| Page Range | 9489-9676 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 9675 - Fiduciary Duty Rule | |
| 82 FR 9673 - American Heart Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 9531 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 82 FR 9564 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation | |
| 82 FR 9594 - Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council; Cancellation of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9627 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9515 - Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; NOX | |
| 82 FR 9559 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 8-Toledo, Ohio Notification of Proposed Production Activity Whirlpool Corporation (Washing Machines) Clyde and Green Springs, Ohio | |
| 82 FR 9584 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Documentation | |
| 82 FR 9586 - Georgia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9583 - Mississippi; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9585 - Kansas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 9583 - Oregon; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9585 - Georgia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9534 - Access Authorization and Fitness-For-Duty Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9601 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9600 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR 1400; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9629 - Pricing for the 2017 Boys Town Centennial Commemorative Coin Program | |
| 82 FR 9533 - Poultry Grower Ranking Systems | |
| 82 FR 9489 - Scope of Sections 202(a) and (b) of the Packers and Stockyards Act | |
| 82 FR 9533 - Unfair Practices and Undue Preferences in Violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act | |
| 82 FR 9628 - United States Rail Service Issues-Data Collection | |
| 82 FR 9529 - United States Rail Service Issues-Performance Data Reporting | |
| 82 FR 9628 - Commission Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9530 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall Using Hook-and-Line or Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 9501 - Clarification of When Products Made or Derived From Tobacco Are Regulated as Drugs, Devices, or Combination Products; Amendments to Regulations Regarding “Intended Uses”; Delayed Effective Date | |
| 82 FR 9569 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses | |
| 82 FR 9568 - Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act | |
| 82 FR 9566 - Atlantic Sunrise Project; Notice of Availability of Final General Conformity Analysis | |
| 82 FR 9519 - Propamocarb; Pesticide Tolerance | |
| 82 FR 9567 - Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act | |
| 82 FR 9523 - 2,4-D; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 82 FR 9571 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9555 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 82 FR 9629 - Loan Guaranty: Maximum Allowable Attorney Fees | |
| 82 FR 9564 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 82 FR 9573 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request PHS Applications and Pre-Award Reporting Requirements (OD/OPERA) | |
| 82 FR 9572 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Post-Award Reporting Requirements Including Research Performance Progress Report Collection (OD/OPERA) | |
| 82 FR 9560 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 82 FR 9561 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews | |
| 82 FR 9591 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Understanding Rapid Re-Housing Study | |
| 82 FR 9592 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Comment Request: Notice on Equal Access Regardless of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Marital Status for HUD's Community Planning and Development Programs | |
| 82 FR 9501 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow the Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Fishery; Amendment 101; Correction | |
| 82 FR 9530 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Individual Bluefin Quota Program; Inseason Transfers; Correction | |
| 82 FR 9599 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 9597 - Emergency Clearance; Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget; Confidentiality Pledge Revision Notice | |
| 82 FR 9628 - Twentieth Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) | |
| 82 FR 9570 - 30-Day Submission Period for Requests for ONC-Approved Accreditor (ONC-AA) Status | |
| 82 FR 9502 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Perquimans River, Hertford, NC | |
| 82 FR 9502 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL | |
| 82 FR 9503 - Safety Zone; Ordnance Locations, Near Sugarloaf Key, FL | |
| 82 FR 9559 - Juneau Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 9575 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 9565 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725R); Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 9566 - City and County of Denver, Colorado; Notice of Application Accepted For Filing, Ready for Environmental Analysis, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions | |
| 82 FR 9594 - Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof; Termination of Investigation on the Basis of Settlement | |
| 82 FR 9620 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the ProShares UltraPro 3x Crude Oil ETF and ProShares UltraPro 3x Short Crude Oil ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 | |
| 82 FR 9608 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bull 3x Shares and Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bear 3x Shares Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 | |
| 82 FR 9613 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice Concerning The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Coverage During Times of Increased Volatility | |
| 82 FR 9625 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the ForceShares Daily 4X US Market Futures Long Fund and ForceShares Daily 4X US Market Futures Short Fund Under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 | |
| 82 FR 9617 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish MIAX PEARL Top of Market (“ToM”) and MIAX PEARL Liquidity Feed (“PLF”) Data Products | |
| 82 FR 9597 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Construction Fall Protection Systems Criteria, Practices, and Training Requirements | |
| 82 FR 9608 - International Product Change-ADP 1 Contracts | |
| 82 FR 9595 - Certain Basketball Backboard Components and Products Containing the Same Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 9596 - Pure Magnesium From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review | |
| 82 FR 9627 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Dutch Fleet Assembling Before the Four Days' Battle” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 9627 - Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9570 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 9575 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9575 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9572 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9573 - National Institute of Mental Health; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9572 - National Institute of Mental Health; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 9555 - Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal & Industrial Water Supply | |
| 82 FR 9586 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9580 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9577 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9590 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 9539 - Uplift Cost Allocation and Transparency in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators | |
| 82 FR 9512 - Air Plan Disapproval; AL; Prong 4 Visibility for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 82 FR 9634 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2017-2018 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Amendment 27 | |
| 82 FR 9601 - 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 9535 - Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH | |
| 82 FR 9505 - Freedom of Information Act Regulations | |
| 82 FR 9537 - Airworthiness Directives; Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 9498 - Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 9492 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 9489 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 9495 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company |
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Interim final rule; notice of delay of effective date and extension of comment period.
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” the Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is extending the public comment period and delaying the effective date of the rule published on December 20, 2016. This interim final rule adds a paragraph to § 201.3 addressing the scope of sections 202(a) and (b) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (P&S Act) in order to clarify that conduct or action may violate sections 202(a) and (b) of the P&S Act without adversely affecting, or having a likelihood of adversely affecting, competition. This rule was originally set to take effect on February 21, 2017.
Effective February 7, 2017, the effective date of the interim final rule amending 9 CFR part 201, published at 81 FR 92566, December 20, 2016 is delayed until April 22, 2017. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this interim final rule on or before March 24, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this interim final rule by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
S. Brett Offutt, Director, Litigation and Economic Analysis Division, P&SP, GIPSA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-7051,
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” GIPSA is extending the public comment period and delaying the effective date of the interim final rule entitled “Scope of Sections 202(a) and (b) of the Packers and Stockyards Act” that was published in the
This interim final rule states the interpretation that not all violations of the P&S Act require a showing of harm or likely harm to competition. Section 201.3(a) specifically provides that the scope of section 202(a) and (b) encompasses conduct or action that, depending on their nature and the circumstances, can be found to violate the P&S Act without a finding of harm or likely harm to competition. This interim final rule finalizes a proposed § 201.3(c) that GIPSA published on June 22, 2010, 75 FR 35338, with slight modifications in order to allow additional public comment on these provisions.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking for good cause and for reasons cited above, GIPSA finds that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the brief extension of the effective date of the interim final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). GIPSA believes that affected parties need to be informed as soon as possible of the extension and its length.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in both the aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion resistant steel (CRES) outer spring beam support fitting. This AD requires inspections, related investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener installation modification. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 14, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 14, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing, Delta Airlines (DAL), and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) requested that we revise paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of the proposed AD to include Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-54A2245 IN 02, dated February 11, 2016; and Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-54A2245 IN 03, dated May 13, 2016. The commenters all mentioned that without the information contained in the requested information notices, the requirements of the proposed AD cannot be fully accomplished.
We partially agree with the request to revise paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD to include new information that clarifies how to accomplish the required tasks specified in this AD. However, there is new service information that includes the same additional information. We have revised this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, as the appropriate source of service information to use for the actions required by this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, includes additional information discovered during validation of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, clarifies the procedures for the fastener removal, drill ream, and spot facing steps, and provides additional access instructions, but does not include any new actions. Additionally, we have added a new paragraph (j) to this AD to give credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise the unsafe condition statement by clarifying the location of the cracking. Boeing reported that cracking has been found not only in the strut side skin, but also in the spring beam support fitting.
We agree with the request to clarify the unsafe condition statement. We have revised the Discussion section of this final rule, and paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly. The unsafe condition statement has been removed from the
Boeing requested that we revise the Costs of Compliance to reflect updated work-hours to do the inspection. Boeing specified that the hours necessary to do the inspection were re-evaluated to be 4 work-hours, and the new information was disclosed in Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-54A2245 IN 01, dated December 23, 2015.
We agree with the request, and have revised the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule to reflect the updated work-hours.
KLM requested that we revise the compliance time for the repetitive inspections from 500 flight cycles to 1,250 flight cycles. KLM pointed out that during the 747 Structures Task Group meetings organized to support strut modification, Boeing had established a design goal to tolerate one major load path failure and still meet regulatory requirements with a longer inspection interval. KLM also indicated that the time required for the repetitive inspections is a large burden.
We disagree with the request to revise the compliance time for the repetitive inspections. In 1993, the Model 747 Structures Task Group did not foresee this level of damage occurring. Through damage tolerance analysis, the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) has determined that 500 flight cycles is the maximum number of flight cycles that provides an acceptable level of safety, and the FAA agrees with that analysis. Additionally, as discussed previously, the OEM has revised the time required to do the repetitive inspections from 291 work-hours to 4 work-hours in the new service information referenced previously, reducing the burden to operators. We have not revised the
DAL requested clarification of the use of certain parts (fillers) for the terminating action required for all airplanes. DAL pointed out that certain parts are specifically named to include the airplane engine model (CF6-80C2), and that this could preclude the terminating action or lead to a non-compliant installation for airplanes with Pratt & Whitney (PW) 4000 engines installed.
We agree with the request for clarification because it should make this AD easier to interpret. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to specify that part numbers 321U2400-5600, 321U2400-5601, and 321U2400-5602 may be used for airplanes with General Electric CF6-80 engines and PW4000 engines.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD 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 AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking in the strut side skin, an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking, applicable related investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener installation modification. 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 320 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD 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 March 14, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80 series engines or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54; Nacelles/pylons.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in both the aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion resistant steel (CRES) outer spring beam support fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the strut side skin and spring beam support fitting; such cracking could result in
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, at the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the strut side skin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, until the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD are done. If any cracking is found, do the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD before further flight.
Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a fastener hole open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking, applicable related investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener installation modification, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Part numbers 321U2400-5600, 321U2400-5601, and 321U2400-5602 may be used for modification of airplanes with GE CF6-80 engines and PW4000 engines. Doing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 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) The Condition column in table 1 and table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, refers to total flight cycles “at the original issue date of this service bulletin.” This AD, however, applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.
(3) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, 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)(3) of this AD, for service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(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. 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, Revision 1, dated September 20, 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 Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of skin cracking found at the corners of the aft entry and aft galley doorways. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage
This AD is effective March 14, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 14, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; 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 all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect compliance with the actions specified in the NPRM.
We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Boeing asked that we clarify the description of the inspection in the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” section of the NPRM. Boeing requested that we change the inspection type from “external detailed inspections” to “external low frequency eddy current and detailed inspections.” Boeing also requested that we change the inspection location from “the skin assembly of the corners of the aft entry” to “the skin assembly and the bear strap of the corners of the aft entry.” Boeing indicated that the revised wording reflects the actions specified in the service information.
We agree with the commenter that clarification is necessary. We have added the specified language to the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” section in this final rule accordingly.
Boeing asked that we revise the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) and the inspection requirement specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to clarify the location of the cracking from “the corners of the aft entry and aft galley doorways” to “the fuselage skin assembly and the bear strap at the corners of the aft entry and aft galley doorways.” Boeing stated the unsafe condition is related to the fuselage skin assembly and the bear strap, and added that the word “doorways” is generic and could include other structure.
We agree with the commenter that clarification is necessary. We have revised the
Southwest Airlines (SWA) asked that the heading of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be changed from “Repetitive Inspections” to “Initial and Repetitive Inspections” (for Groups 2 through 8 airplanes) or that we remove the word “Repetitive” to be consistent with the heading of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.
We find that clarification is necessary. Using the term “repetitive inspections” is intended to cover both the initial and repetitive inspections identified within the paragraph. In addition, the heading of paragraph (g) of this AD does not specify repetitive inspections because the inspection program for Group 1 airplanes is undefined in the service information, and the need to repeat any inspection would be determined on a case-by-case basis as approved by the FAA. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.
SWA also asked for clarification that the notes and provisions identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016, apply to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. SWA stated that those notes specify that it is not necessary to inspect the skin and bear strap at a cutout corner location with an existing external repair or modification if certain conditions are met.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern, and agree that the notes and provisions identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350,
SWA asked that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, which specifies repair for cracking in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016. SWA requested that we also allow repair using a method approved by the FAA, in accordance with paragraph (k) of the proposed AD. SWA did not provide a reason for this request.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. It is not necessary to specifically refer to paragraph (k) in this AD, as the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016, do not include an instruction to contact Boeing for instructions. We will always consider a request for approval of an alternative method of compliance for the repair, if the request is accompanied by appropriate data to show that the alternative method would provide an acceptable level of safety. Therefore, we have made no change to paragraph (i) of this AD.
We have changed the paragraph designation for paragraph (k)(3)(i) of the proposed AD to paragraph (k)(4) of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD 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 AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016. The service information describes procedures for, among other things, external low frequency eddy current and detailed inspections for cracking of the skin assembly and the bear strap, as applicable, of the corners of the aft entry and aft galley doorways, and repair of any cracking. 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 326 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD 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 March 14, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of skin cracking found at the corners of the aft entry and aft galley doorways. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage skin assembly and the bear strap at the corners of the aft entry and aft galley doorways, which could result in rapid decompression and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
For airplanes identified as Groups 2 through 8 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, do low frequency eddy current and detailed inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin assembly and the bear strap at the aft entry and aft galley doorway corners, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repair before further flight, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016. Accomplishment of this repair terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for the repaired doorway corner location only.
Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 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.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) 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, 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) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(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 Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; 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 737-53A1350, dated May 6, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-11-13 for all The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. AD 2007-11-13 required revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new removal limits for certain components of the flap system and to reduce the inspection intervals for fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSE). This new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate reduced intervals for the inspections for three PSEs and add nondestructive inspections (NDIs). This AD was prompted by a new Airworthiness Limitations Instruction (ALI) revision that incorporates NDI techniques and reduced repetitive inspection intervals for three PSEs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 14, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 14, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publications listed in this AD as of June 29, 2007 (72 FR 29237, May 25, 2007).
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
Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5348; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2007-11-13, Amendment 39-15070 (72 FR 29237, May 25, 2007) (“AD 2007-11-13”). AD 2007-11-13 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that it supports the NPRM.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we correct the number of airplanes listed in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM because there are not 572 The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes in service.
We agree. The number of The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes was incorrect in the NPRM. We have changed the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule to state that this AD affects 110 airplanes of U.S. registry, and adjusted the cost information accordingly.
DAL requested that we change the compliance time for reporting PSE cracks to Boeing from immediately to within 10 days after the airplane is returned to service.
We agree to clarify the reporting specified in the ALI document. The wording in the ALI under “Reporting of Inspection Results” states, “Crack findings should be reported immediately to Boeing.” This AD does not require reporting. However, reporting is recommended for research and tracking. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
DAL requested we delay issuance of the final rule until Boeing releases Revision 15 of the ALI. DAL stated that Revision 15 will include an increased threshold for certain wing PSEs. DAL asserts that the increased threshold will benefit operators and prevent applications for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs).
We agree. Since the NPRM was issued, we have reviewed Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 15, dated June 2016, which includes increased thresholds for 15 wing PSEs. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to refer to the revised service information. We have also added a new paragraph (k) to this AD to give credit for accomplishing the revision of the maintenance or inspection program before the effective date of this AD by incorporating Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 14, dated July 2015. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
DAL requested that we allow specific AMOCs approved for AD 2007-11-13 for compliance with this AD. DAL stated that it is tracking more than 60 AMOCs for AD 2007-11-13 that involve repairs in certain PSE areas (PSE 53.30.02.07, 53.30.02.11, 53.30.02.13, 53.30.02.23, and 55.53.02.03) or reduced life of landing gear parts. Without the allowance to use these AMOCs for this AD, DAL pointed out that it will need to work with Boeing on revised AMOC requests once this AD is issued.
We agree with the commenter's request to allow certain AMOCs approved for AD 2007-11-13 for compliance with this AD. The intent of disallowing previously approved AMOCs to apply to this AD was because of the reduction of repetitive intervals for PSE 53.30.02.11, 57.11.02.03, or 57.32.01.07. We will allow AMOCs approved for AD 2007-11-13 as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of this AD, provided they do not apply to PSE 53.30.02.11, 57.11.02.03, or 57.32.01.07. We have changed paragraph (l) of this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD 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 AD.
We reviewed Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 15, dated June 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspecting PSEs, and includes a change to reduce the interval inspections for three PSEs and adds NDI techniques to the inspection process. 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 110 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 14, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2007-11-13, Amendment 39-15070 (72 FR 29237, May 25, 2007) (“AD 2007-11-13”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Standard practices/structures.
This AD was prompted by a new Airworthiness Limitations Instruction (ALI) revision that incorporates nondestructive inspection (NDI) techniques and reduced repetitive inspection intervals for three principal structural elements (PSEs). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2007-11-13, with no changes. Within 180 days after June 29, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-11-13): Revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, ALI in accordance with Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2007-11-13, with revised language. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: After the ALS has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 15, dated June 2016. The initial compliance times for doing the actions specified in Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 15, dated June 2016, are at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD. Compliance with this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Within the applicable compliance times specified in Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 15, dated June 2016.
(2) Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
This paragraph provides credit for the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if that action was performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 14, dated July 2015.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
(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, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2007-11-13 are approved as AMOCs with this AD, provided the AMOCs do not apply to PSE 53.30.02.11, 57.11.02.03, or 57.32.01.07.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5348; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 14, 2017.
(i) Boeing 717-200 Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI), Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 15, dated June 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 29, 2007 (72 FR 29237, May 25, 2007).
(i) Boeing 717-200 Airworthiness Limitations Instructions, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-31T, PA-31T1, PA-31T2, PA-31T3, and PA-31P-350 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive detailed visual inspections of the wiring below the main circuit breaker panel for proper clearance and evidence of damage and rerouting or replacing wires and/or parts as necessary. This AD was prompted by a fatal accident where evidence of thermal damage in this area was found. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 22, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 22, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 24, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Bryan Long, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5578; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
We received reports of a fatal accident on a Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-31T airplane. Although the investigation is not complete, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found evidence of thermal damage near the main electrical bus circuit breaker panel. The enclosed space also includes hydraulic lines that run directly beneath the panel. The wiring in this area showed evidence of electrical arcing, and the hydraulic lines showed evidence of fire.
During the accident investigation, we and the NTSB examined the area below the circuit breaker panel in 6 different Model PA-31T series airplanes. All 6 airplanes had instances of wiring and hydraulic lines making direct contact and some of the airplanes showed signs of wiring rubbing or chafing adjacent structure or flammable fluid lines.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to electrical arcing and a possible inflight fire in an area that is not accessible by the crew. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1301, dated January 6, 2017. The service information describes procedures for visually inspecting the area below the main circuit breaker panel and rerouting and replacing wires and/or parts as necessary. 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 are issuing 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 design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.”
