4.11 to increase the position and exercise limits for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ to from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts.
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for QQQQ to 1,800,000 contracts, the Exchange compared the trading characteristics of QQQQ to that of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), which currently has no position limits.
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for EEM and IWM from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts, the Exchange compared the trading characteristics of EEM and IWM to that of QQQQ, which currently has a position limit of 900,000 contracts.
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts, the Exchange compared the trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ to that of EEM and IWM, both of which currently have a position limit of 500,000 contracts.
The Exchange notes that the options reporting requirements of Exchange Rule 4.13 would continue to be applicable to the options subject to this proposal.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity.
The Exchange further states its belief that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns that a TPH or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in the options subject to this proposal.
As noted above, on November 22, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change to provide additional justification and support for the proposal. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange states that it submitted the proposal at the request of market participants whose on-exchange activity has been “hindered by existing position limits, causing them to be unable to provide additional liquidity not just on the Exchange, but also on other options exchanges on which they participate.”
In addition, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange notes that some of the ETFs and the ETN to which the proposal relates are based on broad-based indices that underlie cash-settled options that are economically equivalent to the relevant ETF or similar to the relevant ETN, but where the option on the index is either subject to no position limit or is subject to a position limit reflecting a notional value that is larger than the position limit for the option on the ETF absent the proposed increase.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency of the proposed rule change, as amended, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5), or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, as amended, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the position and exercise limit for each option as proposed could impact markets adversely.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as amended, should be approved or disapproved by December 26, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by January 9, 2018. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2017-057 and should be submitted by December 26, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt a shell structure for the ISE rulebook (“Rulebook”) as part of its initiative to structure its Rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 9, 2016, Nasdaq, Inc. acquired the capital stock of U.S. Exchange Holdings, thereby indirectly acquiring all of the interests of the International Securities Exchange, LLC (now ISE), ISE Gemini, LLC (now Nasdaq GEMX, LLC) (“GEMX”) and ISE Mercury, LLC (now Nasdaq MRX, LLC) (“MRX”).
The Exchange is planning to conform the chapters of the various Nasdaq Entity rulebooks for efficiency, and conformity of certain Nasdaq Entity processes. The Exchange believes that aligning the rules of the Nasdaq Entities will assist market participants in navigating the various rulebooks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a shell structure which would reside alongside the current rulebook. The proposed shell would outline the various chapters of the future rulebook and contains new chapter numbering. A similar shell would be filed to add the same structure to each of the other Nasdaq Entities. The proposed chapters would be similar for each shell filed for each of the Nasdaq Entities. In subsequent rule changes, each of the Nasdaq Entities would file rule changes to move their current rules into the various chapters of the proposed shells for all six markets and delete the migrated rule from the current location in the Rulebook.
The Exchange believes this new structure would align the Nasdaq Entities' rulebooks for ease of use by Members, who are members of more than one Nasdaq Entity. This proposal would not amend the current Rulebook and is therefore not a substantive change. A Member would continue to be able to view the current Rulebook alongside the proposed reorganized Rulebook. Subsequent rule changes will be filed to move the rule text into the shell Rulebook.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because the proposed amendments are non-substantive, are intended to start the process to organize the rules of the Exchange in a manner that will be more user-friendly to Nasdaq Entity members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds; and (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 4500 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111.
Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6879, or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Acting 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. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond generally to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the Application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the Application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The Application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second-Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a
9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).
10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) 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 provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt a shell structure for the Phlx rulebook (“Rulebook”) as part of its initiative to structure its Rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 9, 2016, Nasdaq, Inc. acquired the capital stock of U.S. Exchange Holdings, thereby indirectly acquiring all of the interests of the International Securities Exchange, LLC (now Nasdaq ISE, LLC), ISE Gemini, LLC (now Nasdaq GEMX, LLC) (“GEMX”) and ISE Mercury, LLC (now Nasdaq MRX, LLC) (“MRX”).