This AD requires the initial inspection within 30 days after the effective date and repetitive inspections at intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months, which differs from the compliance time specified in the service bulletin. Also, the service bulletin specifies the use of a 10X magnifying glass; however, the inspection space is very confined, and it is difficult to use a magnifying glass in the area. This AD requires the use of mirrors, a suitable light source, and other equipment (small cameras, borescopes, and magnification, etc.,) as needed to do the visual inspection of the area.
The
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because rubbing or chafing of the electrical wires to adjacent structure or flammable fluid lines could lead to electrical arcing and possible inflight fire in an area that is not accessible by the crew. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 335 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD 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 February 22, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-31T, serial numbers (SN) 31T-7400002 through 31T-8120104; PA-31T1, SNs 31T-7804001 through 31T-8304003 and SNs 31T-1104004 through 31T-1104017; PA-31T2, SNs 31T-8166001 through 31T-8166076 and 31T-1166001 through 31T-1166008; PA-31T3, SNs 31T-8275001 through 31T-8475001 and 31T-5575001; and PA-31P-350, SNs 31P-8414001 through 31P-8414050; certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2497, Electrical Power/Electrical Power System Wiring.
This AD was prompted by a fatal accident where evidence of thermal damage in the area below the main circuit breaker panel was found. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rubbing/chafing of wiring with other wires, adjacent structure, and/or flammable fuel lines, which could lead to electrical arcing and possible inflight fire in an area that is not accessible by the crew.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 30 days after February 22, 2017 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months, do a detailed visual inspection of the wiring in the area below the main circuit breaker panel using mirrors, a suitable light source, and other equipment (small cameras, borescopes, and magnification, etc.,) as needed to do the visual inspection of the area. Follow paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1301, dated January 6, 2017.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: You may begin the repetitive inspections before 12 calendar months after the initial inspection to coincide the repetitive inspection with the annual inspection.
(2) If any damage and/or rubbing or chafing is found during any of the inspections required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, reroute, rework, or replace any wires as specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1301, dated January 6, 2017.
(3) Perform a functional test after any inspection required by this AD as specified in paragraph 4 of the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1301, dated January 6, 2017.
(4) The Summary section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1301, dated January 6, 2017, states to contact the Factory Authorized Piper Service Facility to make arrangements for compliance with the service bulletin. Any appropriately licensed mechanic may do the work of this AD. Please note that to receive any warranty credit from Piper, the work may need to be done at the Factory Authorized Service Facility.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(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.
For more information about this AD, contact Bryan Long, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5578; fax: (404) 474-5606; 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) Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1301, dated January 6, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email:
(4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(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:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Stay of final rule; correction.
NMFS published a “Stay of final rule” on January 31, 2017—in accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” published in the
Effective February 7, 2017, the final rule amending 15 CFR part 902, and 50 CFR parts 300 and 679, that published on December 28, 2016, at 81 FR 95435, is stayed to March 11, 2017.
Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.
On December 28, 2016, NMFS published this final rule to implement Amendment 101 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) for the sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This final rule authorizes the use of longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. In addition, this final rule establishes management measures to minimize potential conflicts between hook-and-line and longline pot gear used in the sablefish IFQ fisheries in the GOA. This final rule also includes regulations developed under the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) to authorize harvest of halibut IFQ caught incidentally in longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. This final rule is necessary to improve efficiency and provide economic benefits for the sablefish IFQ fleet and minimize potential fishery interactions with whales and seabirds. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Halibut Act, the GOA FMP, and other applicable laws.
On January 20, 2017, the White House issued a memo instructing Federal agencies to temporarily postpone the effective date for 60 days after January 20, 2017, of any regulations or guidance documents that have published in the
After the “Stay of final rule” published on January 31, 2017, NMFS is correcting the effective date of “March 12, 2017” to “March 11, 2017” to better align with current fisheries management goals. NMFS publishes this notification to correct the stay of effective date.
In the
1. In the
2. On page 8810, third column, second paragraph, last sentence; and
3. On page 8811, in the following amendatory instructions: 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action delays the effective date of the final rule (“Clarification of When Products Made or Derived From Tobacco Are Regulated as Drugs, Devices, or Combination Products; Amendments to Regulations Regarding `Intended Uses' ”), which published on January 9, 2017, from February 8, 2017, until March 21, 2017.
The effective date of the rule amending 21 CFR Chapter I published at 82 FR 2193 on January 9, 2017 is delayed until March 21, 2017.
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver
On January 9, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) issued a final rule describing the circumstances in which products made or derived from tobacco are regulated as drugs, devices, or combination products. The rule also amended the “intended use” regulations found at 21 CFR 201.128 and 801.4. The rule was published with an effective date of February 8, 2017.
FDA bases this action on the memorandum of January 20, 2017 (82 FR 8346), from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” That memorandum directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to temporarily postpone for 60 days from the date of the memorandum the effective dates of all regulations that had been published in the
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the Agency's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Florida East Coast Railway Bridge, St. Johns River, mile 24.9, at Jacksonville, FL. The deviation is necessary to perform major bridge repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on January 11, 2017 to 6 p.m. on February 10, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-1021] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Rod Elkins, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch; telephone 305-415-6989, email
Florida East Coast Railway requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Florida East Coast Railway Bridge, St. Johns River, mile 24.9, Jacksonville, FL. The bridge is a single leaf bascule railway bridge with a five foot vertical clearance in the closed position. The deviation is necessary to perform major bridge repairs. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.325 which indicates that the draw is normally in the fully open position, displaying flashing green lights to indicate that vessels may pass.
The deviation period is from 7 a.m. on January 11, 2017 to 6 p.m. on February 10, 2017. During this period, the bridge is allowed to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on January 11, 2017 from 7 a.m. to noon and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on January 12, 2017 from 8 a.m. to noon, and from 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on January 13, 2017 from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on January 18, 2017 and January 19, 2017 and from 8 a.m. to noon, and from 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on January 20, 2017. Additionally, the bridge will be allowed to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. January 30, 2017 through 6 p.m. on February 10, 2017.
The Coast Guard coordinated this closure period with the bridge owner and the waterway users. The bridge will be unable to open for emergencies; the small boat span can be used as an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge while in the closed-to-navigation position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge to ensure vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 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.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US17 (Perquimans) Bridge across the Perquimans River, mile 12.0, at Hertford, NC. This deviation is necessary to perform a bridge deck replacement project.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from February 7, 2017 through 6 p.m. on March 17, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 25, 2017 at 3:25 p.m., until February 7, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-1026] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6222, email
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, that owns and operates the US17 (Perquimans) Bridge across the Perquimans River, mile 12.0, at Herford, NC, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to perform a bridge deck replacement project. The bridge will be unable to balance during the bridge deck replacement project. As balance is required for safe operation of the moveable span, the bridge will not be capable of safe operation for the duration of the bridge deck replacement project. The bridge is a bascule draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 7 feet above mean high water.
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.835. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. on January 25, 2017, to 6 p.m. on March 17, 2017.
The Perquimans River is used by a variety of vessels including small public vessels, small commercial vessels, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users.
Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so, after receiving confirmation from the bridge tender that it is safe to transit through the bridge. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 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.
Interim temporary final rule and request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the waters of the Florida Keys, near Sugarloaf Key, Florida. The safety zone is needed to protect safety of life, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards from recently discovered ordnance in two locations within the vicinity of American Shoal Light. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Key West or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from February 7, 2017 until July 1, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 17, 2017 until February 7, 2017.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 9, 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 Scott Ledee, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector Key West, FL. Coast Guard; telephone 305-292-8768, email
On October 24, 2016, the Coast Guard received a report of discovered ordnance at two locations in the vicinity of American Shoal Light, near Sugarloaf Key, Florida. The United States Navy is now engaged in operations to survey and remove any hazards associated with the recently discovered ordnance.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive notice of the unexploded ordnance operations until October 24, 2016. Publishing a NPRM and delaying its effective date would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because immediate actions is needed to protect the United States Navy divers, other vessels, and mariners from the hazards associated with the recovery of unexploded ordnance from the navigable waters of the Florida Keys, near Sugarloaf Key, Florida.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Key West, FL, has determined that potential hazards associated with detonating ordnance will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of positions 24°32.511′ N., 081°29.051′ W. and 24°32.501′ N., 081°32.781′ W. This rule is needed to protect safety of life, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
This rule establishes a safety zone immediately until the earlier of July 1,
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 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will impact a small designated area of the Straits of Florida for a limited period during emergency operations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an emergency safety zone implemented to protect persons and vessels in the vicinity of American Shoal Light. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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,
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 rulemaking 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 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)
(2) In accordance with the general regulations, anchoring and all underwater activities within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, or anchor in the regulated area by contacting the COTP Key West or a designated representative via VHF channel 16 or call the Sector Key West Command Center by telephone at (305) 292-8808. If authorization is granted by the COTP Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Key West or a designated representative.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Rules of the Road (33 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter E, part 83-90 inland navigation rules) are still in effect and must be strictly adhered to at all times.
(d)
(e)
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Interim rule with request for comments.
The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing an interim rule that amends its regulations governing its practices and procedures under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to implement the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The regulations are issued on an interim basis without opportunity to comment to ensure that updated regulations are in place as soon as practicable to implement the Act. These amendments are intended to incorporate changes in the law, and provide clear guidance to members of the public in filing a FOIA request with the Office.
This interim rule is effective on March 9, 2017. Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 24, 2017.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the
Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), section 552 of title 5 of the United States Code, provides a statutory right of access to federal agency records. In part, FOIA establishes procedures by which a member of the public may request
Section 3 of the Act requires “the head of each agency . . . as defined in section 551 of title 5, United States Code” to review and issue new regulations in light of the amendments not later than 180 days after the date of enactment. Because the Library of Congress (and by extension, the Copyright Office) is not an “agency” under 5 U.S.C. 551,
FOIA requires agencies to promulgate regulations addressing the requirements for making initial requests and appeals, the fees an agency may charge, and the standards and procedures for regular and expedited processing of requests, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i) and (a)(6)(E)(i), while providing areas of discretionary authority. In general, agency fee structures for FOIA services must be in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's
In its amended regulations, the Office has adopted, where appropriate, the template for agency FOIA regulations released by the Office of Information Policy (OIP) at the Department of Justice. In 2013, as part of the Second United States Open Government National Action Plan, the Administration initiated an interagency process to determine the feasibility and content of a FOIA regulation that could be adopted by all federal agencies. The OIP convened an inter-agency working group to study this issue. Over two years, the group engaged with federal agencies and reviewed regulatory language to determine that the most feasible approach was to provide a template with suggested language for agencies' use. OIP released this template on March 23, 2016, and subsequently updated the template to incorporate the changes of the Act.
First, the new regulation provides a clear structure for the required regulatory provisions of FOIA. It provides individual sections stating the time, place, fees, and procedures for making requests, as well as clear authority for the disposition of FOIA requests.
Second, the regulation formalizes Office practices of multi-track processing and aggregation for administrative convenience. FOIA allows agencies to engage in multitrack processing “based on the amount of work or time (or both) involved in processing requests.”
Finally, the regulation provides areas where additional regulatory language can enhance customer service. In general, this language emphasizes the availability of the FOIA Public Liaison to assist requesters and members of the public, provides for communication by email, and establishes guidelines for agency communication through the initial request and appeals processes. With regards to fees, the regulation describes the overall construct for assessing fees in the most efficient and least expensive manner, notifying requesters if a new computer program will be required to fulfill a request, and breaking down fees when an estimated fee is over twenty-five dollars ($25.00). The Office has adopted these recommendations in an effort to advance the open government purposes of FOIA.
Freedom of information.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 203 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552.
This information is furnished for the guidance of the public and in compliance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552. The rules contained in this part should be read in conjunction with the text of FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Guidelines”). Requests made by individuals for records pertaining to themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, are processed under part 204 of this chapter. Requests for services for which the Copyright Act of 1976, title 17 of the United States
Records that are required by FOIA to be made available for public inspection in electronic format may be accessed through the Office's Web site at
(a)
(1) To make a request for records, a requester should write directly by email to
(2) A requester who is making a request for records about himself or herself must comply with part 204 of this chapter.
(3) Where a request for records pertains to a third party, a requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual or a declaration made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requestor, or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(ii) Whenever the Office refers any responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it will document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral. The notification will include the name(s) of the agency to which the record was referred and that agency's FOIA contact information.
(3)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(A) Limit the scope of the request so that it may be processed within 20 working days; or
(B) Arrange with the Office an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified request.
(ii) The Office will make available the FOIA Public Liaison to assist the requester in modifying the request.
(2) As used in this paragraph (c), “unusual circumstances” means, only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request:
(i) The need to search for and collect the requested records from establishments that are physically separate from the Office;
(ii) The need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or,
(iii) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the Copyright Office which have a substantial subject matter interest therein.
(d)
(e)
(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited processing could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or,
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity, if the request or appeal is made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information.
(2) A request for expedited processing may be made at any time. Requests for expedited processing of initial requests should be made to the FOIA Requester Service Center. Requests for expedited processing of an administrative appeal should be submitted to the Office of the Register of Copyrights.
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, setting forth the basis for the claim that a “compelling need” exists for the requested information.
(4) The Office will notify the requester within 10 calendar days of the receipt of a request for expedited processing of its decision whether to grant or deny expedited processing. If expedited processing is granted, the request will be given priority and processed as soon as is practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, the requester may submit an appeal to the Office of the Register of Copyrights. The Office will act expeditiously on any appeal of a denial of expedited processing.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;
(2) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied by the agency in denying the request;
(3) When applicable, an estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption;
(4) A statement that the denial may be appealed under § 203.9, and a description of the appeal requirements; and,
(5) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the Office's FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services.
(g)
(a)
(b)
(2) An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
(c)
(d)
(e)
The Office must preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this part, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 14 of the National Archives and Records Administration. The Office shall not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under FOIA.
(a)
(i) Commercial use requesters;
(ii) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters; and
(iii) All other requesters.
(2) Different fees are assessed depending on the category. Requesters may seek a fee waiver, which the Office will consider in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section. To resolve any fee issues that arise under this section, an agency may contact a requester for additional information. The Office shall ensure that searches, review, and duplication are conducted in the most efficient and the least expensive manner. The Office will ordinarily collect all applicable fees before sending copies of records to a requester. Requesters must pay fees by check or money order made payable to the United States Copyright Office.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(c)
(1)
(ii) For each quarter hour spent by administrative staff in searching for a requested record, $7.50; for each quarter hour spent by professional staff in searching for a requested record, $17.50, with a half hour minimum in both cases.
(iii) For computer searches of records, which may be undertaken through the use of existing programming, the actual direct costs of conducting the search including the cost of operating a central processing unit for that portion of operating time that is directly attributable to searching for records responsive to a request, as well as the direct costs of operator/programmer salary apportionable to search (at no less than $65 per hour or fraction thereof).
(iv) For requests that require the retrieval of records stored by an agency at a Federal records center operated by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), agencies will charge additional costs in accordance with the Transactional Billing Rate Schedule established by NARA.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(ii) If the Office has determined that unusual circumstances, as defined by FOIA, apply and the agency provides timely written notice to the requester, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 days.
(iii) If the Office has determined that unusual circumstances, as defined by FOIA, apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, the Office may charge fees if the Office has provided timely written notice of the unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with FOIA and the Office has discussed with the requester (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii).
(iv) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined by the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
(2) No search or review fees will be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for search or review.
(3) Except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use, the Office will provide without charge:
(i) The first 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media); and
(ii) The first two hours of search.
(4) No fee will be charged when the total fee, after deducting the first 100 pages (or its cost equivalent) and the first two hours of search, is equal to or less than $25.00.
(5) No fees will be charged for ordinary packaging and mailing costs.
(e)
(2) When a requester has been provided notice of anticipated fees in excess of $25.00, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, to designate which fees the requester is willing to pay, or, for noncommercial requests, to indicate that the requester seeks only the services that can be provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section without charge. The Office is not required to accept payment in installments.
(3) When the requester has committed to pay some designated amount of fees, but the Office estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, the Office shall toll processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the requester's commitment. The Office shall inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.
(4) The Office shall make available the FOIA Public Liaison to assist the requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(2) When the Office determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will exceed $250.00, it may require that the requester make an advance payment up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request. The Office may elect to process the request prior to collecting fees when it receives a satisfactory assurance of full payment from a requester with a history of prompt payment.
(3) Where a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to any agency within 30 calendar days of the billing date, the Office may require that the requester pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and the Office may require that the requester make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee before the Office begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. Where the Office has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented the requester's identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, it may require that the requester provide proof of identity.
(4) In cases in which the Office requires advance payment, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days after the date of the Office's fee determination, the request will be closed.
(j)
(k)
(i) Disclosure of the requested information is in the public interested because it is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations or activities of the government; and
(ii) Disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(2) In deciding whether the requester has demonstrated the requirement of paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section, the Office shall consider all four of the following factors:
(i) The subject of the request must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.
(ii) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.
(iii) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.
(iv) The public's understanding of the subject in question must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent. However, the Office shall not make value judgments about whether the information at issue is “important” enough to be made public.
(3) In deciding whether the requester has demonstrated the requirement of paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this section, the Office shall consider the following two factors:
(i) The Office shall identify any commercial interest of the requester that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. Requesters shall be given an opportunity to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.
(ii) A waiver or reduction of fees is justified where the public interest is greater than any identified commercial interest in disclosure. The Office ordinarily shall presume that where a news media requester has satisfied the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return shall not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.
(4) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver shall be granted for those records.
(5) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to the Office and should address the criteria referenced above. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester shall be required to pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.
Approved by:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving the visibility transport (prong 4) portion of a revision to the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP.” Here, EPA is specifically disapproving the prong 4 portion of Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for this SIP submission have been addressed in separate rulemakings.
This rule will be effective March 9, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0689. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at
By statute, states must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of that NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time the state develops and submits the submission for a particular new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million.
Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure submission cites to the State's regional haze SIP alone to satisfy prong 4 requirements.
Implementation plans must give specific attention to certain stationary sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
In that limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that CSAPR can serve as an alternative to BART,
At the time of the rule amendment, questions regarding the legality of CSAPR were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) and the court had stayed implementation of the rule. The D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated and remanded CSAPR in August 2012, leaving CAIR in place temporarily.
Following the Supreme Court remand, the D.C. Circuit conducted further proceedings to address the remaining claims. In July 2015, the court issued a decision denying most of the claims but remanding the Phase 2 sulfur dioxide (SO
Due to these expected changes to CSAPR's scope, EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to the 2012 CSAPR “alternative to BART” demonstration showing that the analysis would have supported the same conclusion if the
Alabama sought to convert the 2012 limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's CAIR-reliant regional haze SIP to a full approval through a SIP revision submitted on October 26, 2015. This SIP revision intended to adopt the CSAPR trading program into the SIP, including the State's Phase 2 annual NO
Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before December 27, 2016. EPA received one adverse comment on the December 5, 2016, NPRM. The comment was submitted by the Utility Air Regulatory Group (hereinafter referred to as “the Commenter”) and is available in the docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's response and a summary of the comment are provided below.
As discussed above, CSAPR's scope has been impacted by the D.C. Circuit's remand of the Phase 2 SO
As described above, EPA is disapproving the prong 4 portion of Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for this SIP submission have been addressed in separate rulemakings.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 10, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to Wisconsin's state implementation plan (SIP), revising portions of the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and ambient air quality programs to address deficiencies identified in EPA's previous narrow infrastructure SIP disapprovals and Finding of Failure to Submit (FFS). This SIP revision request is consistent with the Federal PSD rules and addresses the required elements of the fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on March 9, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0134. All documents in the docket are listed on
Andrea Morgan, Environmental Engineer, Air Permitting Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6058,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On August 8, 2016, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted a SIP revision request to EPA to revise portions of its PSD and ambient air quality programs to address deficiencies identified in EPA's previous narrow infrastructure SIP disapprovals and FFS. Final approval of this SIP revision request will be consistent with the Federal PSD requirements and will address the required elements of the PM
WDNR also requested that this SIP revision supplement the PSD portions of its previously submitted infrastructure submittals, including 1997 PM
To implement the PM
The PM
The PM
On November 29, 2005, EPA published (70 FR 71612) in the
On October 6, 2014, EPA finalized approval of revisions to Wisconsin's SIP that included the identification of NO
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions,
This specific rulemaking is only taking action on the PSD elements of the Wisconsin infrastructure submittals. Separate action has been or will be taken on the non-PSD infrastructure elements in separate rulemakings. The infrastructure elements for PSD are found in CAA 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D), and 110(a)(2)(J) and will be discussed in detail below. For further discussion on the background of infrastructure submittals,
On September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67261), EPA proposed approval of a SIP revision from WDNR requesting EPA to revise portions of its PSD and ambient air quality programs to address PM
EPA proposed that the revisions pertaining to PM
WDNR also requested that this SIP revision supplement the PSD portions of its previously submitted infrastructure submittals. EPA proposed that based on the approval of the PSD related SIP revisions mentioned above and previously approved SIP revisions (
The comment period for the proposed action associated with today's rulemaking (81 FR 67261) closed on October 31, 2016. EPA received two supportive comments.
EPA is approving revisions to Wisconsin's SIP that implement the PM
The revisions pertaining to PM
EPA is also approving the PSD related infrastructure requirements found in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for Wisconsin's 1997 PM
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wisconsin Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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
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 April 10, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(135) On August 8, 2016, WDNR submitted a request to revise portions of its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)and ambient air quality programs to address the required elements of the fine particulate matter (PM
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 404.05 Ambient Air Increments. NR 404.05(2) introductory text; NR 404.05(2)(am); NR 404.05(3) introductory text; NR 404.05(3)(am); NR 404.05(4) introductory text; and NR 404.05(4)(am), as published in the Register, July 2016, No. 727, effective August 1, 2016.
(B) Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 405.02 Definitions. NR 405.02(3); NR 405.02(21)(a); NR 405.02(21m), except (b); NR 405.02(22)(b); NR 405.02(22m)(a)1. and 3. and (b)1.; and NR 405.02(27)(a)6., as published in the Register, July 2016, No. 727, effective August 1, 2016.
(C) Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 405.07 Review of major stationary sources and major modifications — source applicability and exemptions. NR 405.07(8)(a)3m; 405.07(8)(a)3m. Note; and NR 405.07(8)(a)5. Note, as published in the Register, July 2016, No. 727, effective August 1, 2016.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of propamocarb in or on potato. Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 7, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 10, 2017, 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-2016-0083, is available at
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 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-2016-0083 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 April 10, 2017. 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-2016-0083, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(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. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA 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(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
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.
Propamocarb-HCl is a List C carbamate fungicide with specific activity against numerous Oomycete species, which cause foliar diseases and seedling, seed, root, foot, and stem rot in various edible and ornamental crops.
Consistent with other carbamates, propamocarb-HCl's database showed evidence of neurotoxicity in rats, though it does not inhibit cholinesterase. Neurotoxic effects include decreased motor activity following acute exposure and vacuolization of the choroid plexus (ventricles of the brain which produce cerebral spinal fluid) following subchronic and chronic durations. Other effects observed are indicative of toxicity to the digestive and GI tracts in dogs (chronic erosive gastritis, vacuolization of the salivary gland and stomach), and the eye in dogs and rats (hyporeflectability of the fundus, retinal degeneration, and vacuolization of the retinal gland). In all species, decreases in body weights, body-weight gains, and food consumption were observed following subchronic and chronic exposure. Available immunotoxicity data does not indicate an immunotoxic effect from exposure to propamocarb.
Effects in the route-specific dermal and inhalation studies were primarily portal-of-entry effects. Dermal exposure caused dermal irritation in rats and rabbits at relatively high doses (>500 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). Inhalation exposure caused labored breathing and the appearance of red material around the nose. Systemic effects were observed following inhalation exposure at similar doses that caused portal-of-entry effects and included kidney cysts and changes in hematological parameters.
Effects were observed in fetuses and offspring in the database at the same doses that elicited less severe effects in parental animals. In the developmental rat study, fetal effects included increased death, increased incidences of minor skeletal anomalies, increased incidences of small fetus, inter-atrial septal defects, and hemorrhage in the ears, upper GI tract, and nasopharynx/sinuses. Maternal effects consisted of decreased absolute body-weights, decreased food consumption, post-implantation loss, and mortality. In the rat two-generation reproduction study, offspring effects consisted of deaths, decreased weights, and decreased viability and lactation indices and litter size. Parental effects were consistent with those previously described for adults in the hazard database. Reproductive effects consisted of increased vacuolization and decreased weight of the epididymides, decreased sperm counts and motility, and abnormal sperm morphology.
Propamocarb-HCl was categorized as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes (Toxicity Categories III-IV). It is not a dermal irritant or a dermal sensitizer. It is considered a slight eye irritant.
EPA classified propamocarb-HCl as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” by all routes of exposure based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by propamocarb-HCl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) 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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. 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 reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of toxicological endpoints for propamocarb-HCl used for human-health risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
The revised estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) are those modeled for surface waters based on current labels and newly submitted fate and transport data for the registration review of propamocarb-HCl. All currently labeled uses were assessed including the potato tolerance increase described in this action.
Surface water values were obtained from FLnurserySTD_V2 model for the acute value, and NJnurserySTD_V2 model for the chronic values representing foliar application to ornamentals in nurseries. Ground Water acute and chronic values were obtained from FLCITRUS_STD.SCN GW scenario.
The EDWCs of propamocarb for acute exposures are 4,860 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water, and 73 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs of propamocarb for chronic exposure for non-cancer assessments are 385 ppb for surface water, and 70 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 4,860 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 385 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for propamocarb is complete.
ii. Although there was evidence of neurotoxicity (decreased motor activity and vacuolization of the choroid plexus) in several studies following propamocarb-HCl exposure, including the ACN and SCN studies; there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity because the neurotoxicity effects are well-characterized with clear NOAEL/LOAEL values and the selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.
iii. Although there is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility from exposure to propamocarb, there is no need to retain the 10X FQPA SF because: (1) The effects are well characterized; (2) clear NOAELs were established; (3) the endpoints selected are protective of these effects; and (4) the effects were seen in the presence of maternal/parental toxicity.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to propamocarb in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by propamocarb.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
A gas chromatography/nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method is available for the enforcement of residues of propamocarb in plant commodities. This method has undergone a successful independent laboratory validation (ILV) and petition method validation (PMV), and is currently listed in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II. An adequate liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) for the enforcement of residues of propamocarb and its metabolites in livestock commodities has been submitted to the Agency. This method has undergone successful ILVs and a PMV. The results of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) multiresidue testing study indicate that propamocarb and its metabolites are not recovered by any of the protocols. The recoveries of propamocarb with the QuEChERS multiresidue method are marginally adequate (68-69%;
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has established a MRL for propamocarb in or on potato at 0.30 ppm. This MRL is the same as the tolerance established for propamocarb in the United States.
Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of propamocarb in or on potato at 0.30 ppm.
This action establishes a 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) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of 2,4-D in or on cotton, gin byproducts and amends the existing tolerance on cotton, undelinted seed. Dow AgroSciences requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 7, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 10, 2017, 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-2016-0594, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; 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
• 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 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-2016-0594 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 April 10, 2017. 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-2016-0594, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(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. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA 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(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 2,4-D, including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with 2,4-D 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. The toxicity profile shows that 2,4-D is not acutely toxic via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes, is not a dermal irritant or a dermal sensitizer, but it is a severe eye irritant. The principal toxic effects are changes in the kidney [increased kidney weight, histopathological lesions], thyroid [decreased thyroxine, increased thyroid weight, hyperplasia and hypertrophy of follicular cells], liver [increased liver weight, increased ALT and AST, histopathological lesions, including hypertrophy], adrenal [increased adrenal weight, histopathological lesions], eye [retinal degeneration, cataract formation, lens opacity], and ovaries/testes [decreased testes weight and ovarian weight, atrophy] in the rat following exposure to 2,4-D via the oral route at dose levels above the threshold of saturation of renal clearance. No systemic toxicity was observed in rabbits following repeated exposure via the dermal route at dose levels up to the limit dose. Neurotoxicity, as evidenced by the increased incidence of incoordination and slight gait abnormalities (forepaw flexing or knuckling) was observed in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats at the highest dose. In an extended 1-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats,
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 reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 298 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 34.5 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
2,4-D is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamental turf, including parks, sports fields, and golf courses, as well as aquatic uses. The existing residential uses were previously assessed in 2013. However, since that time there have been changes to the policy for calculating inhalation HECs and the policy for assessing aquatic exposure; therefore, the residential scenarios have been reassessed. EPA assumes that residential handlers complete all elements of an application without use of any protective equipment or baseline attire such as long pants and long-sleeved shirt. Quantitative short-term inhalation
In addition to residential handler exposure, the following post-application exposure scenarios were estimated for short-term duration to protect adults and children that might be playing in treated turf areas or swimming in treated aquatic areas after applications of 2,4-D have been made at the maximum rates:
• Incidental ingestion (
• Episodic granular ingestion on treated turf (children 1 <2 years old only)
• Incidental ingestion of water during recreational swimming (both adults and children 3 <6 years old).
None of the above exposure scenarios resulted in handler or post-application risk estimates that exceed EPA's level of concern. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
1.
2.
2,4-D has been evaluated for potential developmental effects in the rat and rabbit. Maternal toxicity included decreased body weight gains in the rat study at the same dose level where developmental effects (occurrence of skeletal malformations) were observed. Kidney effects would have been expected in the maternal animal had examination of the kidney been performed, and the findings are not considered evidence of susceptibility.
Maternal toxicity in the rabbit included decreased body weight gain, clinical signs of toxicity (decreased motor activity, ataxia, loss of righting reflex, extremities cold to the touch), and abortions, the latter being indicative of developmental toxicity. Decreased maternal body weight gains were observed in the rat 2-generation reproduction study at a dose that exceeded renal saturation and resulted in reduced viability of the F1 pups. Although decreased maternal body weight gain is a conservative endpoint, points of departure used in the risk assessment are below where these findings occur and are protective. There are clearly established NOAELs and LOAELs for the population of concern, there are no data gaps in the toxicology database, and the points of departure (POD) are protective of susceptibility. The exposure assessment will not underestimate children's exposure to 2,4-D.
3.
i. The toxicity database for 2,4-D is complete.
ii. Although there are indications of neurotoxicity observed in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, as evidenced by an increase in the incidence of in-coordination and slight gait abnormalities (forepaw flexing or knuckling) at the high dose in both sexes, developmental neurotoxicity was not observed in the developmental neurotoxicity segment of the extended 1-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats.
iii. For the reasons stated in Unit III.D.2., there is no residual uncertainty concerning the potential susceptibility of infants and children to effects of 2,4-D; therefore, there is no need to retain the 10X FQPA safety factor to protect infants and children.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% crop treated and tolerance-level or higher residues assumptions. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to 2,4-D in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by 2,4-D.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate analytical methods are available for data collection and the enforcement of plant commodity tolerances, including cotton. Task Force II submitted an adequate GC/ECD enforcement method for plants (designated as EN-CAS Method No. ENC-2/93) which has been independently validated and radiovalidated. An enforcement method was submitted for determination of 2,4-D in livestock commodities, which has been adequately radiovalidated. The methods have been submitted to FDA for inclusion in PAM II. The 10/1997 edition of FDA PAM Volume I, Appendix I indicates that 2,4-D is partially recovered (50-80%) using Multiresidue Methods Section 402 E1 and 402 E2.
These methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for 2,4-D on cotton.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) in or on gin byproducts and undelinted seed of cotton at 1.5 and 0.08 ppm respectively.
This action establishes tolerances 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
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) * * *
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule; stay of regulations.
On December 5, 2016, the Board published a final rule in this docket that established new regulations requiring all Class I railroads and the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office (CTCO), through its Class I members, to report certain service performance metrics on a weekly, semiannual, and occasional basis. The Board is staying the effective date of the final rule.
Effective February 7, 2017 and applicable on January 27, 2017, the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 1250 published at 81 FR 87472 on December 5, 2016, is stayed until March 21, 2017. The initial reporting date under the final rule will be March 29, 2017.
Sarah Fancher at (202) 245-0355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
On November 30, 2016, the Board adopted a final rule to establish new regulations requiring all Class I railroads and the CTCO, through its Class I members, to report certain service performance metrics on a weekly, semiannual, and occasional basis.
The final rule adopted requirements for reporting cars in fertilizer service, as defined by 14 Standard Transportation Commodity Codes (STCCs) that The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) provided in comments.
1. The final rule in the
2. Notice of the Board's action will be published in the
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Stay of final rule; correction.
NMFS published a “Stay of final rule” on January 31, 2017—in accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” published in the
Effective February 7, 2017, the final rule amending 50 CFR part 635, that published on December 29, 2016, at 81 FR 95903, is stayed until February 10, 2017.
Thomas Warren or Sarah McLaughlin, 978-281-9260; Carrie Soltanoff, 301-427-8503.
On December 29, 2016, NMFS published this final rule modifying the Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) regulations regarding the distribution of inseason Atlantic bluefin tuna quota transfers to the Longline category. This final rule provides NMFS the ability to distribute quota inseason either to all qualified Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) share recipients (
On January 20, 2017, the White House issued a memo instructing Federal agencies to temporarily postpone the effective date for 60 days after January 20, 2017, of any regulations or guidance documents that have published in the
After the “Stay of final rule” published on January 31, 2017, NMFS is correcting the effective date of “March 21, 2017” to “February 10, 2017” to better align with current fisheries management goals. NMFS publishes this notification to correct the stay of effective date.
In the
1. In the
2. On page 8821, second column, first paragraph, last sentence; and
3. On page 8821, in amendatory instruction 2.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 2, 2017, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 5,959 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016), inseason adjustment (82 FR 2916, January 10, 2017), and reallocation (82 FR 8905, February 1, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 31, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; opening.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to fully use the A season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 6, 2017, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 10, 2017.
Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., February 21, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2015-0110 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 2,232 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the (81 FR 14740; March 16, 2016) and inseason adjustment (81 FR 95063; December 27, 2016).
NMFS closed directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 27, 2017 (82 FR 8821; January 31, 2017).
As of February 2, 2017, NMFS has determined that approximately 2,225 metric tons of pollock remain in the A season directed fishing allowance for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the A season allowance of the 2017 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., February 6, 2017.
The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until February 21, 2017.
This action is required by § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA
Proposed rule: Extension of comment period.
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” the Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is extending by 30 days the public comment period for this proposed rule, which was published on December 20, 2016.
This proposed rule identifies criteria that the Secretary may consider when determining whether a live poultry dealer's use of a poultry grower ranking system for ranking poultry growers for settlement purposes is unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive or gives an undue or unreasonable preference, advantage, prejudice, or disadvantage. The proposed amendments also clarify that absent demonstration of a legitimate business justification, failing to use a poultry grower ranking system in a fair manner after applying the identified criteria is unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and a violation of section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (P&S Act), regardless of whether it harms or is likely to harm competition.
The comment period for the proposed rule published at 81 FR 92723 on December 20, 2016 is extended. Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this proposed rule by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
S. Brett Offutt, Director, Litigation and Economic Analysis Division, P&SP, GIPSA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-7051,
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” GIPSA is extending by 30 days the public comment period of the proposed rule entitled “Poultry Grower Ranking Systems” that was published in the
GIPSA previously published a notice of proposed rulemaking on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35338), which included requirements regarding a live poultry dealer's use of a poultry grower ranking system when determining payment for grower services. That proposed rule would have required live poultry dealers paying growers on a tournament system to pay growers raising the same type and kind of poultry the same base pay and further required that growers be settled in groups with other growers with like house types. Upon review of public comments received both in writing and through public meetings held during the comment period in 2010, we elected not to publish this rule as a final rule, but rather have modified proposed § 201.214 and published it as a proposed rule and requested further public comment.
7 U.S.C. 181-229c.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA
Proposed rule: Extension of comment period.
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” the Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is extending by 30 days the public comment period for this proposed rule, which was published on December 20, 2016. This proposed rule would clarify the conduct or action by packers, swine contractors, or live poultry dealers that GIPSA considers unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and a violation of section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (P&S Act). This proposed rule would also identify criteria that the Secretary would consider in determining whether conduct or action by packers, swine
The comment period for the proposed rule published at 81 FR 92723 on December 20, 2016 is extended. Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this proposed rule by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
S. Brett Offutt, Director, Litigation and Economic Analysis Division, P&SP, GIPSA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-7051,
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” GIPSA is extending by 30 days the public comment period of the proposed rule entitled “Unfair Practices and Undue Preferences in Violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act” that was published in the
This proposed rule would make two changes to the regulation issued under P&S Act. The first clarifies the conduct or action by packers, swine contractors, or live poultry dealers that GIPSA considers unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and a violation of section 202(a) of the P&S Act. The second provides criteria, in response to requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill, to consider in determining whether a packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer has engaged in conduct resulting in an undue preference or advantage to one or more livestock producers or poultry growers in violation of § 202(b) of the P&S Act.
7 U.S.C. 181-229c.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Public meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to hold a public meeting to discuss a rulemaking activity regarding the role of third parties in access authorization and fitness-for-duty determinations. The purpose of the meeting is to provide information on the background and status of this rulemaking activity and to obtain input from interested stakeholders.
The public meeting will be held on February 13, 2017. See Section II, Public Meeting, of this document for more information on the meeting.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0145 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this meeting. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this meeting using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Daniel I. Doyle, telephone: 301-415-3748, email:
In a staff requirements memorandum dated June 6, 2016 (SRM-SECY-15-0149, ADAMS Accession No. ML16158A286), the Commission approved proceeding with the rulemaking process to further explore the issues raised in an NRC staff paper regarding the role of third party arbitrators in licensee access authorization and fitness-for-duty determinations. The NRC is in the early stages of developing a draft regulatory basis document that will describe the regulatory issue, options to address the issue, and the recommended option. The NRC will consider the information shared at the meeting in the development of the draft regulatory basis document.
The NRC held a similar public meeting on November 16, 2016, and a summary of that meeting is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16336A034. The NRC is holding this meeting in response to a request from stakeholders to allow another opportunity for public input prior to publication of a draft regulatory basis document. The NRC also held a closed meeting on December 12, 2016, with representatives from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and a summary of that meeting is available
The NRC changed the title of this rulemaking activity from “Role of Third Parties in Access Authorization and Fitness-for-Duty Determinations” to “Access Authorization and Fitness-for-Duty Determinations.”