The Exchange is planning to conform the chapters of the various Nasdaq Entity rulebooks for efficiency, and conformity of certain Nasdaq Entity processes. The Exchange believes that aligning the rules of the Nasdaq Entities will assist market participants in navigating the various rulebooks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a shell structure which would reside alongside the current rulebook. The proposed shell would outline the various chapters of the future rulebook and contains new chapter numbering. A similar shell would be filed to add the same structure to each of the other Nasdaq Entities. The proposed chapters would be similar for each shell filed for each of the Nasdaq Entities. In subsequent rule changes, each of the Nasdaq Entities would file rule changes to move their current rules into the various chapters of the proposed shells for all six markets and delete the migrated rule from the current location in the Rulebook.
The Exchange believes this new structure would align the Nasdaq Entities' rulebooks for ease of use by Members, who are members of more than one Nasdaq Entity. This proposal would not amend the current Rulebook and is therefore not a substantive change. A Member would continue to be able to view the current Rulebook alongside the proposed reorganized Rulebook. Subsequent rule changes will be filed to move the rule text into the shell Rulebook.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because the proposed amendments are non-substantive, are intended to start the process to organize the rules of the Exchange in a manner that will be more user-friendly to Nasdaq Entity members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(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 its 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
3:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2017.
Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Chairman Clayton, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Regulatory matters regarding a financial institution; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to list and trade under Nasdaq Rule 5745 (Exchange-Traded Managed Fund Shares (“NextShares”)) the common shares (“Shares”) of the exchange-traded managed fund described herein (the “Fund”).
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5745, which governs the listing and trading of exchange-traded managed fund shares, as defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(1), on the Exchange.
Brandes Investment Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a Registration Statement with the Commission.
Brandes Investment Partners, L.P. (the “Adviser”) will be the adviser to the Fund. The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, and is not affiliated with a broker-dealer. Nevertheless, the Adviser will implement and will maintain a fire wall with respect to any future affiliated broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio.
In the event that (a) the Adviser registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or is
ALPS Distributors, Inc. (the “Distributor”) will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC will act as the administrator and accounting agent to the Fund; U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC will act as transfer agent and custodian to the Fund.
The Fund will be actively managed and will pursue the principal investment strategies described below.
The Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation by investing primarily in equity securities of U.S. companies. Equity securities include common and preferred stocks, warrants, and rights. While the Fund may purchase equity securities issued by companies of any size, it typically focuses its investments on large-capitalization equity securities.
Shares will be issued and redeemed on a daily basis at the Fund's next-determined net asset value (“NAV”)
The creation and redemption process for the Fund may be effected “in kind,” in cash, or in a combination of securities and cash. Creation “in kind” means that an Authorized Participant—usually a brokerage house or large institutional investor—purchases the Creation Unit with a basket of securities equal in value to the aggregate NAV of the Shares in the Creation Unit. When an Authorized Participant redeems a Creation Unit in kind, it receives a basket of securities equal in value to the aggregate NAV of the Shares in the Creation Unit.
As defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(3), the Composition File is the specified portfolio of securities and/or cash that the Fund will accept as a deposit in issuing a Creation Unit of Shares, and the specified portfolio of securities and/or cash that the Fund will deliver in a redemption of a Creation Unit of Shares. The Composition File will be disseminated through the NSCC once each business day before the open of trading in Shares on such day and also will be made available to the public each day on a free Web site.
All persons purchasing or redeeming Creation Units are expected to incur a transaction fee to cover the estimated cost to the Fund of processing the transaction, including the costs of clearance and settlement charged to it by NSCC or DTC, and the estimated trading costs (
The purpose of transaction fees is to protect the Fund's existing shareholders from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units. Transaction fees may vary over time for the Fund depending on the estimated trading costs for its portfolio positions and Composition File, processing costs and other considerations. To the extent that the Fund specifies greater amounts of cash in its Composition File, it may impose higher transaction fees. In addition, to the extent that the Fund includes in its Composition File instruments that clear through DTC, the Fund may impose higher transaction fees than when the Composition File consists solely of instruments that clear through NSCC, because DTC may charge more than NSCC in connection with Creation Unit transactions.
Because Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange, Shares will be available for purchase and sale on an intraday basis. Shares will be purchased and sold in the secondary market at prices directly linked to the Fund's next-determined NAV using a new trading protocol called “NAV-Based Trading.”