The public meeting will be on February 13, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST) in the Commission Hearing Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Interested stakeholders may attend in person or via teleconference and Webinar. The purpose of the meeting is to provide background information on this rulemaking activity and obtain stakeholder input in order to enhance the NRC's understanding of the associated issues. The NRC staff will use this input to inform its determination of what action, if any, the agency should take to address the issue of third party participation in licensee access authorization and fitness-for-duty determinations. The NRC staff will discuss the various opportunities for the public to participate in the rulemaking process. The NRC will not provide formal written responses to the oral comments made at this meeting. In addition, the NRC is not providing an opportunity to submit written public comments in connection with this meeting.
Information for the teleconference and Webinar is available in the meeting notice, which can be accessed through the NRC's public Web site at:
Additional details regarding the meeting will be posted at least 10 days prior to the public meeting on the NRC's public meeting Web site at:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders that are equipped with a Solo 2625 02 engine modified with a fuel injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin (SB)/Technische Mitteilung (TM) 4600-3 “Fuel Injection System”) and identified as Solo 2625 02i. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the potential of an in-flight shut-down and engine fire due to failure of the connecting stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy system on gliders equipped with a Solo 2625 02i engine. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2014-0269, dated December 11, 2014 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported involving a failure of the connecting stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy system.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncommanded in-flight engine shut-down and engine fire, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH issued SB/TM 4600-5 to provide instructions for reinforcement and securing of the injector mounts.
For the reason described above, this AD requires modification of the engine redundancy system.
Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH SB/TM 4600-3 (currently at issue 2, dated 03 December 2012) will be revised to incorporate the modification required by SB/TM 4600-5 for future Solo 2625 02i engines.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH has issued Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 2 (English translation: Issue 2), dated December 12, 2014. The service information describes procedures for changing the fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy system and securing the connection of the lower to the upper mount. 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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 3 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $67 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $456, or $152 per product.
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 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 March 24, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH DG-500MB gliders, all serial numbers, that are:
(1) Equipped with a Solo 2625 02 engine modified with a fuel injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin (SB)/Technische Mitteilung (TM) 4600-3 “Fuel Injection System”) and identified as Solo 2625 02i; and
(2) certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Engine.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the connecting stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy system on gliders equipped with a Solo 2625 02i engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent such failure that could lead to the potential of an in-flight shut-down and engine fire and result in loss of control.
Unless already done, within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD, modify the engine redundancy system following the actions in Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 2 (English translation: Issue 2), dated December 12, 2014.
This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information as it appears on the document.
This AD allows credit for modification of the engine redundancy system as required in
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2014-0269, dated December 11, 2014 for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and T67M260-T3A airplanes that would supersede AD 2015-11-01. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of a brake master cylinder pivot pin, which could cause the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the brake cylinder. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, The Airport, Newmarket Road, Cambridge, CB5 8RX, UK; telephone: +44 (0) 1223 399856; fax: +44 (0) 7825365617; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On May 18, 2015, we issued AD 2015-11-01, Amendment 39-18164 (80 FR 30136; May 27, 2015). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and T67M260-T3A airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.
Since we issued AD 2015-11-01, new service information was issued to revise the inspection instructions and to add a new initial inspection period after
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0214, dated October 27, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported where pivot pin Part Number (P/N) T67M-45-539, of rudder pedal assembly #4, installed on the right hand (RH) side of the aeroplane (RH seat, RH pedal) failed during taxi. This caused the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the brake master cylinder.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could cause the rudder linkages to rotate out of their normal orientation, possibly resulting in jammed rudder controls and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Slingsby Advanced Composites Ltd, trading as Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group (hereafter called “Marshall” in this AD) issued Service Bulletin (SB) SBM 200 to provide inspection instructions.
Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2015-0065-E to require repetitive inspections of the brake cylinder pivot pins of rudder pedal assemblies #1 and #4 and, depending on findings, replacement of the affected pivot pin(s).
Since that AD was issued, Marshall published SBM 200 Revision 2 to revise the inspection instructions and to introduce a new initial inspection period after replacement of brake master cylinder pivot pins on an aeroplane.
For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-065-E, which is superseded, but requires the use of the revised inspection instructions. This AD also allows deferring the next due inspection after replacement of the pins.
Slingsby Aviation Ltd. trading as Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group has issued Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 2, dated December 2015. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspection of the brake master cylinder pivot pin. 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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 3 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $50 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,680, or $560 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about .5 work-hour and require parts costing $100, for a cost of $142.50 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
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 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 March 24, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2015-11-01; Amendment 39-18164 (80 FR 30136; May 27, 2015) (“AD 2015-11-01”).
This AD applies to Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and T67M260-T3A airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of a brake master cylinder pivot pin, which could
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD:
(1) Within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within 300 hours TIS after the last inspection required by AD 2015-11-01, whichever occurs first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the brake master cylinder pivot pins part number (P/N) T67M-45-539 installed on rudder pedal assemblies number 1 and number 4. Do this action following paragraph C. INSPECTION of the Accomplishment Instructions in Marshall Aerospace and Defense Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 2, dated December 2015 (SBM 200, Revision 2).
(2) If any cracking or distortion of the brake master cylinder pivot pins is found or the pivot pin fails the dimensional check during any of the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected pivot pin with a serviceable part following paragraph C. INSPECTION of the Accomplishment Instructions in SBM 200, Revision 2.
(3) Replacement of the brake master cylinder pivot pins as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If both brake master cylinder pivot pins are replaced at the same time, the first repetitive inspection after replacement of the pivot pins can be deferred until 1,000 hours TIS after replacement of the pivot pins.
This AD provides credit for any inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD if completed before the effective date of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions of Marshall Aerospace and Defense Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 1, dated April 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2016-0214, dated October 27, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to revise its regulations to require that each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) that currently allocates the costs of real-time uplift due to deviations should allocate such real-time uplift costs only to those market participants whose transactions are reasonably expected to have caused the real-time uplift costs. The Commission also proposes to revise its regulations to enhance transparency by requiring that each RTO/ISO post uplift costs paid (dollars) and operator-initiated commitments (megawatts) on its Web site; and define in its tariff its transmission constraint penalty factors, as well as the circumstances under which those penalty factors can set locational marginal prices, and any procedure for changing those factors.
Comments are due April 10, 2017.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to revise its regulations to address potentially unjust and unreasonable approaches to real-time uplift cost allocation and transparency practices by regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs).
2. While the Commission and RTOs/ISOs have taken steps to reduce the amount of uplift in the energy and ancillary services markets, the complexity inherent in the electric system and limitations in the tools available to maintain reliable operations can lead to system operators taking out-of-market actions to manage reliability. When they do so, energy and ancillary service prices may not reflect the marginal cost of production and some resources may therefore need make-whole payments to ensure recovery of operating costs. Since the limitations in representing the complexity of the electric system in market models are unlikely to ever be fully resolved, uplift costs are also unlikely to be completely eliminated. As a result, RTOs/ISOs need to have a method for allocating these costs to market participants. At the highest level, the allocation of uplift costs should, to the extent possible, encourage behavior that will reduce the need for uplift-creating actions and avoid discouraging market participant behavior that lowers total production costs (
3. Given that RTOs/ISOs are likely going to need to take some out-of-market actions, there is a need to provide transparency regarding those actions and the associated uplift costs. The lack of transparency regarding uplift and operator-initiated commitments,
4. First, we preliminarily find that certain practices of allocating the cost of real-time uplift
5. Second, we preliminarily find that current practices with respect to reporting uplift payments, operator-initiated commitments, and transmission constraint penalty factors
6. The goals of the price formation proceeding are to: (1) Maximize market surplus for consumers and suppliers; (2) provide correct incentives for market participants to follow commitment and dispatch instructions, make efficient investments in facilities and equipment, and maintain reliability; (3) provide transparency so that market participants understand how prices reflect the actual marginal cost of serving load and the operational constraints of reliably operating the system; and (4) ensure that all suppliers have an opportunity to recover their costs.
7. The reforms proposed in this NOPR address two of the Commission's price formation goals. First, the proposed reforms to uplift costs allocated to deviations should improve market participants' incentives to perform in real-time consistent with operator instructions and bid into the day-ahead market and submit day-ahead schedules consistent with expected real-time system conditions. Second, the proposed transparency reforms will help market participants understand how prices reflect the actual marginal cost of serving load and the operational constraints of reliably operating the system.
8. We seek comment on these proposed reforms 60 days after publication of this NOPR in the
9. In June 2014, the Commission initiated a proceeding, in Docket No. AD14-14-000, Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary Services Markets in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, to evaluate issues regarding price formation in the energy and ancillary services markets operated by RTOs/ISOs (Price Formation Proceeding). The notice initiating that proceeding stated that there may be opportunities for the RTOs/ISOs to improve the price formation process in the energy and ancillary services markets. As set forth in the notice, prices used in energy and ancillary services markets ideally “would reflect the true marginal cost of production, taking into account all physical system constraints, and these prices would fully compensate all resources for the variable cost of providing service.”
10. In January 2015, the Commission requested comments on questions that arose from the price formation technical workshops.
11. In November 2015, the Commission issued an order that directed each RTO/ISO to report on these five price formation topics: Fast-start pricing; managing multiple contingencies; look-ahead modeling; uplift allocation; and transparency.
12. In this section, we first provide a brief background on uplift payments and deviations between day-ahead and real-time schedules as a way to determine uplift cost allocation. We
13. Uplift generally refers to payments that RTOs/ISOs make to a resource whose commitment and dispatch result in a shortfall between the costs in a resource's offer and the revenue earned through market clearing prices.
14. In its Order Directing Reports, the Commission asked the RTOs/ISOs to explain whether and how the RTO/ISO allocates real-time energy and ancillary services market uplift costs based on deviations from market participants' day-ahead schedules, and whether deviations that increase the need for actions that cause real-time uplift payments (harming deviations) are netted against deviations that reduce the need for actions that cause real-time uplift payments (helping deviations).
15. In response, most RTOs/ISOs state that they classify certain schedule differences between the day-ahead and real-time markets as deviations and allocate at least some portion of real-time uplift costs to those deviations. Allocation of real-time uplift costs to deviations is the focus of this NOPR because deviations may increase the need for operator actions that cause real-time uplift, such as additional unit commitments in real-time to replace a shortfall in generation or an increase in load compared to the day-ahead market solution. This NOPR does not address other methods of uplift cost allocation, such as allocation to load obligations, and does not propose to require RTOs/ISOs to allocate real-time uplift costs to deviations.
16. All of the RTOs/ISOs state that they use some form of beneficiary pays or cost-causation principles to allocate uplift costs.
17. NYISO generally allocates uplift costs based on the beneficiary pays principle.
18. CAISO explains that it has many categories of uplift, and that it allocates uplift costs to transmission owners (who pass uplift costs to transmission customers), loads, and exports, depending on whether the system operator made the dispatch decision to address transmission constraints, energy imbalance, real-time congestion, or bid cost recovery.
19. ISO-NE states that roughly half of its uplift costs are allocated to deviations, which include generator deviations, load deviations, increment (virtual) deviations, and import deviations.
20. PJM allocates uplift costs incurred for reasons other than reliability to deviations, including cleared virtual bids, transaction deviations, and load deviations.
21. SPP states that it allocates uplift costs based on causation when the cause is identifiable and the cost of doing so does not outweigh the benefit.
22. MISO has a granular approach to allocating uplift costs that it states is based on determining cost-causation where possible. MISO has several categories of uplift, but, for example, MISO's Revenue Sufficiency Guarantee uplift category has six different methodologies for distributing costs based on the reason a resource was committed.
23. Some commenters criticize the practice of allocating uplift costs to real-time deviations from day-ahead schedules. For example, Appian Way asserts that deviations-based approaches to uplift cost allocation create market inefficiencies in the form of unnecessary and inappropriate barriers to market participants accessing the spot market, and also shift the cost responsibility for uplift from load to other market participants.
24. Others, however, support allocating uplift costs to deviations from day-ahead schedules, but argue that such deviations should be netted based on whether they contribute to or alleviate the condition causing uplift.
25. Multiple commenters also recommend the creation of more specific uplift cost allocation categories that are better aligned with cost causation. To this end, some commenters suggest creating a congestion management category that would distinguish uplift incurred for congestion management from uplift incurred for capacity needs or voltage and local reliability and allocate uplift costs accordingly.
26. MISO Market Monitor asserts that uplift costs should be minimized to the extent possible by incorporating reliability requirements into market-based products, but any remaining uplift costs should then be allocated based on cost causation. MISO Market Monitor believes that allocating uplift costs to those that cause it or benefit from it gives market participants an incentive to act to minimize it. MISO Market Monitor also asserts that MISO's uplift cost allocation approach is the best practice in the industry because it determines why the uplift was incurred and allocates the costs accordingly.
27. Allocation of uplift costs to virtual transactions is a contentious issue, and commenters hold disparate opinions. Some commenters argue that virtual transactions contribute to price convergence between the day-ahead and real-time markets, thus reducing, rather than increasing, uplift. They also argue that virtual transactions are easily forced out of the market by added fees, such as uplift. These commenters support either reducing or eliminating the allocation of uplift costs to virtual transactions.
28. Other commenters disagree, arguing that virtual transactions should be allocated uplift costs because they affect day-ahead commitment and dispatch, and thus can impact uplift.
29. CTS transactions are scheduled in real-time by the participating RTO/ISOs
30. Commenters also provide feedback on several other market design mechanisms related to uplift. For example, several commenters discuss the netting of internal bilateral transactions against other deviations when allocating uplift costs in PJM. While some advocate eliminating this market rule,
31. We preliminarily find that some existing RTO/ISO practices of real-time uplift cost allocation to deviations may be unjust and unreasonable. Specifically, these real-time uplift cost allocation practices may result in unjust and unreasonable rates by allocating costs to deviations that could not reasonably be expected to have caused those costs. Allocating costs to deviations that did not cause these costs can inappropriately penalize certain types of transactions that may be beneficial to price formation. We note that the Commission is not proposing to require RTOs/ISOs to allocate any amount of uplift costs to deviations, rather we are simply proposing reforms to uplift cost allocation to deviations to the extent an RTO/ISO chooses to allocate some uplift costs to deviations.
32. While there are several approaches to allocating uplift costs, most RTOs/ISOs allocate at least a portion of real-time uplift costs to market participants that deviate from their day-ahead market schedules. When market participants deviate from their day-ahead schedule, RTOs/ISOs may have to take actions in real-time to address differences between the day-ahead market solution and real-time system conditions. These actions, such as committing additional resources, can result in real-time uplift costs.
33. However, RTOs/ISOs do not always consider whether a deviation likely contributed to increasing or decreasing real-time uplift costs when allocating real-time uplift costs. Deviations from day-ahead market schedules that create the need for additional resource commitments in real-time tend to increase real-time uplift costs. On the other hand, deviations can also contribute to the convergence of the day-ahead and real-time markets by helping to ensure that the day-ahead market solution and the attendant day-ahead schedule reduces the need for system operator actions in real-time. If real-time uplift costs are assigned improperly, such costs may impact market behavior in a manner that limits otherwise beneficial transactions, which in turn may distort prices and market outcomes. This distortion can lead to increased real-time uplift payments, higher overall costs to consumers, and potentially unjust and unreasonable rates.
34. Therefore, we preliminarily find unjust and unreasonable real-time uplift cost allocation rules that fail to distinguish between deviations that help converge day-ahead and real-time markets
35. To remedy the potentially unjust and unreasonable rates resulting from allocating real-time uplift costs to deviations in a manner inconsistent with cost causation, we propose that, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act,
36. This proposal would apply only to real-time uplift costs allocated to deviations. The NOPR does not propose to require that RTOs/ISOs allocate uplift costs to deviations, and we recognize that there are other methods for allocating uplift costs that are not based on deviations, such as allocations based on load obligation. Further, we recognize that there are many causes of uplift and this NOPR does not propose to address the allocation of all uplift costs. Rather, to improve upon existing RTO/ISO cost allocation practices, this NOPR addresses the allocation of uplift costs caused by market participants that deviate from their day-ahead market schedules.
37. Most RTOs/ISOs allocate some real-time uplift costs to deviations, although their methods for doing so vary. We set forth here a definition of deviations to delineate what type of real-time uplift cost allocation is the subject of this NOPR. We propose that deviations are megawatt hour differences between a market participant's scheduled deliveries or receipts at particular points cleared in the day-ahead market and those amounts actually delivered or received at those points in real-time that are not related to real-time economic or reliability-related operator dispatch instructions. We propose that, to the
38. We propose that if an RTO/ISO allocates real-time uplift costs to deviations, it must allocate such costs only to deviations that can reasonably be expected to have caused those costs. Real-time uplift costs are most likely to be incurred when, for various reasons, the day-ahead market clearing process does not schedule sufficient resources to satisfy the system's real-time needs, and instead, RTOs/ISOs must procure additional resources after the day-ahead market has cleared. Market participants that deviate from their day-ahead schedules will either more closely align the day-ahead market solution with actual real-time system needs or contribute to a divergence from the day-ahead solution. Scheduling practices that contribute to these divergences may require operator actions, such as operator-initiated commitments, in real-time.
39. RTO/ISO day-ahead and real-time price signals provide economic incentives to respond to system needs. Allocating real-time uplift costs to deviations consistent with cost causation would help ensure that real-time uplift cost allocation does not discourage or deter behavior that may converge day-ahead and real-time market solutions. By eliminating the allocation of real-time uplift costs to transactions that are beneficial to meeting system needs, this proposal strengthens the economic incentives for market participants to respond to system needs. Further, allocating real-time uplift costs consistent with cost causation rewards the ability to perform in real-time consistent with operator instructions and disciplines forward scheduling practices by encouraging market participants to bid into the day-ahead market and submit day-ahead schedules consistent with expected real-time system conditions.
40. We propose to require each RTO/ISO to categorize real-time uplift costs allocated to deviations into at least two categories based on the reason the uplift cost was incurred: (1) A system-wide capacity category and (2) a congestion management category. The system-wide capacity category would include real-time uplift related to resource commitments made to ensure sufficient system-wide online capacity to meet energy and operating reserve requirements. The congestion management category would include real-time uplift related to resource commitments to manage transmission congestion on specific constraints. Under this proposal, we require that an RTO/ISO establish at least these two categories for real-time uplift cost allocation to deviations, but propose to provide flexibility to an RTO/ISO to establish additional categories.
41. We propose distinguishing the two categories, system-wide capacity and congestion management. The distinction ensures real-time uplift costs are allocated more specifically to the market participant that caused the uplift. Two examples illustrate how delineating these two categories is consistent with cost causation.
42. As a first example, consider a market participant that owns a generator that in real-time produces less than the output set forth in its day-ahead schedule when it did not receive dispatch instructions to do so. That generator's deviation impacted the RTO's/ISO's ability to maintain real-time energy and operating reserve requirements and required a new commitment to make up for the generator's deviation. However, absent impacting the power flows on a system constraint, the generator did not contribute to congestion on any constraint. Such a generator should be allocated real-time uplift costs for capacity but not congestion management. The generator caused a need for more capacity to come online, but did not cause a need to relieve congestion on a constraint.
43. As a second example, suppose that the same generator is owned by a market participant that also serves real-time load. If the market participant reduces its real-time load in an amount that equals the generator's deviation (
44. We request comments on whether the proposed reforms should recognize the need for regional flexibility with regard to the uplift categories. We also request comment on whether other categories should be required.