Bid and offer prices for Shares will be quoted throughout the day relative to NAV. The premium or discount to NAV at which Share prices are quoted and transactions are executed will vary depending on market factors, including the balance of supply and demand for Shares among investors, transaction fees and other costs in connection with creating and redeeming Creation Units of Shares, the cost and availability of borrowing Shares, competition among market makers, the Share inventory positions and inventory strategies of market makers, the profitability requirements and business objectives of market makers, and the volume of Share trading. Reflecting such market factors, prices for Shares in the secondary market may be above, at or below NAV.
Because making markets in Shares will be simple to manage and low risk, competition among market makers seeking to earn reliable, low-risk profits should enable the Shares to routinely trade at tight bid-ask spreads and narrow premiums/discounts to NAV. As noted below, the Fund will make available on a public Web site that will be updated on a daily basis current and historical trading spreads and premiums/discounts of Shares trading in the secondary market.
To avoid potential investor confusion, Nasdaq will work with member firms and providers of market data services to seek to ensure that representations of intraday bids, offers and execution prices of Shares that are made available to the investing public follow the “NAV−$0.01/NAV+$0.01” (or similar) display format. All Shares listed on the Exchange will have a unique identifier associated with their ticker symbols, which would indicate that the Shares are traded using NAV-Based Trading. Nasdaq makes available to member firms and market data services certain proprietary data feeds that are designed to supplement the market information disseminated through the consolidated tape (“Consolidated Tape”). Specifically, the Exchange will use the Nasdaq Basic and Nasdaq Last Sale data feeds to disseminate intraday price and quote data for Shares in real time in the “NAV−$0.01/NAV+$0.01” (or similar) display format. Member firms could use the Nasdaq Basic and Nasdaq Last Sale data feeds to source intraday Share prices for presentation to the investing public in the “NAV−$0.01/NAV+$0.01” (or similar) display format. Alternatively, member firms could source intraday Share prices in proxy price format from the Consolidated Tape and other Nasdaq data feeds (
Prior to the commencement of market trading in Shares, the Fund will be required to establish and maintain a public Web site through which its current prospectus may be downloaded.
The Composition File will be disseminated through the NSCC before the open of trading in Shares on each business day and also will be made available to the public each day on a free Web site as noted above.
Reports of Share transactions will be disseminated to the market and delivered to the member firms participating in the trade contemporaneous with execution. Once the Fund's daily NAV has been calculated and disseminated, Nasdaq will price each Share trade entered into during the day at the Fund's NAV plus/minus the trade's executed premium/discount. Using the final trade price, each executed Share trade will then be disseminated to member firms and market data services via an FTP file to be created for exchange-traded managed funds and confirmed to the member firms participating in the trade to supplement the previously provided information to include final pricing.
Information regarding NAV-based trading prices, best bids and offers for Shares, and volume of Shares traded will be continuously available on a real-time basis throughout each trading day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services.
Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria as set forth under Nasdaq Rule 5745. A minimum of 50,000 Shares and no less than two Creation Units of the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily (on each day the New York Stock Exchange is open for trading) and provided to Nasdaq via the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (”MFQS”) by the fund accounting agent. As soon as the NAV is entered into MFQS, Nasdaq will disseminate the value to market participants and market data vendors via the Mutual Fund Dissemination Service (“MFDS”) so all firms will receive the NAV per Share at the same time. The Reporting Authority
An estimated value of an individual Share, defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(2) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” will be calculated and disseminated at intervals of not more than 15 minutes throughout the Regular Market Session
The IIV will be based on current information regarding the value of the securities and other assets held by the Fund.
The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, or affiliated with a broker-dealer. In addition, personnel who make decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
In the event that (a) the Adviser registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, such new adviser or sub-adviser will implement and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, if applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
The Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in Shares. Nasdaq will halt trading in Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and in Nasdaq Rule 5745(d)(2)(C). Additionally, Nasdaq may cease trading Shares if other unusual conditions or circumstances exist
Because, in NAV-Based Trading, all trade execution prices are linked to end-of-day NAV, buyers and sellers of Shares should be less exposed to risk of loss due to intraday trading halts than buyers and sellers of conventional exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) and other exchange-traded securities.