45. In allocating uplift costs to deviations, we propose to require each RTO/ISO to distinguish between deviations that are “helping” efforts to address system needs and those that are “harming” efforts to address system needs. The particular system need of relevance will depend on the category of uplift costs at issue, as discussed further below. Within each uplift category, uplift costs must be allocated to a market participant's net “harming” deviations,
46. Under the proposed system-wide capacity category, a market participant would be allocated a portion of the total real-time uplift costs incurred to maintain energy and operating reserve requirements in the real-time market based on the net contributions of its deviations to those costs. This method would require an RTO/ISO to determine if each market participant's deviations are, on net, “helping”, by converging the day-ahead scheduled unit commitment and dispatch to the unit commitment and dispatch needed to meet real-time energy and operating reserve requirements, or if they are “harming”, by exacerbating the difference between the day-ahead scheduled unit commitment and dispatch and the unit commitment and dispatch needed to meet real-time energy and operating reserve requirements. For example, if the system operator committed an additional resource to maintain energy and operating reserve requirements in the real-time market, a market participant with net deviations that increased demand (or decreased supply) would be allocated a portion of real-time uplift costs in the system-wide category, while a market participant with net deviations that increased supply (or decreased demand) would not.
47. Under the proposed congestion management category, a market participant would be allocated real-time uplift costs if its net deviations contributed to a difference between the congestion on a specific constraint in the day-ahead market and the real-time congestion on that constraint. This method would require an RTO/ISO to determine if each market participant's deviations are, on net, “helping”, by converging day-ahead and real-time congestion patterns, or if they are “harming”, by exacerbating the difference between day-ahead and real-time congestion on a constraint. Market participants would be allocated real-time uplift costs in this category only if their net deviations are harming by contributing to differences between day-ahead and real-time congestion on a constraint.
48. For netting within this congestion management category, we propose to require each RTO/ISO to determine real-time uplift cost allocation based on the net impact of a market participant's deviations on a constraint. To make this determination, an RTO/ISO should net the deviations that relieve real-time congestion on the constraint with those that contribute to it.
49. Deviations caused by non-market transactions (such as internal bilateral transactions) would not be netted in either the proposed system-wide capacity category or the proposed congestion management category because they take place outside of the day-ahead and real-time markets. Transactions that take place outside of the markets do not affect real-time scheduling or dispatch and therefore should not offset transactions that do affect real-time scheduling or dispatch.
50. We seek comment on whether there should be advanced notification requirements in determining helpful deviations. That is, is there a period of time prior to the operating hour at which a deviation should no longer be considered helpful because notification of the deviation was provided to the RTO/ISO too close to the operating hour? If so, we seek comment on what the advanced notification requirement should be.
51. Based on the discussion above and consistent with the proposed definition of deviations, we clarify that if the RTO/ISO instructs a resource to deviate from its day-ahead schedule, be that a market-based or out-of-market instruction, that resource would not be regarded as deviating for purposes of this NOPR, and should not be allocated real-time deviation-related uplift costs, because it is helping to address differences between the day-ahead market solution and real-time system needs.
52. Consistent with this clarification, first, we propose that an RTO/ISO may not allocate deviation-related real-time uplift costs to a transaction that is economically evaluated by the RTO/ISO in the real-time market. Such transactions include real-time energy transactions and CTS transactions. Such real-time transactions are responding to real-time market price signals and are not deviations for the purposes of this NOPR. These transactions are helping to address real-time system needs and allocating real-time deviation-related uplift costs to such transactions could distort incentives to respond to these signals. Conversely, transactions that are not economically evaluated in the real-time market and do not have day-ahead schedules, such as self-scheduled real-time transactions, should be treated as deviations for the purposes of allocating real-time deviation-related uplift costs.
53. Second, consistent with this clarification, we further propose that instructed deviations (those initiated by the RTO/ISO) are not deviations for the purposes of allocating real-time uplift costs, and therefore, an RTO/ISO may not allocate real-time uplift costs based on deviations that result from a market participant following a reliability- related dispatch instruction. Following such a dispatch instruction, by definition, helps the system. Allocating real-time uplift costs to market participants who follow dispatch instructions unfairly penalizes market participants that are responding to system needs in real-time. Further, assessing real-time uplift costs to such deviations could discourage a market participant from following dispatch instructions. At times of system stress, it is essential that resources follow dispatch instructions. For instance, an RTO/ISO may issue out-of-market dispatch instructions or deploy reserves to address immediate reliability issues. A resource that responds to such an RTO/ISO instruction performs an essential reliability function and should not be allocated real-time deviation-related uplift costs for following the dispatch instruction.
54. By excluding instructed deviations from the definition of a deviation, the Commission is also proposing that instructed deviations would not be used in any `helping' and `harming' netting process. We seek comment on whether instructed deviations should be included in any netting calculations.
55. Regarding settlement of uplift costs, under both the system-wide capacity category and the congestion management category, we propose to require RTOs/ISOs to allocate and net real-time uplift costs on an hourly basis. RTOs/ISOs typically allocate uplift costs either hourly or daily. Hourly allocation would most closely align the imposition of costs with the incentives to behave efficiently in the market, since the costs of real-time uplift and the actions that cause that real-time uplift can and usually do change from hour to hour. Under hourly cost allocation, the costs for real-time uplift during a particular hour are allocated only to those market participants that contribute to the need for that uplift in that hour.
56. We recognize that considering real-time uplift cost allocation to deviations for system-wide capacity and congestion management separately may require a method for dividing costs between the two categories for circumstances in which real-time uplift is incurred for the benefit of both categories (
57. In this section, we first provide a brief background on the benefits of transparency in the wholesale electric power markets operated by RTOs/ISOs with respect to reporting uplift, operator-initiated commitments, and transmission constraint penalty factors. We then review current RTO/ISO practices with regard to reporting uplift and operator-initiated commitments, and summarize comments on transparency requirements, frequency of reporting, type of uplift information to be reported, inclusion of reasons for uplift or operator-initiated commitments, granularity with respect to location, and the inclusion of transmission constraint penalty factors in RTO/ISO tariffs. Then, we explain the
58. Visibility into the process by which prices are developed in energy and ancillary services markets supports the functioning of efficient markets by enhancing predictability, identifying system needs, and facilitating investment decisions. Moreover, understanding how RTOs/ISOs calculate prices and how events impact those prices is critical to hedging, investment, and resource entry and exit decisions. While all RTOs/ISOs release some information, either through periodic reports or making data available on their Web sites, as discussed below, there is significant variation in the timing, granularity, and types of data released.
59. All RTOs/ISOs report information about uplift payments. However, the extent of the information reported varies widely. For example, ISO-NE and NYISO provide monthly reports of uplift that generally provide information that is aggregated across zones and over the month.
60. RTO/ISO reporting practices are driven, in part, by the time needed to complete the settlement process. Some settlement periods last three to five business days and CAISO provides uplift cost information based on its 12-business day recalculation statement, although the settlement period is shorter.
61. Most RTOs/ISOs cite confidentiality issues as an additional reason for their current reporting practices, particularly in regions with few market participants.
62. It is worth noting that market participants with market-based and traditional cost of service rate authority are required to report uplift payments in the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR). Pursuant to EQR reporting requirements, uplift payments are required to be reported at a granular level. Those reporting requirements require market participants to report when the uplift payment changes. Because many resources are commercially organized as stand-alone limited liability corporations, many individual resources report uplift payments to EQR within 30 days following the end of a quarter. While EQR provides a significant amount of information, it does not provide detailed information regarding uplift. For example, EQR contains only a single “uplift” category which does not differentiate between different types of uplift (
63. RTOs/ISOs also vary in the amount, granularity, and timing of information that is reported on operator-initiated commitments. For example, CAISO, MISO, and NYISO provide information regarding operator-initiated commitments either shortly after the operating day or in near real-time. CAISO and MISO both report total operator-initiated commitments aggregated across the RTO/ISO, including the reasons for the commitments.
64. In addition, all RTOs/ISOs provide summary reports of operator-initiated commitments over longer time periods. CAISO's monthly performance report provides metrics on exceptional dispatch
65. PJM states that, although its confidentiality provisions prevent it from reporting individual operator-initiated commitments in real-time, it
66. Transmission constraint penalty factors are the values at which an RTO's/ISO's market software will relax the flow-based limit on a transmission element to relieve a constraint caused by that limit rather than re-dispatch resources to relieve the constraint. The cost of re-dispatching resources can be regarded as the re-dispatch price. Transmission constraint penalty factors represent the maximum re-dispatch price that the system will pay before allowing flows to exceed a given transmission element's limit.
67. Various commenters recommend reporting of uplift and operator-initiated commitments that is more regular, more geographically granular, more specific about the size of the action (in MW), and/or more informative of the reason for uplift or operator action. Numerous commenters argue that such reporting about uplift and operator-initiated commitments should be mandatory.
68. In terms of frequency, some commenters recommend monthly reporting of uplift to improve transparency.
Several commenters request more granular locational information regarding uplift.
69. Commenters have differing views on what uplift information should be reported. PSEG Companies argue that uplift can be effectively reported on a dollar basis.
70. EPSA/IPPNY warns that reporting uplift more frequently than daily could potentially reveal confidential information.
71. Several commenters recommend monthly reporting of operator-initiated actions, including the reasons for out-of-market actions, to improve
72. Some commenters also suggest that RTOs/ISOs report operator-initiated commitments closer to real-time. In particular, PSEG Companies suggest that NYISO's approach to disclosing out-of-market commitment and dispatch decisions should be considered a best practice.
74. Several commenters request more granular locational information regarding out-of-market operator actions.
75. The MISO Market Monitor asserts that transmission constraint penalty factors substantially affect market outcomes but are not filed with or approved by the Commission for some RTOs/ISOs. MISO Market Monitor adds that increasing transmission constraint penalty factors during real-time operations to relieve constraints may indicate that constraints were undervalued previously, and lowering transmission constraint penalty factors during real-time operations may indicate that the RTO/ISO is attempting to manually reduce congestion costs. MISO Market Monitor contends that these concerns can be addressed by: (1) Establishing parameters that reflect the reliability value of managing the constraints, which likely varies by constraint; (2) filing these values in the RTO's/ISO's tariffs so they are known and approved by the Commission; and (3) filing tariff provisions that specify the procedures and authority for RTOs/ISOs to modify transmission constraint penalty factors.
76. XO Energy states that transmission constraint penalty factors can have a significant impact on prices; however, there is not necessarily clear insight as to how transmission constraint penalty factors are determined or calculated in the pricing and dispatch algorithms.
77. We preliminarily find that some existing RTO/ISO practices of reporting uplift, operator-initiated commitments, and transmission constraint penalty factors may result in unjust and unreasonable rates. The lack of transparency regarding uplift and operator-initiated commitments, which can cause uplift, hinders market participants' ability to plan and efficiently respond to system needs. Market participants may lack the information necessary to evaluate the need for and value of additional investment, such as transmission upgrades or new generation. Also, without sufficient transparency, market participants may not be able to assess each RTO's/ISO's operator-initiated commitment practices and raise any issues of concern through the stakeholder process.
78. Reporting that specifies the location and causes of uplift and operator-initiated commitments will help incent appropriate market responses to system needs. For example, if resources are routinely committed out-of-market to resolve a local voltage issue and require uplift payments as a result, it may be beneficial to release information on the uplift associated with using such resources to alert market participants about the problem. Providing more detailed information about the uplift incurred to address a local reliability issue could potentially incent market participants to advocate for changes to the RTO/ISO's operational procedures or to undertake investments that could resolve the local reliability issue more efficiently (
79. While all RTOs/ISOs provide some information regarding the locations and causes of uplift and operator-initiated commitments, the information is often highly aggregated or lacks detail, limiting its usefulness. Information about the location and causes of uplift and operator-initiated commitments that is overly aggregated or lacks detail hinders the ability of a market participation to evaluate RTO/ISO operating practices and potentially respond to system needs by undertaking new investments. For example, reports that aggregate uplift payments over the month may not provide sufficient information, since monthly reports can obscure daily trends, which may be more relevant to those evaluating operating practices or potential investments. Therefore, increasing transparency with respect to the location and cause of uplift can provide market participants additional information to evaluate the effectiveness of current operating practices. Without sufficient information to evaluate existing operating practices or the need for additional investment, market efficiency may be reduced, resulting in unjust and unreasonable rates. Allowing market participants to better evaluate the need for changes in operating practices or additional investment could ultimately reduce the level of uplift, thereby resulting in rates that are just and reasonable.
80. Similarly, the lack of transparency with respect to transmission constraint penalty factors may hinder the ability of market participants to undertake efficient transactions. For example, if market participants are unaware of what transmission constraint penalty factors are used and whether they will be used to set LMPs, market participants may not be able to adequately understand how an RTO's/ISO's actions affect clearing prices and thus may not be able to hedge transactions appropriately or effectively assess the RTO's/ISO's actions and raise concerns through the stakeholder process. Without the ability to appropriately hedge transactions, market participants may either over-hedge or under-hedge their positions, reducing market efficiency. Also, if market participants are not able to raise concerns about changes in transmission constraint penalty factors, RTOs/ISOs may alter transmission constraint penalty factors more often than necessary, which impacts market clearing prices. Therefore, the resulting rates may be unjust and unreasonable.
81. Some RTOs/ISOs report that there are a variety of stakeholder initiatives and discussions underway to improve transparency,
82. To remedy these potentially unjust and unreasonable reporting practices, we propose, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, to require that each RTO/ISO: (1) Report total uplift payments for each transmission zone on a monthly basis, broken out by day and uplift category; (2) report total uplift payments for each resource on a monthly basis; (3) report the MW of operator-initiated commitments in or near real-time and after the close of the day-ahead market, broken out by zone and commitment reason; and (4) list in its tariff the transmission constraint penalty factors, the circumstances under which they can set LMPs, and the procedure by which they can be temporarily changed.
83. We propose to require that, within 20 days of the end of each month, each RTO/ISO post on its Web site two reports, at minimum, regarding uplift payments. First, the RTO/ISO should report the total uplift payments in dollars paid daily to the resources in each transmission zone, subject to certain exceptions described below. Each RTO/ISO must post the total amount of uplift in dollars in each category (
84. Information on uplift payments should be posted in a machine readable format on a publicly accessible portion of the RTO's/ISO's Web site. With this information, market participants may be able to evaluate possible solutions to reduce the incurrence of uplift. For example, with more granular information on the location, amounts, and types of uplift, market participants can better evaluate the benefits of additional transmission upgrades that could reduce the need for unit commitments.
85. We also propose to define “transmission zone” as a geographic area that is used for the local allocation of charges. For example, this could include a load zone that is used to settle charges for energy. We request comments on this proposed definition of transmission zone, including the appropriate level of geographic granularity.
86. Regarding the timeliness of posting this information, we recognize that each RTO/ISO has a different settlement window and uplift is finalized during the settlement process. As such, it is not possible for an RTO/ISO to release information immediately at the end of the month. In order to account for differences in settlement periods and the time necessary to prepare the uplift data for publication, we propose to require that both reports described above be released no later than 20 calendar days following the end of the month. While we believe this is a reasonable timeframe for release, we seek comment on the timeframe for releasing the information after the end of each month. In addition, we seek comment on the proposed requirement for a daily breakdown of uplift categories by charge code, including any obstacles or difficulties related to such reporting and whether different categorizations would be more useful.
87. Many commenters express concern that greater transparency in uplift reporting could unintentionally disclose a resource's uplift payments or energy offers, which some characterize as confidential or commercially-sensitive information. Commenters' core concerns appear to relate to two issues: first, that disclosing a resource's uplift payments will allow other market participants to calculate energy offers and may result in collusion between market participants.
88. While we understand the need to protect certain types of information, we are not persuaded that revealing a resource's daily uplift payments or energy offer, after some minimal time lag, would result in any significant harm to competition or individual market participants. First, many individual resources already publicly report their uplift payments pursuant to Electric Quarterly Reporting requirements (with a 90-day lag). Second, RTO/ISO energy markets are mitigated, so concerns about the potential for collusion can be addressed through must offer requirements and market power mitigation rules. Third, after the 20-day lag for reporting following the end of the month, fuel costs and other conditions have often changed, diminishing the potential usefulness of any resource offer information. These three factors limit the potential for anti-competitive behavior and any harm to market participants.
89. Nevertheless, to address commenters' concerns, we seek to balance the benefits of greater transparency with the desire to preserve a reasonable level of confidentiality. Specifically, for the reporting requirements aggregated by transmission zone, we propose that transmission zones with fewer than four resources need not be reported individually; rather, transmission zones with fewer than four resources may be aggregated with a neighboring transmission zone and reported collectively. If only one transmission zone exists and it has fewer than four resources or, if when combined with a neighboring transmission zone the combined transmission zone still has fewer than four resources, then these transmission zones would be exempted from reporting the uplift information described above. Similarly, for the resource-specific reporting requirements proposed above, we will require that uplift payment data for each resource be aggregated across the month, rather than reporting daily uplift payments to each resource. We expect that this temporal aggregation should mask daily behavior that some commenters have expressed concerns over revealing.
90. We also propose to require that each RTO/ISO post all operator-initiated commitments on its Web site. For the purposes of this NOPR, we propose to define operator-initiated commitments as a commitment that is not associated
91. The report posted on each RTO's/ISO's Web site would include the following: (1) The upper economic operating limit of the committed resource in MW (
92. Many commenters express concern about the lack of transparency surrounding operator-initiated commitments and request that the Commission require RTOs/ISOs to provide more information.
93. While most commenters focus on reporting of manual operator-initiated commitments (
94. In addition, we propose that real-time commitments be posted as soon as practicable after they occur, but no later than four hours after the commitment. We understand that this type of reporting could require significant changes to current RTO/ISO systems and processes. Accordingly, we seek comment on the proposed reporting timeframe, including the potential software upgrades necessary to facilitate reporting in near real-time and other potential implementation challenges. We also seek comment on whether a different reporting timeframe (
95. We also understand that reporting the reason for an operator-initiated commitment may require the development of new internal processes. In particular, we understand that the reasons for operator-initiated commitments can vary based on the particular situation. Therefore, our proposal would only require RTOs/ISOs to report the commitment reason within broad categories (
96. We propose to require that all RTOs/ISOs include certain provisions related to transmission constraint penalty factors in their tariffs because transmission constraint penalty factors can significantly impact market clearing prices.
97. First, we propose to require that all RTOs/ISOs include their transmission constraint penalty factor values in their tariffs. This requirement would only apply to penalty factors used for transmission constraints and would not include other penalty factors used in commitment and dispatch algorithms. If the RTO/ISO uses different transmission constraint penalty factors for different processes, we propose to require that all sets of transmission constraint penalty factors be included in the tariff. For example, if an RTO/ISO uses different transmission constraint penalty factors in its security constrained unit commitment and its security constrained economic dispatch, it should include both sets of transmission constraint penalty factors in its tariff.
98. Second, we propose to require that RTOs/ISOs include in their tariffs an explanation as to if and when transmission constraint penalty factors may be used to set LMPs. If the RTO/ISO has different processes for allowing transmission constraint penalty factors to set LMPs in different circumstances, this should be explained in the tariff. As part of its explanation, the RTO/ISO should also make clear whether there are any specific restrictions or
99. Finally, if RTOs/ISOs wish to have the flexibility to temporarily change transmission constraint penalty factors to account for changes in system conditions, they must include the procedures for doing so in their tariffs. We also propose to require these procedures to include a requirement that notice of the temporary change be provided to market participants. For example, an RTO/ISO could notify market participants of the temporary change by posting on its Web site.