Every order to trade Shares of the Fund is subject to the proxy price protection threshold of plus/minus $1.00, which determines the lower and upper threshold for the life of the order and whereby the order will be cancelled at any point if it exceeds $101.00 or falls below $99.00, the established thresholds.
Nasdaq deems Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in Shares from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Exchange represents that trading in Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”)
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading in the Fund, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and noting that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the IIV and Composition File is disseminated; (4) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (5) information regarding NAV-Based Trading protocols.
As noted above, all orders to buy or sell Shares that are not executed on the day the order is submitted will be automatically cancelled as of the close of trading on such day. The Information Circular will discuss the effect of this characteristic on existing order types. The Information Circular also will identify the specific Nasdaq data feeds from which intraday Share prices in proxy price format may be obtained.
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a summary prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
The Information Circular also will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares and the applicable NAV calculation time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares will be publicly available on the Fund's Web site.
Information regarding Fund trading protocols will be disseminated to Nasdaq members in accordance with current processes for newly listed products. Nasdaq intends to provide its members with a detailed explanation of NAV-Based Trading through a Trading Alert issued prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference assets, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, (c) dissemination and availability of the reference asset or intraday indicative values, or (d) the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares would be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5745. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Shares on Nasdaq and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, and is not affiliated with a broker-dealer. In addition, personnel who make decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
In the event that (a) the Adviser registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, such new adviser or sub-adviser will implement and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, if applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
The Exchange may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, to the extent necessary.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated on each business day that the New York Stock Exchange is open for trading and that the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information would be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency.
Prior to the commencement of market trading in Shares, the Fund will be required to establish and maintain a public Web site through which its current prospectus may be downloaded.
The Composition File will be disseminated through the NSCC before the open of trading in Shares on each business day and also will be made available to the public each day on a free Web site.
Transactions in Shares will be reported to the Consolidated Tape at the time of execution in proxy price format and will be disseminated to member firms and market data services through Nasdaq's trading service and market data interfaces, as defined above. Once the Fund's daily NAV has been calculated and the final price of its intraday Share trades has been determined, Nasdaq will deliver a confirmation with final pricing to the transacting parties. At the end of the day, Nasdaq will also post a newly created FTP file with the final transaction data for the trading and market data services. The Exchange expects that information regarding NAV-based trading prices and volumes of Shares traded will be continuously available on a real-time basis throughout each trading day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Because Shares will trade at prices based on the next-determined NAV, investors will be able to buy and sell individual Shares at a known premium or discount to NAV that they can limit by transacting using limit orders at the time of order entry. Trading in Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rules 5745(d)(2)(B) and (C), which provide for the suspension of trading or trading halts under certain circumstances, including if, in the view of the Exchange, trading in Shares becomes inadvisable.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of the Fund, which seeks to provide investors with access to an actively managed investment strategy in a structure that offers the cost and tax efficiencies and shareholder protections of ETFs, while removing the requirement for daily portfolio holdings disclosure to ensure a tight relationship between market trading prices and NAV.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the Exchange believes that the introduction of the Fund would promote competition by making available to investors an actively managed investment strategy in a structure that offers the cost and tax efficiencies and shareholder protections of ETFs, while removing the requirement for daily portfolio holdings disclosure to ensure a tight relationship between market trading prices and NAV. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed method of Share trading would provide investors with transparency of trading costs, and the ability to control trading costs using
These developments could significantly enhance competition to the benefit of the markets and investors.
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt a shell structure for the GEMX rulebook (“Rulebook”) as part of its initiative to structure its Rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 9, 2016, Nasdaq, Inc. acquired the capital stock of U.S. Exchange Holdings, thereby indirectly acquiring all of the interests of the International Securities Exchange, LLC (now Nasdaq ISE, LLC), ISE Gemini, LLC (now GEMX) and ISE Mercury, LLC (now Nasdaq MRX, LLC)(“MRX”).
The Exchange is planning to conform the chapters of the various Nasdaq Entity rulebooks for efficiency, and conformity of certain Nasdaq Entity processes. The Exchange believes that aligning the rules of the Nasdaq Entities will assist market participants in navigating the various rulebooks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a shell structure which would reside alongside the current rulebook. The proposed shell would outline the various chapters of the future rulebook
The Exchange believes this new structure would align the Nasdaq Entities' rulebooks for ease of use by Members, who are members of more than one Nasdaq Entity. This proposal would not amend the current Rulebook and is therefore not a substantive change. A Member would continue to be able to view the current Rulebook alongside the proposed reorganized Rulebook. Subsequent rule changes will be filed to move the rule text into the shell Rulebook.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because the proposed amendments are non-substantive, are intended to start the process to organize the rules of the Exchange in a manner that will be more user-friendly to Nasdaq Entity members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(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 its 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Section (a)(i)(D) of Rule 1012, Series of Options Open for Trading, to delete two sentences regarding opening for trading of long term option series, which sentences have effectively been superseded by another rule.
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.
Section (a)(i)(D) of Rule 1012 currently provides that the Exchange may list, with respect to any class of stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share options series, options having from twelve up to thirty-nine months from the time they are listed until expiration. There may be up to six expiration months. Strike price interval, bid/ask differential and continuity rules shall not apply to such options series until the time to expiration is less than nine months.
Section (a)(i)(D) also provides in its last two sentences that such option series will open for trading either when there is buying or selling interest, or 40 minutes prior to the close, whichever occurs first, and that no quotations need to be posted for such option series until they are opened for trading. The Exchange proposes to delete the outdated provision of Section (a)(i)(D) regarding the time of opening as inconsistent with, and unnecessary in view of, Rule 1017, Openings in Options, which governs in detail all openings on the Exchange, including openings in long term option series.
Rule 1017 does provide in great detail for a fully automated opening of trading when there is buying or selling interest in all options series, including long term option series. Generally speaking, the fully automated opening process begins when either (1) a “valid width” specialist quote is submitted, (2) valid width quotes are received from at least two Exchange market makers within two minutes of the opening trade or quote in the underlying security or (3) after two minutes of the opening trade or quote in the underlying, valid width quotes are received from one Exchange market maker. If an opening imbalance exists outside of an acceptable range, the system will initiate an imbalance process. During this process the Exchange will consider interest on the Exchange as well as interest on away exchanges. If there is not an opening imbalance outside of an acceptable range on the Exchange, the system will verify that a “quality opening market” exists in order to validate the opening price prior to executing interest on the opening. A quality opening market is a bid/ask spread with an acceptable differential as defined by the Exchange. The bid/ask spread is made up of the best available bid, on the Exchange as well as away markets, and the best available offer, on the Exchange as well as away market. The acceptable bid/ask spread differentials can be found on the Exchange's Web site.
Rule 1017 does not provide for the opening of long term option series 40 minutes prior to the close. The Exchange proposes to remove this inconsistent anachronism, still found in Rule 1012(A)(i)(D), as the Exchange no longer believes that long term options warrant special opening treatment but should open like other options under Rule 1017, pursuant to a fully automated process in which options open once certain precise conditions have been met. Although removing the provision that long term option series must open forty minutes prior to the close of trading even if there is no buying or selling interest, the Exchange believes it will be rare for a long term option series not to have buying or selling interest in any event, due to Exchange members' quoting obligations.
A number of exchanges' long term options series rules contain the same provisions contained in the last two sentences of Rule 1012(A)(i)(D). These provisions appear to have been put in place due to the fact that long-term series are usually very inactively traded.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The opening process for long term option series will continue to operate in the same manner as today, pursuant to Rule 1017. The proposal does not change the intense competition that exists among the options markets for options business including on the opening. Nor does the Exchange believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition; the opening process involves many types of participants and interest. The proposal merely removes an outdated rule provision that is inconsistent with Rule 1017.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
Selective Service System.
Notice.