100. We seek comment on whether additional reporting of transmission outages should be required. Transmission outages can affect RTO/ISO commitment and dispatch decisions and resulting market clearing prices, and thus are an important facet of price formation. Though the current record on this issue is limited, we seek comment as to whether additional transparency in this regard would be beneficial to stakeholders and if RTOs/ISOs have any limitations in providing more detailed data in this regard, including any appropriate time lag for reporting.
101. Some commenters indicate that distribution of the network model may be limited to certain market participants.
102. We propose to require that each RTO/ISO submit a compliance filing within 90 days of the effective date of any eventual Final Rule in this proceeding to demonstrate that it meets the proposed requirements set forth in the Final Rule. We note that this compliance deadline is for RTOs/ISOs to submit proposed tariff changes or otherwise demonstrate compliance with the Final Rule. We understand that implementing the reforms required by any Final Rule in this proceeding may be a complex endeavor. However, we preliminarily find that implementation of these reforms is important to ensure rates are just and reasonable. Therefore, we propose that tariff changes filed in response to a Final Rule in this proceeding must become effective no more than six months after compliance filings are due.
103. We seek comment on whether 90 days is sufficient time for RTOs/ISOs to develop new tariff language in response to the Final Rule.
104. To the extent that any RTO/ISO believes that it already complies with the reforms proposed in this NOPR, the RTO/ISO would be required to demonstrate how it complies in the compliance filing required 90 days after the effective date of any Final Rule in this proceeding. To the extent that any RTO/ISO believes that its existing market rules are consistent with or superior to the reforms adopted in any Final Rule, the Commission will entertain those at that time.
105. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
106. The reforms proposed in this NOPR would amend the Commission's regulations to improve the operation of organized wholesale electric power markets operated by RTOs/ISOs. The Commission proposes to require each RTO/ISO that allocates the costs of real-time uplift due to deviations should allocate such real-time uplift costs to only those market participants whose transactions are reasonably expected to have caused the real-time uplift. The Commission also proposes to revise its regulations to enhance transparency by requiring that each RTO/ISO post uplift costs paid (dollars) and operator-initiated commitments (megawatts) on its Web site; and define in its tariff its transmission constraint penalty factors, as well as the circumstances in which the penalty factors can set locational marginal prices, and any procedure for changing the penalty factors. The reforms proposed in this NOPR would require one-time filings of tariffs with the Commission and potential software upgrades to implement the reforms proposed in this NOPR. The Commission anticipates the reforms proposed in this NOPR, once implemented, would not significantly change currently existing burdens on an ongoing basis. The Commission will submit the proposed reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
107. While the Commission expects the adoption of the reforms proposed in this NOPR to provide significant benefits, the Commission understands implementation can be a complex endeavor. The Commission solicits public comments on its need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of burden and cost estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
108. Public Reporting Burden Estimate and Information Collection Costs: The Commission believes that the burden estimates that follow are representative of the average burden on respondents, including necessary communications with stakeholders.
Legal (code 23-0000), $129.12
Computer and Mathematical (code 15-0000), $60.63
Information Security Analyst (code 15-1122), $58.08
Accountant and Auditor (code 13-2011), $53.86
Information and Record Clerk (code 43-4199), $37.75
Electrical Engineer (code 17-2071), $64.29
Economist (code 19-3011), $74.53
Computer and Information Systems Manager (code 11-3021), $91.76
Management (code 11-0000), $89.07
The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits), weighting all of these skill sets evenly, is $73.23. For the calculations here, the Commission rounds it to $73 per hour.
109.
110. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
111. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
112. This rule would apply to six RTOs/ISOs (all of which are transmission organizations). The average estimated annual cost to each of the RTOs/ISOs is $73,000. The RTOs/ISOs are not small entities, as defined by the RFA.
113. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to
114. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
115. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
116. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
117. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
118. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
119. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 35, Chapter 1, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(g) * * *
(11)
(ii)
(B)
(C)
The following appendix will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction and extension of time for public comments.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is correcting a notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published December 16, 2016 at 81 FR 91556 is extended until May 15, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods:
In response to requests from multiple parties, USACE is extending the time for public comments by 90 days. The date listed in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces EPA's receipt of several initial filings of
Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the Pesticide Petition Number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, 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).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Juneau Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Juneau AK. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held February 15, 2017, 6:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at Juneau Ranger District Office, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, 6 p.m.-8 p.m. If unable to attend in person, a bridge line will be set up. Call into the conference at 907-586-9398 during the meeting hours.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Karen Maher, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-789-6267 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Discuss and decide on funding for any submitted project proposals.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by February 10, 2017 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Karen Maher, RAC Coordinator, Juneau Ranger District, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801; by email to
Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Clyde and Green Springs, Ohio within Subzone 8I. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on January 27, 2017.
Whirlpool already has authority to produce standard and high capacity washing machines using certain imported components within Subzone 8I. The current request would add foreign status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Whirlpool from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Whirlpool would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the washing machines and related parts in the company's existing scope of authority (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.7%) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Plastic (PVC) inlet hoses; endless transmission belts; spring and support assemblies; and, knob assemblies (duty rate ranges from 2.8 to 3.9%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 20, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is simultaneously initiating, and issuing the preliminarily results of, a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). We preliminary determine that Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yihua Tech”) is the successor-in-interest to Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (“Yihua Timber”) for purposes of the AD order on WBF from the PRC and, as such, is entitled to Yihua Timber's cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective February 7, 2017.
Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.
On January 5, 2005, the Department published the AD order on WBF from the PRC.
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture, subject to certain exceptions.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and the Department's regulations (19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In the past, the Department has used CCRs to address the applicability of cash deposit rates after there have been changes in the name of a respondent, (“successor-in-interest” or “successorship” determinations). The information submitted by Yihua Tech claiming that it is Yihua Timber's successor-in-interest relates to a name change. Specifically, Yihua Tech reported that effective May 17, 2016, the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce approved Yihua Tech's change of name from Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. to Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd., and approved a minor modification to Yihua Timber's business scope.
When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results of a CCR concurrently.
In a CCR, we generally consider a company to be the successor to another company for AD cash deposit purposes if the operations of the successor are not materially dissimilar from those of its predecessor.
In its CCR Request (and its Amendment,) Yihua Tech provided evidence demonstrating that its operations are not materially dissimilar from those of its predecessor.
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”).
Unless extended, consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this changed-circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated or within 45 days if all parties agree to the outcome of the review. We intend to issue and publish this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3) of the Department's regulations.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is simultaneously
Effective February 7, 2017.
Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.
On December 8, 2011, the Department published the AD and CVD orders of wooding flooring from the PRC.
The merchandise covered by the orders includes wood flooring, subject to certain exceptions. Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and the Department's regulations (19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review of an order upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In the past, the Department has used CCRs to address the applicability of cash deposit rates after there have been changes in the name of a respondent, (“successor-in-interest” or “successorship” determinations). The information submitted by Yihua Tech claiming that it is Yihua Timber's successor-in-interest relates to a name change. Specifically, Yihua Tech reported that effective May 17, 2016, the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce approved Yihua Tech's change of name from Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. to Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd., and approved a minor modification to Yihua Timber's business scope.
When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results of a CCR concurrently.
In a CCR, we generally consider a company to be the successor to another company for AD cash deposit purposes if the operations of the successor are not materially dissimilar from those of its predecessor.
In its CCR Request (and its Amendment), Yihua Tech provided evidence demonstrating that its operations are not materially dissimilar from those of its predecessor.
As a general rule, in a CVD CCR, the Department will make an affirmative CVD successorship finding (
As explained in greater detail in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we find no evidence of significant changes between Yihua Tech's and Yihua Timber's operations, ownership, or its corporate or legal structure that could have had an impact on Yihua Tech's subsidies levels. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that Yihua Tech is the successor-in-interest to Yihua Timber and, as such, that it is entitled to Yihua Timber's CVD cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise.
Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assign entries of subject merchandise exported by Yihua Tech the AD and CVD cash-deposit rates applicable to Yihua Timber, effective the date of publication of the final results.
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's
Unless extended, consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of these changed-circumstances reviews no later than 270 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated or within 45 days if all parties agree to the outcome of the reviews. We intend to issue and publish this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3) of the Departments regulations.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public hearings and webinar.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold nine public hearings/scoping workshops and two webinars to solicit public comments on Coral 7/Shrimp 17B.
The public hearings will be held February 21—March 21, 2017. The meetings will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. For specific dates and times, see
The public documents can be obtained by contacting the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; (813) 348-1630 or on their Web site at
Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The agenda for the following nine hearings and two webinars are as follows: Council staff will brief the public on (1) Shrimp Amendment 17—Yield, Threshold Number or Permits, and Transit Provisions and (2) Coral Amendment 7—Recommended Coral Areas Identified as Priority Habitats for Management Consideration in the Gulf of Mexico. Staff will then open the meeting for questions and public comments. The schedule is as follows:
Amendment 7—Coral
Amendment 17B—Shrimp
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 8, 2017 6:00 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831.
Melyssa P. Noe, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 2001, EM-942, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the information collection FERC-725R (Mandatory Reliability Standards: BAL Reliability Standards) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due by April 10, 2017.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. RD17-1-000) by the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Total
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, Commission staff has prepared this final General Conformity Determination (GCD) for the Atlantic Sunrise Project (Project) proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Transco).
The FERC staff concludes that the Project would achieve conformity with the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan in Lancaster County through the transfer of Emission Reduction Credits.
The Project would involve the construction and operation of about 199.4 miles of pipeline facilities and appurtenant aboveground facilities, including:
• 185.9 miles of new natural gas pipeline in Columbia, Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania (58.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter and 127.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline);
• 11.0 miles of new pipeline looping in Clinton and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania (2.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter and 8.5 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline);
• 2.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline replacements in Prince William County, Virginia;
• two new compressor stations in Columbia and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania (Compressor Stations 610 and 605);
• additional compression and related modifications to two existing compressor stations in Columbia and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania (Compressor Stations 517 and 520) and one in Howard County, Maryland (Compressor Station 190);
• other modifications would be taking place at Compressor Stations 145, 150, 155, 160, 170, 185, and 190 across Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia;
• two new meter stations and three new regulator stations would be constructed and operated in Pennsylvania. There would also be modifications at an existing meter station, and the construction and operation of additional ancillary facilities would occur in Pennsylvania; and
• in North Carolina and South Carolina, supplemental odorization, odor detection, and/or odor masking/deodorization equipment would be installed at 56 meter stations, regulator stations, and ancillary facilities.
For additional information on the Project, the public can view the final environmental impact statement on our Web site at
For further information, contact Eric Tomasi by telephone at 202-502-8097 or by email at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file any motion to intervene, protest, comments, and/or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which information has been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the information received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under
Information received about the following chemical substance(s) and/or mixture(s) is provided in Unit IV.:
Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the
A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this
EPA's dockets are available electronically at
As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the information received by EPA:
2.
3.
4.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which information has been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the information received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under
Information about the following chemical substance(s) and/or mixture(s) is provided in Unit IV.:
Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the
A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this
EPA's dockets are available electronically at
As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the information received by EPA:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Request for exemption from testing requirements.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) numbers and the file symbols of interest as shown in the body of this notice, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; 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).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
7 U.S.C. 136
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice announces the 30-day period for submission of requests for ONC-Approved Accreditor (ONC-AA) status.
The 30-day submission period begins February 7, 2017 and will end on March 9, 2017.
Alicia Morton, Director, ONC Health IT Certification Program, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), 202-690-7151.
In accordance with 45 CFR 170.503(f)(2), an ONC-Approved Accreditor's (ONC-AA's) status will expire not later than 3 years from the date its status was granted by the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (National Coordinator). The American National Standards Institute's (ANSI's) status as the ONC-AA for certifying bodies under the ONC Health IT Certification Program will expire on June 6, 2017. To ensure the continuity of the accreditation process and the ongoing responsibilities of the ONC-AA under the ONC Health IT Certification Program, we are seeking requests for ONC-AA status for the 3-year term that would follow the term of the current ONC-AA (ANSI). Accordingly, this notice is issued pursuant to § 170.503(b), which requires the National Coordinator to publish a notice in the
(1) A detailed description of the accreditation organization's conformance to ISO/IEC17011:2004 (incorporated by reference in § 170.599) and experience evaluating the conformance of certification bodies to ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 (incorporated by reference in § 170.599);
(2) A detailed description of the accreditation organization's accreditation requirements, as well as how those requirements would complement the Principles of Proper Conduct for ONC-Authorized Certification Bodies (ONC-ACBs) and ensure the surveillance approaches used by ONC-ACBs include the use of consistent, objective, valid, and reliable methods;
(3) Detailed information on the accreditation organization's procedures that would be used to monitor ONC-ACBs;
(4) Detailed information, including education and experience, about the key personnel who review organizations for accreditation; and
(5) Procedures for responding to, and investigating, complaints against ONC-ACBs.
Requests for ONC-AA status may be submitted by email to
42 U.S.C. 300jj-11.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for a new collection. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before March 9, 2017.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request Title and document identifier 0990-New-30D for reference.
Based upon these findings, in June, 2014, the HHS Office on Women's
OWH has contracted with LTG Associates to conduct formative research to evaluate the effectiveness, utility and impact of this on-line lactation worksite resource and to heighten visibility and identify opportunities for effective dissemination.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
The times and topics are subject to change. Please refer to the posted agenda for any updates.
Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (770) 488-3210 as soon as possible.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, February 03, 2017, 10:00 a.m. to February 03, 2017, 03:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting time to 10:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March 02, 2017, 12:00 p.m. to March 02, 2017, 04:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, 7W538, Rockville, MD, 20850 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting to March 8, 2017 from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Institutes of Health.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Ms. Mikia P. Currie, Project Clearance Branch, Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, NIH, Rockledge 1 Building, Room 3505, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-7974, or call non-toll-free number (301) 435-0941, or Email your request, including your address to:
The Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the NIH has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Revision, OMB 0925-0002, Expiration Date 10/31/2018. Form numbers: PHS 2590, PHS 416-7, PHS 2271, PHS 3734, PHS 6031-1, and HHS 568. This collection represents a consolidation of post-award reporting requirements under the PRA, including the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR). This collection includes the proposed additional reporting requirements for clinical trials.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 519,408.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, February 03, 2017, 10:00 a.m. to February 03, 2017, 03:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting time to 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Ms. Mikia P. Currie, Project Clearance Branch, Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, NIH, Rockledge 1 Building, Suite 350, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-7974, or call non-toll-free number (301) 435-0941, or Email your request, including your address to:
The Office of the Director, NIH, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the NIH has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,150,389.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, February 27, 2017, 08:00 a.m. to February 28, 2017, 12:00 p.m., Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 1700 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA, 22102 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the name of the meeting to NCI R03/R21 SEP-4. The meeting is closed to the public.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and its working groups will meet to discuss various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. The meetings will be open to the public.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and its working groups are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., and the full Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday, March 23, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Please note that these meetings may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meetings will be held at The U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Room 6I10-01-C, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509 (
Attendees at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters who are U.S. citizens will be required to pre-register no later than 5 p.m. on March 14, 2017, to be admitted to the meeting. This pre-registration should include your name, telephone number, and company or group with which you are affiliated. Non-US citizens will be required to pre-register no later than 5 p.m. on March 01, 2017, to be admitted to the meeting. This pre-registration should include name, country of citizenship, passport and expiration date, or diplomatic
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments for distribution to Committee members must be submitted no later than March 01, 2017, if you want Committee members to review your comments before the meeting. Written comments may be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1128, fax 202-372-8385 or
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code Appendix.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under authority of section 310 of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, codified at Title 46, United States Code, section 8108, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by the Commandant. The Committee shall also review and comment on proposed Coast Guard regulations and policies relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards; may be given special assignments by the Secretary and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private sector and with State or local governments; and shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
The agenda for the March 22, 2017 meeting is as follows:
(1) The full Committee will meet briefly to discuss the working groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 3(a)-(g) below.
(2) Public comment period.
(3) Working groups will separately address the following task statements which are available for viewing at
(a) Task Statement 58, Communication between external stakeholders and the mariner credentialing program, as it relates to the National Maritime Center;
(b) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers rulemaking;
(c) Task Statement 89, Review and update of the International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC.1014, “Guidelines on Fatigue Mitigation and Management”;
(d) Task Statement 94, Review the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee recommendations with a view to evaluating their current relevance;
(e) Task Statement 95, Recommendations Regarding Training Requirements for Officer Endorsements for Master or Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels, except Assistance Towing and Apprentice Mate (Steersman) of Towing Vessels, in Inland Service;
(f) Task Statement 96, Review and comment on the course and program approval requirements including 46 CFR 10.402, 10.403, 10.407 and NVIC 03-14 guidelines for approval of training courses and programs;
(g) Task Statement 97, Develop and recommend the specifications for a Designated Examiner, Qualified Assessor and Designated Medical Examiner online verification tool so that the public, mariners and shipping companies, can verify the Designated Examiner, Quality Assessor and Designated Medical Examiners for Coast Guard approval of individuals to perform the functions of those positions.
(4) Reports of working groups. At the end of the day, the working groups will report to the full Committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full Committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any official action taken as a result of these working group meetings will be taken on day two of the meeting.
(5) Public comment period.
(6) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 23, 2017, full Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction.
(2) Swear in newly appointed Committee members.
(3) Remarks from Coast Guard Leadership.
(4) Designated Federal Officer announcements.
(5) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
(6) Reports from the following working groups:
(a) Task Statement 58, Communication between external stakeholders and the mariner credentialing program, as it relates to the National Maritime Center;
(b) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers rulemaking;
(c) Task Statement 89, Review and update of International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC/Circ.1014, “Guidelines on Fatigue Mitigation and Management”;
(d) Task Statement 94, Review the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee recommendations with a view to evaluating their current relevance;
(e) Task Statement 95, Review Firefighting Training Requirements for Officer Endorsements for Master or Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels, except Assistance Towing and Apprentice Mate (Steersman) of Towing Vessels, in Inland Service;
(f) Task Statement 96, Review and comment on the course and program approval requirements including 46 CFR 10.402, 10.403, 10.407 and NVIC 03-14 guidelines for approval of training courses and programs;
(g) Task Statement 97, Develop and recommend the specifications for a Designated Examiner, Qualified Assessor and Designated Medical Examiner online verification tool so that the public, mariners and shipping companies can verify the Designated Examiner, Qualified Assessor and Designated Medical Examiners for Coast Guard approval of individuals to perform the functions of those positions;
(7) Other items for discussion:
(a) Report on the Implementation of the 2010 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping;
(b) Report on National Maritime Center activities from the National Maritime Center Commanding Officer, such as the net processing time it takes for mariners to receive their credentials after application submittal;
(c) Report on Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division activities, such as its current initiatives and projects;
(d) Report on International Maritime Organization/International Labor Organization issues related to the merchant marine industry; and
(e) Briefings about on-going Coast Guard projects related to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine.
(8) New Business
(a) New task statement—“Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for Standards for Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping and National Certifications”; and
(b) New task statement—“Person in Charge of Inland Towing Vessels”.
(9) Public comment period.
(10) Discussion of working group recommendations. The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the working groups, and approve/formulate recommendations. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
(11) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(12) Adjournment of meeting.
A public comment period will be held during each Working Group and full Committee meeting concerning matters being discussed.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments. Please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, listed in the
Please note that the meeting may adjourn early if the work is completed.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4295-DR), dated January 25, 2017, and related determinations.
Effective January 25, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 25, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Mississippi resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period January 20-21, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Joe M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Forrest, Lamar, Lauderdale, and Perry Counties for Individual Assistance.
All areas within the State of Mississippi are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Oregon (FEMA-4296-DR), dated January 25, 2017, and related determinations.
Effective January 25, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 25, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Oregon resulting from a severe winter storm and flooding during the period of December 14-17, 2016, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Oregon have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Josephine and Lane Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Oregon are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the After Action Report/Improvement Plans, Training and Exercise Plans, and Nominations to the National Exercise Program which are used to validate current preparedness capabilities and support future national exercise efforts.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 10, 2017.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Christine Haggerty, Program Analyst, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Protection and National Preparedness, National Exercise Division, at 202-679-3524. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8: National Preparedness) issued on March 30, 2011, establishes a National Preparedness Goal (NPG) that identifies the core capabilities necessary for preparedness and a National Preparedness System (NPS) which guides activities to enable the Nation to achieve the NPG. The NPS allows the Nation to track the progress of our ability to build and improve the capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover from those threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation.
The NPS provides an integrated approach to preparedness that can be implemented and measured at all levels of government. This system is an all-of-Nation and whole community approach to preparedness, from neighborhood organizations to civic groups and private businesses. It contains a methodical approach integrated across the preparedness cycle and links together programs and requirements into a comprehensive system, driving rational decision-making and allowing for a direct and defensible assessment of progress against clearly defined objectives.
The NPS is based on a consistent methodology for assessing the threats and hazards facing a given jurisdiction. The findings of the assessment drive planning factors and all other components of the preparedness cycle including resource requirements, existing capabilities and capability gaps, driving investments to close those gaps, making and validating improvements in capabilities through training and exercising, and continually assessing progress.
Section 648(b)(1) of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 748(b)(1)) also provides for these exercises and states the Administrator “shall carry out a national exercise program to test and evaluate the national preparedness goal, National Incident Management System, National Response, and other related plans and strategies.” The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) provides the program structure, multi-year planning system, tools, and guidance necessary for entities to build and sustain exercise programs that enhance homeland security capabilities, and ultimately, preparedness. The HSEEP After Action Report Improvement, Training and Exercise Plan, and National Exercise Program Nomination Forms provide the standardized methods for reporting the results of exercises, identifying exercise program priorities, and submitting exercise nominations necessary to validate national preparedness capabilities.
The HSEEP After Action Improvement Plan will now be submitted from Indian Tribal governments and an additional annual form will be required in addition to the one form per quarter requirement resulting in a small increase in the burden hours due to an increase in the number of reports estimated to be submitted.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4297-DR), dated January 26, 2017, and related determinations.
Effective January 26, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 26, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Georgia resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and straight-line winds during the period of January 21-22, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin L. Hannes, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Berrien, Cook, Crisp, Dougherty, Turner, and Wilcox Counties for Individual Assistance.
All areas within the State of Georgia are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the
Effective January 26, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kathy Fields, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Christian M. Van Alstyne as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4294-DR), dated January 25, 2017, and related determinations.
Effective January 25, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 25, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Georgia resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and straight-line winds on January 2, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin L. Hannes, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Dougherty County for Individual Assistance.
Baker, Calhoun, Dougherty, Early, Mitchell, Turner, and Worth Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Georgia are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of May 2, 2017 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Non-watershed-based studies:
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5535 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice announces HUD's intent to collect information through the following methods: Study investigators (from Abt Associates) will administer a program-level web-based survey, which will include two separate sets of questions—a short set of system-level questions for CoC program staff, and an in-depth set of questions for RRH program staff. The survey will be administered to all CoCs and RRH programs nationwide. To describe the program models in place, the use of progressive engagement, and strategies for RRH in tight rental markets, the study investigators will conduct in-depth telephone follow-up interviews with approximately 20 RRH programs. In addition, investigators will conduct one-time in-person in-depth interviews with a sample of six households in shelter who have been offered RRH but have not yet started to receive it, 16 households who are receiving RRH assistance, and six households that have already transitioned from RRH to permanent housing. Finally, to understand their experiences both during RRH and once RRH assistance ends, investigators will conduct ethnographic research with 16 households. This will include in-person interviews, household observations, quarterly check-ins, and the completion of housing journals.
From the completed 28 interviews, study investigators will invite all 16 households receiving RRH to continue in the applied ethnographic component of the study (and we assume that 15 will complete the ethnographic research activities). Their one-time in-depth interviews will provide a baseline against which investigators will analyze data to be collected over the subsequent 15 months. Those data will include participant observation, housing journals, quarterly family updates, and two follow-up interviews.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Correction; Notice.
This notice corrects the document HUD published on Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 82 FR 8839. HUD omitted the Appendix which is included in this document.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax:202-395-5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5535 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
As noted in the
The notice set out in the appendix presents an additional measure by HUD to ensure that individuals seeking placement or accommodation in a shelter or other building or facility and housing funded under a program administered by CPD are aware of HUD's equal access policy, as established in HUD's 2012 Equal Access Rule, and elaborated upon in the final rule published in today's
Please see table below.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
This [shelter/building/housing/facility] receives funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Department's (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) and MUST comply with the following REQUIREMENTS:
• Determine your eligibility for housing regardless of your sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, and must not discriminate against you because you do not conform to gender or sex stereotypes (
• Grant you equal access to CPD programs or facilities consistent with your gender identity, and provide your family with equal access;
• MUST NOT ask you to provide anatomical information or documentary (like your ID), physical, or medical evidence of your gender identity; and
• Take non-discriminatory steps when necessary and appropriate to address privacy concerns raised by any residents or occupants, including you.
If you think this program has violated any of these requirements, including any denial of services or benefits, contact your
If you believe you have experienced housing discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex, including discrimination because of gender identity, contact 1-800-669-9777 or file a written complaint with HUD at:
To better understand HUD's requirements, the following definitions apply:
•
•
•
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The meeting of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council scheduled for Tuesday, February 7, 2017, and Wednesday, February 8, 2017, is cancelled.
Joshua Winchell, Council Designated Federal Officer, by U.S. mail at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; by telephone at (703) 358-2639; or by email at
The meeting of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (Council) scheduled for Tuesday, February 7, 2017, and Wednesday, February 8, 2017, is cancelled.
The Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public, sporting conservation organizations, States, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and benefit recreational hunting.
More information on the Council is available in the original
Notice of cancellation of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 23, 2016, based on an amended complaint filed by Paice LLC and Abell Foundation, Inc. both of Baltimore, Maryland (collectively, “Paice”). 81 FR 32343 (May 23, 2016). The amended complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain hybrid electric vehicles and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347; U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634; and U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097. The notice of investigation named as respondents Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. of Herndon, Virginia; Dr. Ing. H.C. F. Porsche AG of Porscheplatz, Germany; Porsche Cars North America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia; Audi AG of Ingolstadt, Germany; and Audi of America, of Herndon, Virginia (collectively, “Volkswagen”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party.
On December 20, 2016, Paice and Volkswagen filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in view of a settlement agreement between the parties. On December 23, 2016, they filed an amended joint motion to include further information.
On January 3, 2017, the presiding ALJ granted the motion as the subject ID. The ALJ found that the amended motion complies with Commission Rules, and that granting the motion is not contrary to the public interest.
No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 30, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Lifetime Products, Inc. of Clearfield, Utah. Amendments to the complaint were filed on January 23, 2017, and January 24, 2017. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain basketball backboard components and products containing the same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,749,111 (“the '111 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,845,463 (“the '463 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,852,034 (“the '034 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain basketball backboard components and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 10, 19, 25, and 35 of the '111 patent; claims 1, 2, 6, 12, and 23 of the '463 patent; and claims 18, 26, 28, 39, and 43 of the '034 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not be named as a party to this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium (ingot) from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
Amelia Shister (202-205-2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Construction Fall Protection Systems Criteria, Practices, and Training Requirements,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 9, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Construction Fall Protection Systems Criteria, Practices, and Training Requirements information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1926.502 and -.503 that, respectively, require a covered employer to certify safety nets and to develop fall protection plans and to prepare worker training certification records. These standards help to ensure that the employer provides the required fall protection and training. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 2(b) and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
National Science Foundation.
Emergency Clearance: Submission for OMB Review; Notice of Revision of Confidentiality Pledges under the Confidential Information
Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(e), and 44 U.S.C. 3501, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing a revision to the confidentiality pledge it provides to its respondents under CIPSEA, the NSF Act of 1950, as amended, and the Privacy Act of 1974. These revisions are required by the passage and implementation of provisions of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 (H.R. 2029, Division N, Title II, Subtitle B, Sec. 223), which permit and require the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide Federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. More details on this announcement are presented in the
This revision becomes effective upon publication of this notice in the
Federal statistics provide key information that the Nation uses to measure its performance and make informed choices about budgets, employment, health, investments, taxes, and a host of other significant topics. The overwhelming majority of Federal surveys are conducted on a voluntary basis. Respondents, ranging from businesses to households to institutions, may choose whether to provide the requested information. Many of the most valuable Federal statistics come from surveys that ask for highly sensitive information such as proprietary business data from companies or particularly personal information or practices from individuals. Strong and trusted confidentiality and exclusively statistical use pledges under the CIPSEA and similar statistical confidentiality pledges are effective and necessary in honoring the trust that businesses, individuals, and institutions, by their responses, place in statistical agencies.
Under the CIPSEA and similar statistical confidentiality protection statutes, many Federal statistical agencies make statutory pledges that the information respondents provide will be seen only by statistical agency personnel or their sworn agents, and will be used only for statistical purposes. The CIPSEA and similar statutes protect the confidentiality of information that agencies collect solely for statistical purposes and under a pledge of confidentiality. These Acts protect such statistical information from administrative, law enforcement, taxation, regulatory, or any other non-statistical use and immunize the information submitted to statistical agencies from many legal processes. Moreover, statutes like the CIPSEA carry criminal penalties of a Class E felony (fines up to $250,000, or up to five years in prison, or both) for conviction of a knowing and willful unauthorized disclosure of covered information.
As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 signed on December 17, 2015, the Congress enacted the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 (H.R. 2029, Division N, Title II, Subtitle B, Sec. 223). This Act, among other provisions, requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide Federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. The DHS cybersecurity program's objective is to protect Federal civilian information systems from malicious malware attacks. The Federal statistical system's objective is to ensure that the DHS Secretary performs those essential duties in a manner that honors the Government's statutory promises to the public to protect their confidential data. Given that the DHS is not a Federal statistical agency, both DHS and the Federal statistical system have been successfully engaged in finding a way to balance both objectives and achieve these mutually reinforcing objectives.
As required by passage of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, the Federal statistical community will implement DHS' cybersecurity protection program, called Einstein.
The technology currently used to provide this protection against cyber malware electronically searches Internet traffic in and out of Federal civilian agencies in real time for malware signatures. When such a signature is found, the Internet packets that contain the malware signature are shunted aside for further inspection by DHS personnel. Because it is possible that such packets entering or leaving a statistical agency's information technology system may contain confidential statistical data, statistical agencies can no longer promise their respondents that their responses will be seen only by statistical agency personnel or their sworn agents. However, they can promise, in accordance with provisions of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, that such monitoring can be used only to protect information and information systems from cybersecurity risks, thereby, in effect, providing stronger protection to the security and integrity of the respondents' submissions.
Accordingly, DHS and Federal statistical agencies have developed a Memorandum of Agreement for the installation of Einstein cybersecurity protection technology to monitor their Internet traffic.
NSF is providing this notice to alert the public in an efficient and coordinated fashion that it is revising its confidentiality pledge. Below is a listing of the current numbers and information collection titles for those NSF programs whose confidentiality pledges will change to reflect the statutory implementation of DHS' Einstein monitoring for cybersecurity protection purposes.
Therefore, the National Science Foundation is providing this notice to alert the public to these confidentiality pledge revisions in an efficient and coordinated fashion. Table 1 below contains a listing of NSF's current PRA OMB numbers and information collection titles and their associated revised confidentiality pledges for the Information Collections whose confidentiality pledges will change to reflect the statutory implementations of DHS' Einstein 3A monitoring for cybersecurity protection purposes. For the Information Collections listed in the table below, NSF statistical confidentiality pledges will be modified to include the following sentence, “Per the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your data.”
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments on this notice must be received by April 10, 2017 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
Federal statistics provide key information that the Nation uses to measure its performance and make informed choices about budgets, employment, health, investments, taxes, and a host of other significant topics. The overwhelming majority of Federal surveys are conducted on a voluntary basis. Respondents, ranging from businesses to households to institutions, may choose whether to provide the requested information. Many of the most valuable Federal statistics come from surveys that ask for highly sensitive information such as proprietary business data from companies or particularly personal information or practices from individuals. Strong and trusted confidentiality and exclusively statistical use pledges under the CIPSEA and similar statistical confidentiality pledges are effective and necessary in honoring the trust that businesses, individuals, and institutions, by their responses, place in statistical agencies.
Under the CIPSEA and similar statistical confidentiality protection statutes, many Federal statistical agencies make statutory pledges that the information respondents provide will be seen only by statistical agency personnel or their sworn agents, and will be used only for statistical purposes. The CIPSEA and similar statutes protect the confidentiality of information that agencies collect solely for statistical purposes and under a pledge of confidentiality. These Acts protect such statistical information from administrative, law enforcement, taxation, regulatory, or any other non-statistical use and immunize the information submitted to statistical agencies from many legal processes. Moreover, statutes like the CIPSEA carry criminal penalties of a Class E felony (fines up to $250,000, or up to five years in prison, or both) for conviction of a knowing and willful unauthorized disclosure of covered information.
As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 signed on December 17, 2015, the Congress enacted the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 (H.R. 2029, Division N, Title II, Subtitle B, Sec. 223). This Act, among other provisions, requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide Federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. The DHS cybersecurity program's objective is to protect Federal civilian information systems from malicious malware attacks. The Federal statistical system's objective is to ensure that the DHS Secretary performs those essential duties in a manner that honors the Government's statutory promises to the public to protect their confidential data. Given that the DHS is not a Federal statistical agency, both DHS and the Federal statistical system have been successfully engaged in finding a way to balance both objectives and achieve these mutually reinforcing objectives.
As required by passage of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, the Federal statistical community will implement DHS' cybersecurity protection program, called Einstein.
The technology currently used to provide this protection against cyber malware electronically searches Internet traffic in and out of Federal civilian
Accordingly, DHS and Federal statistical agencies have developed a Memorandum of Agreement for the installation of Einstein cybersecurity protection technology to monitor their Internet traffic.
In a separate
The ACRS Subcommittee on APR 1400 will hold a meeting on February 24, 2017, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the APR 1400 Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items—Chapter 12, “Radiation Protection.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will hold a meeting on February 24, 2017, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and comment on Draft Final RG 4.25, “Assessment of Abnormal Radionuclide Discharges in Groundwater to the Unrestricted Area at Nuclear Power Plant Sites.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Derek Widmayer (Telephone 301-415-5375 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
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 three amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; and Limerick Generating Station, Unit 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 March 9, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by April 10, 2017. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
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-2017-0003, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number(s), 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-2017-0003, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number(s), 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 post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes 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 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
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 by April 10, 2017. 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
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 amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is requesting approval of changes to the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) to allow a new method to analyze Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) related loads. The new methodology will verify that affected structures continue to have the capability to withstand all applied loads used in the original design of Seabrook structures. The proposed changes do not impact the physical function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an event within assumed acceptance limits.
The ASR-affected structures are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated, and there are no accidents previously evaluated that involve a loss of structural integrity for seismic Category I structures. Approval of the UFSAR changes will demonstrate the structures affected by ASR will continue to maintain the capability to withstand all credible conditions of loading specified in the UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 amendment is requesting approval of changes to the UFSAR to allow the use of a new method to analyze ASR related loads to verify that affected structures continue to have the capability to withstand applied loads used in the original design of Seabrook structures, with the addition of ASR loads and loads previously considered negligible. Approving the use of the new methodology will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated. The new methodology will demonstrate that structures continue to satisfy the design requirements of the code of construction and other applicable requirements with the additional load from ASR. Structures will respond to applied loads consistent with their original design.
The proposed changes to the UFSAR do not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. The changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, other than as a result of the revised monitoring program, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is requesting approval of changes to the UFSAR to allow the use of a new method to analyze ASR related loads to verify that affected structures continue to have the capability to withstand all applied loads used in the original design of Seabrook structures.
The proposed methods for re-evaluating seismic Category I structures will demonstrate that structures satisfy the acceptance criteria in the current licensing basis when the loads associated with ASR expansion are included with other design loads and load combinations. The safety margin provided by the design codes in the current licensing basis will not be reduced since the proposed change is not requesting any change to the codes of record.
The proposed changes to the UFSAR do not affect the margin of safety associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (
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 AP1000 accident analysis previously evaluated a loss of coolant accident caused by an inadvertent ADS valve actuation. Adding design detail to the ADS blocking device, and applying the blocking device to the IRWST [in-containment refueling water storage tank] injection valves, does not impact this analysis. Using a blocking device on the ADS and IRWST injection valves is a design feature which further minimizes the probability of a loss of coolant accident caused by a spurious valve actuation. Furthermore, because the blocking device is designed to prevent a spurious valve actuation due to a software CCF [common cause failure] and does not adversely impact any existing design feature, it does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment does not affect the prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, (
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the 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 changes do not involve a new failure mechanism or malfunction, which affects an SSC [structure, system, or component] accident initiator, or interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events considered in the design and licensing bases. There is no adverse effect on radioisotope barriers or the release of radioactive materials. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect any accident, including the possibility of creating a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The blocking device is independent of PMS processor hardware and software. It is designed to allow for ADS and IRWST injection actuations when the plant parameters indicate an actual LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] event. Therefore, the ADS and IRWST are still able to perform their safety functions when required. A postulated failure of a blocking device which would prevent necessary ADS and IRWST injection valve opening would be detected by the proposed periodic surveillance testing within the TSs [Technical Specifications]. Failure of the ADS actuation or IRWST injection valve opening in a division could also result from concurrent failure of the two Core Makeup Tanks (CMTs) level sensors in one division, with both sensors reading above the blocking setpoint. Failures of the level sensors would be immediately detected due to the deviations in redundant measurements. Furthermore, the proposed TS actions require that the four divisions of blocking devices be capable of automatically unblocking for each CMT. In addition, the TS require that the blocking devices be unblocked in plant modes which allow for the operability of less than two CMTs.
The blocking device will continue to comply with the existing UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] regulatory requirements and industry standards. The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 derivation of the cycle specific Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) for incorporation into the Technical Specifications (TS), and their use to determine cycle specific thermal limits, has been performed using the methodology discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, “General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,” Revision 23 [ADAMS Accession No. ML16250A047].
The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to 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. The new SLMCPRs preserve the existing margin to transition boiling.