The following form has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of clearance with change in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act:
Copies of the above identified form can be obtained upon written request to the Selective Service System, Operations Directorate, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of clearance with change of the form should be sent within 60 days of the publication of this notice to the Selective Service System, Operations Directorate, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than January 4, 2018. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2018.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Danielle Bennett (202) 366-5296, Office of Maritime Labor and Training, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93. * * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. The information to be collected will be used to evaluate an applicant's project and capabilities, make the required determinations, and administer any agreements executed upon approval of loan guarantees. A
Comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2018.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Brian Rogers, 202-366-8159, Office of Marine Financing, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93. * * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected will be used to process applications for waivers of the coastwise trade laws, and to determine the effect such waivers would have on United States vessel builders and United States-built vessel operators before granting or denying the waiver request. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 5, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-20XX-0190 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Hokana, 202-366-0760, Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Email:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93. * * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected will be used by the Maritime Administration to create a list of Vessel Self-Designations and determine whether the Agency agrees or disagrees with a vessel owner's designation of a vessel. It will use data submitted with re-designation requests to determine whether or not a vessel should be re-designated into a different service category. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 5, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2017-0192] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Jan Downing, 202-366-0783, Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-308, Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93. * * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. IRS is soliciting comments concerning Payout Requirements for Type III Supporting Organizations that are not Functionally Integrated.
Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment. Requests for additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact Elaine Christophe, at (202) 317-5745, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The IRS is seeking comments concerning the following forms, and reporting and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the 2016, 2017 and 2018 IRS Taxpayer Burden Surveys.
Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment. Requests for additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact Elaine Christophe, at (202) 317-5745, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The IRS has conducted prior surveys of individual taxpayers in 1984 (OMB 1545-0802), 1999 (OMB 1545-1688), 2000 (W&I taxpayers OMB 1545-1688, Self-employed taxpayers OMB 1545-1740), 2007 (OMB 1545-1349), 2010 through 2015 (this OMB Control Number). CY2010 and CY2014 Taxpayer Compliance Burden Surveys were conducted under this OMB Control Number.
The IRS has conducted Business Taxpayer Burden Survey for TY2009 (OMB 1545-1432) and TY2012 (this OMB Control Number). The IRS also conducted the TY2010 Tax Exempt Organization Burden Survey, and the CY2014 Business Compliance Burden Survey under this OMB Control Number.
The purpose of the taxpayer burden surveys is to gather data that will be used to update and expand the IRS Taxpayer Burden Model, a robust predictive model based on an improved burden estimation methodology. Information gathered by the surveys is not available in the administrative tax return data, so survey data are a critical input to the model.
The critical items on the surveys concern respondents' time and cost burden estimates for complying with tax filing requirement (or resolving a post-filing issue in the case of the Individual and Business Taxpayer Compliance Surveys). Additional items on the survey will serve as contextualizing variables for interpretation of the burden items. These items include information regarding tax preparation methods and activities, tax-related recordkeeping, gathering materials, learning about tax law, using IRS and/or non-IRS taxpayer services, and tax form completion.
Changes in tax regulations, tax administration, tax preparation methods, and taxpayer behavior continue to alter the amount and distribution of taxpayer burden. Data from updated surveys will better reflect the current tax rules and regulations, the increased usage of tax preparation software, increased efficiency of such software, changes in tax preparation regulations, the increased use of electronic filing, the behavioral response of taxpayers to the tax system, the changing use of services, both IRS and external, and related information collection needs.
Each survey respondent will receive a letter inviting them to complete the survey which they may spend about one minute reading. Each potential respondent will participate only once. The potential response rate, which varies depending on the type of survey, is indicated in the burden estimate charts below.
Estimated time to complete the surveys is based on results from prior cognitive interviews. We estimate that it will take approximately the same time to complete the mail, Web and phone versions of the questionnaire. The content included in each instrument will be the same.
Prior to conducting a survey with a new taxpayer group, focus groups will be conducted with internal and external stakeholders during the survey instrument development phase to ensure that the instrument survey items cover the main burden drivers for that group.
The total annual burden estimates for the covered surveys is as follows:
The estimated burden for each survey is itemized below:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
We invite comments on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency'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 of information on respondents, including 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 the requested information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. IRS is soliciting comments concerning Automatic Contribution Arrangements.
Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment. Requests for additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact Elaine Christophe, at (202) 317-5745, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The IRS is seeking comments concerning the following forms, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8302, Electronic Deposit of Tax Refund of $1 Million or More.
Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at (202) 317-6038, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning collection requirements related to disclosure of relative values of optional forms of benefit.
Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Sara Covington, (202) 317 6038, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to certain asset transfers to a tax exempt entity.
Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Sara Covington, (202) 317 6038, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 720X, Amended Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return.
Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, (202) 317-6038, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
| 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 |