The MCPR [minimum critical power ratio] safety limit is reevaluated for each reload using NRC-approved methodologies. The analyses for LGS, Unit 2 Cycle 15, have concluded that a two recirculation loop MCPR safety limit of ≥ 1.10, based on the
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 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 SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to ensure that during normal operation and during anticipated 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 [the] NRC-approved methodology discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, “General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,” Revision 23. 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 Cycle 15 operation. 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, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment 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 23. The SLMCPRs ensure that during normal operation and during anticipated 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.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety previously approved by the NRC.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Alternative Delivery Provider 1 product to the Competitive Products List.
Lauren Schuttloffel, (202) 268-4198.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on January 30, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Alternative Delivery Provider 1 Contracts to the Competitive Products List, and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Contract and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal. Documents are available at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02 (“Trust Issued Receipts”): Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bull 3x Shares and Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bear 3x Shares. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts: Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bull 3x Shares and Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bear 3x Shares (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”).
Each Fund is a series of the Direxion Shares ETF Trust II (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust.
In its capacity as the Custodian for the Funds, Bank of New York Mellon (the “Custodian”) may hold the Funds' investment assets and cash and cash equivalents pursuant to a custodial agreement. The Custodian is also the transfer agent for the Shares. In addition, in its capacity as Administrator for the Funds, U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC (the “Administrator”) prepares and files certain regulatory filings on behalf of the Funds.
Foreside Fund Services, LLC serves as the distributor of the Shares (the “Distributor”). The Distributor is a broker-dealer registered with the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). The Trust offers Shares of the Funds for sale through the Distributor in “Creation Units”, as described below. The Distributor will also assist the Sponsor and administrator with certain functions and duties relating to distribution and marketing.
According to the Registration Statement, the investment objective of the Fund is to seek, on a daily basis, investment results that correspond (before fees and expenses) to a multiple three times (3x ) of the daily performance of the Bloomberg WTI Crude Oil Subindex
According to the Registration Statement, the investment objective of the Fund is to seek, on a daily basis, investment results that correspond (before fees and expenses) to three times (3x ) the inverse of the performance of the Benchmark which, as noted, is intended to reflect the performance of crude oil as measured by the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil futures contracts traded on the NYMEX. The Fund will not be directly linked to the “spot” price of crude oil. The Fund does not seek to achieve its investment objective over a period greater than a single trading day.
In seeking to achieve the Funds' investment objectives, the Sponsor will utilize a mathematical approach to determine the type, quantity and mix of investment positions that the Sponsor believes, in combination, should produce daily returns consistent with the Funds' respective objectives. The Sponsor would rely on a pre-determined model to generate orders that result in repositioning the Funds' investments in accordance with their respective investment objectives.
The Funds will seek to achieve their investment objectives by investing, under normal market conditions,
In the event position or accountability limits are reached with respect to Futures Contracts, each Fund may obtain exposure to the Benchmark through investment in swap transactions and forward contracts referencing such Benchmark or other benchmarks the Sponsor believes should be closely correlated to the performance of each Fund's benchmark such as the Energy Select Sector Index or the S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Select Industry Index (the “Financial Instruments”). To the extent that the Trust invests in Financial Instruments, it would first make use of exchange-traded Financial Instruments, if available. If an investment in exchange-traded Financial Instruments is unavailable, then the Trust would invest in Financial Instruments that clear through derivatives clearing organizations that satisfy the Trust's criteria, if available. If an investment in cleared Financial Instruments is unavailable, then the Trust would invest in other Financial Instruments, including uncleared Financial Instruments in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market. The Funds may also invest in Financial Instruments if the market for a specific futures contract experiences emergencies (
The Funds will invest such that each Fund's exposure to the Benchmark will consist substantially of Futures Contracts. The Funds' remaining net assets, which may be substantial, may be invested in cash or cash equivalents and/or U.S. Treasury securities or other high credit quality, short-term fixed-income or similar securities (such as shares of money market funds and collateralized repurchase agreements) for direct investment or as collateral for the Funds' investments.
The Funds do not intend to hold Futures Contracts through expiration, but instead to “roll” their respective positions. When the market for these contracts is such that the prices are higher in the more distant delivery months than in the nearer delivery months, the sale during the course of the “rolling process” of the more nearby contract would take place at a price that is lower than the price of the more distant contract. This pattern of higher futures prices for longer expiration Futures Contracts is referred to as “contango.” Alternatively, when the market for these contracts is such that the prices are higher in the nearer months than in the more distant months, the sale during the course of the “rolling process” of the more nearby contract would take place at a price that is higher than the price of the more distant contract. This pattern of higher futures prices for shorter expiration futures contracts is referred to as “backwardation.” The presence of contango in certain Futures Contracts at the time of rolling could adversely affect a Fund with long positions, and positively affect a Fund with short positions. Similarly, the presence of backwardation in certain futures contracts at the time of rolling such contracts could adversely affect a Fund with short positions and positively affect a Fund with long positions.
According to the Registration Statement, U.S. future [sic] exchanges have established accountability levels and position limits on the maximum net long or net short Futures Contracts in commodity interests that any person or group of persons under common trading control (other than as a hedge, which an investment by a Fund is not) may hold, own or control. These levels and position limits apply to the Futures Contracts that each Fund would invest in to meet its investment objective. In addition to accountability levels and position limits, U.S. futures exchanges also set daily price fluctuation limits on Futures Contracts. The daily price fluctuation limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a Futures Contract may vary either up or down from the previous day's settlement price.
The Funds do not expect to have leveraged exposure greater than three times (3x) the Funds' net assets. Thus, the maximum margin held at a Future Commission Merchant would not exceed three times the margin requirement for either Fund.
According to the Registration Statement, a Fund's per Share NAV will be calculated by taking the current market value of its total assets; subtracting any liabilities; and dividing that total by the total number of outstanding Shares. Each Fund's NAV will be calculated on each Business Day that the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) is open. Each Fund will compute its NAVs at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”), which is the designated closing time of the crude oil futures market on NYMEX,
In calculating the NAV of a Fund, the settlement value of a Fund's non-exchange traded Financial Instruments will be determined by applying the then-current prices for the applicable reference asset to the terms of such Fund's non-exchange traded Financial Instruments. However, in the event that an underlying reference asset is not trading due to the operation of daily limits or otherwise, the Sponsor may in its sole discretion choose to fair value the reference asset in order to value a Fund's non-exchange traded Financial Instruments for purposes of the NAV calculation. Such fair value prices would generally be determined based on available inputs about the current value of the underlying reference assets and would be based on principles that the Sponsor deems fair and equitable so long as such principles are consistent with normal industry standards.
Futures Contracts traded on a U.S. exchange will be calculated at their then current market value, which is based upon the settlement or the last traded price before the NAV calculation time, for that particular Futures Contract traded on the applicable exchange on the date with respect to which NAV is being determined; provided, that if a Futures Contract traded on an exchange could not be liquidated on such day, due to the operation of daily limits or other rules of the exchange upon which that position is traded or otherwise, the Sponsor may in its sole discretion choose to determine a fair value price as the basis for determining the market value of such position for such day.
Cash and cash equivalents will be valued on the basis of broker quotes or valuations provided by a third party pricing service.
Collateralized repurchase agreements will be valued based on price quotations or other equivalent indications of value provided by a third-party pricing service.
In order to provide updated information relating to the Funds for use by investors and market professionals, the Exchange will calculate an updated “Indicative Fund Value” (“IFV”). The IFV will be calculated by using the prior day's closing net assets of a Fund as a base and updating throughout the Exchange's Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. E.T. to 4:00 p.m. E.T. changes in the value of the Futures Contracts and Financial Instruments held by a Fund.
The IFV will be disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session.
The IFV will be available through on-line information services.
According to the Registration Statement, each Fund intends to create and redeem Shares in one or more Creation Units.
Only Authorized Participants may purchase and redeem Creation Units. An Authorized Participant is an entity that has entered into an Authorized Participant Agreement with the Trust and the Sponsor.
On any “Business Day”, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Distributor to create one or more Creation Units. For purposes of processing both purchase and redemption orders, a “Business Day” means any day other than a day when any of the NYSE, NYSE Arca, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), CBOE Futures Exchange (“CFE”), the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) (including the Chicago Board of Trade and NYMEX) or the Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE”) or other exchange material to the valuation or operation of the Funds is closed for regular trading. Purchase orders must be placed by 2:30 p.m. E.T. or earlier if the NYSE closes before the cut-off time.
According to the Registration Statement, the procedures by which an Authorized Participant can redeem one or more Creation Units mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Units. On any Business Day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Distributor to redeem one or more Creation Units.
The redemption procedures allow Authorized Participants to redeem Creation Units. Individual shareholders may not redeem directly from a Fund. By placing a redemption order, an Authorized Participant agrees to deliver the Creation Units to be redeemed through the Depository Trust Company's (“DTC”) book entry system to the applicable Fund not later than noon E.T. on the first Business Day immediately following the redemption order date (T+1). The Sponsor reserves the right to extend the deadline for a Fund to receive the Creation Units required for settlement up to the third Business Day following the redemption order date (T+3).
The NAV for the Funds' Shares will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time. The intraday, closing prices, and settlement prices of the Futures Contracts will be readily available from the applicable futures exchange Web sites, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or major market data vendors.
Complete real-time data for the Futures Contracts is available by subscription through on-line information services. ICE Futures U.S. and NYMEX also provide delayed futures and options on futures information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on their respective Web sites. The specific contract specifications for Futures Contracts would also be available on such Web sites, as well as other financial informational sources. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”). Quotation information for cash equivalents and OTC swaps may be obtained from brokers and dealers who make markets in such instruments. Quotation information for exchange-traded swaps will be available from the applicable exchange and major market vendors. Intra-day price information for
In addition, the Funds' Web site,
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of a Fund.
The Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption to the dissemination of the IFV or the value of the Benchmark occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IFV, the value of the [sic] or the value of the Benchmark persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants.
The Exchange 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. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Early, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200. The trading of the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02(e), which sets forth certain restrictions on Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders acting as registered Market Makers in Trust Issued Receipts to facilitate surveillance. The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, each Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares of each Fund will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by 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.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts 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 certain Futures Contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).
Not more than 10% of the net assets of a Fund in the aggregate invested in Futures Contracts shall consist of Futures Contracts whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolios of the Funds or the Benchmark, and (b) limitations on portfolio holdings, reference assets or the Benchmark shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Funds 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 a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The risks involved in trading the Shares during the Early and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IFV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (2) the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (3) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (4) how information regarding the IFV is disseminated; (5) that a static IFV will be disseminated, between the close of trading on the ICE Futures U.S. and NYMEX and the close of the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session; (6) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (7) trading information.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders of the suitability requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a) in an Information Bulletin. Specifically, ETP Holders will be reminded in the Information Bulletin that, in recommending transactions in the Shares, they must have a reasonable basis to believe that (1) the recommendation is suitable for a customer given reasonable inquiry concerning the customer's investment objectives, financial situation, needs, and any other information known by such ETP Holder, and (2) the customer can evaluate the special characteristics, and is able to bear the financial risks, of an investment in the Shares. In connection with the suitability obligation, the Information Bulletin will also provide that ETP Holders must make reasonable efforts to obtain the following information: (1) The customer's financial status; (2) the customer's tax status; (3) the customer's investment objectives; and (4) such other information used or considered to be reasonable by such ETP Holder or registered representative in making recommendations to the customer.
Further, the Exchange states that FINRA has implemented increased sales practice and customer margin requirements for FINRA members applicable to inverse, leveraged and inverse leveraged exchange-traded securities (which include the Shares) and options on such securities, as described in FINRA Regulatory Notices 09-31 (June 2009), 09-53 (August 2009), and 09-65 (November 2009) (collectively, “FINRA Regulatory Notices”). ETP Holders that carry customer accounts will be required to follow the FINRA guidance set forth in these notices. As noted above, each Fund will seek, on a daily basis, investment results that correspond (before fees and expenses) to 3x or −3x, respectively, the performance of the Benchmark). Over a period of time in excess of one day, the cumulative percentage increase or decrease in the NAV of the Shares of a Fund may diverge significantly from a multiple or inverse multiple of the cumulative percentage decrease or increase in the Benchmark due to a compounding effect.
In addition, the Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to a Fund. The Information Bulletin will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that a Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will also reference that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of Futures Contracts traded on U.S. markets.
The Information Bulletin will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 2:30 p.m. E.T. each trading day. The Information Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares will be publicly available on the Funds' Web site.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, and certain Futures Contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA. Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in Futures Contracts shall consist of Futures Contracts whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA. The intraday, closing prices, and settlement prices of the Futures Contracts will be readily available from the applicable futures exchange Web sites, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or major market data vendors Web site or on-line information services.
Complete real-time data for the Futures Contracts is available by subscription from on-line information services. ICE Futures U.S. and NYMEX also provide delayed futures information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on their Web sites. The specific contract specifications for Futures Contracts would also be available on such Web sites, as well as other financial informational sources. Information regarding options will be available from the applicable exchanges or major market data vendors. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA. In addition, the Funds' Web site, will display the applicable end of day closing NAV. Each Fund's total portfolio composition will be disclosed each Business Day, on the Funds' Web site. The Web site disclosure of portfolio holdings will be made daily and will include, as applicable, (i) the composite value of the total portfolio, (ii) the name, percentage weighting, and value of the
Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares and of the suitability requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a). The Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to a Fund. The Information Bulletin will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that a Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will also reference that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of Futures Contracts traded on U.S. markets. The Information Bulletin will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares and that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 2:30 p.m. E.T. each trading day. The Information Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares will be publicly available on the Funds' Web site.
Trading in Shares of a Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 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 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 additional types of Trust Issued Receipts based on oil prices that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Trust Issued Receipts based on oil prices and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act”)
This proposed change by OCC would modify the current process for systematically monitoring market conditions and performing adjustments to its margin coverage when current market volatility increases beyond historically observed levels.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed change and none have been received.
OCC's margin methodology, the System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (“STANS”), is OCC's proprietary risk management system that calculates Clearing Members'
The majority of risk factors utilized in the STANS methodology are total returns on individual equity securities. Other risk factors considered include: Returns on equity indices; changes in the calibrated coefficients of a model describing the yield curve for U.S. government securities; “returns” on the nearest-to-expiration futures contracts of various kinds; and changes in foreign exchange rates. For the volatility of each risk factor, the Monte Carlo simulations use the greater of: (i) The short-term volatility level predicted by the model; and (ii) an estimate of its longer-run level. In between the monthly re-estimations of all the models, volatilities are automatically re-scaled to the greater of the short-term or the longer-run levels to mitigate pro-cyclicality
An approach employed by OCC to mitigate pro-cyclicality within STANS is to estimate market volatility based on current market conditions (“current market estimate”) and compare this current market estimate to a long-run estimate of market volatility (“long-run market estimate”). This comparison utilizes certain market benchmarks (or factors), which serve as proxies for the overall volatility of an asset class or group of products. If the long-run market estimate for a factor is found to be greater than the current market estimate, the volatility estimates for all products tied to that factor are adjusted (or scaled) up in a manner proportionate to the relationship between the current market volatility and the long-run market volatility for that factor.
Current STANS includes a single factor (“uniform scale factor”), which serves as the proxy for the equity asset class. This uniform scale factor is calibrated based on changes in the volatility of the Standard & Poor's 500® Index (“SPX”) and applied to all “equity-based products” in the manner described above. Currently, the uniform scale factor is the only scale factor used in STANS. The proposed change is intended to enhance the STANS margin calculations by providing for the capability to increase the number of scale factors used within STANS in cases where a more appropriate proxy has been identified for a particular asset class or group of products to measure the relationship between current vs. long-run market volatility.
OCC proposes a number of enhancements to its STANS margin methodology that are designed to more accurately compute Clearing Member margin requirements to reflect the risk of Clearing Member portfolios. Specifically, OCC proposes to: (1) Adjust the longer-run volatility forecast used in OCC's computation of the uniform scale factor so that it would rely only on post-1957 price information (
OCC believes that the current approach to scale factors in STANS would be improved by providing the functionality to establish multiple scale factors intended to more accurately measure the relationship between current and long-run market volatility with proxies that correlate more closely to groups of products within an asset class (
The uniform scale factor for the SPX roughly represents the ratio of OCC's estimates of the long-run market volatility to the forecast market volatility determined by most recent 24-month daily historical returns.
The uniform scale factor is applied to all equity products and is used to adjust individual equity current market volatility estimates on a daily basis based on the comparison of the current market volatility and the long-run volatility estimate, which is updated daily. Should it be observed that the current market volatility is less than the long-run volatility, all products tied to the uniform scale factor will be adjusted higher based on the ratio of the long-run volatility estimate to the current market volatility estimate to account for the observed change in volatility. In addition, the uniform scale factor is also used to account for the fact that the distribution of returns for the SPX has a “fat tail”
The uniform scale factor resulting from the calculations described above is applied as a multiplier to hypothetical returns on a long portfolio of equities produced during the Monte Carlo market scenarios run within STANS. By “scaling up” hypothetical returns in this way, the uniform scale factor relies on an assumption that more recent behavior of SPX returns will provide an appropriate proxy for the volatility in equity price returns that occur between monthly updates of price data for the pending short-run time series. Accordingly, the uniform scale factor helps OCC set margin requirements that account for this proxy to ensure that Clearing Members maintain margin assets that would be sufficient in light of historical volatility of the SPX.
The average longer-run volatility forecast used in OCC's computation of the uniform scale factor currently relies on daily pricing information for component securities of the SPX dating back to January of 1946. This time series predates, however, the 1957 introduction of the SPX. To accurately account for the behavior of SPX returns only since the inception of the index, OCC proposes to adjust the longer-run volatility forecast so that it would rely only on the post-1957 information. OCC believes that this approach would reduce model risk
To more accurately measure the relationship between current and long-run market volatility with proxies that correlate more closely to certain products carried within the equity asset class, OCC proposes to expand the number of scale factors to include: (1) Russell 2000® Index (12/29/1978); (2) Dow Jones Industrial Average Index (9/23/1997); (3) NASDAQ-100 Index (2/4/1985) and (4) S&P 100 Index (1/2/1976).
Consistent with OCC's existing Margin Policy,
In order to mitigate against pro-cyclicality, OCC intends to apply the relevant scale factor to the greater of (i) the estimated variance of the 1-day return scenarios or (ii) the historical variance of the daily return scenarios of a particular instrument, as a floor. OCC believes this floor would mitigate pro-cyclicality in the relevant return scenarios because it would result in a higher estimate of volatility during periods of relatively lower market volatility than if only the estimated variance in (i) above was used.
In addition to implementing the scale factors described above, OCC is also proposing to implement processing changes that would update the statistical models for common factors related to Treasury securities on a daily basis. These model changes would allow OCC to monitor and respond to material changes in the volatility of Treasury securities while also mitigating pro-cyclicality without implementing a scale factor specific to Treasury securities. OCC believes that updating its Treasury securities models on a daily basis is a more appropriate way to monitor and respond to material changes in the volatility of Treasury securities while also mitigating pro-cyclicality since the Treasury yield curve model is relatively less complex, with only three factors, and the structure of the Treasuries securities model does not lend itself to a returns-based scale factor (as is used with equity and volatility derivatives, as described above).
Specifically, OCC is proposing to enhance its existing yield curve model that OCC uses to project U.S. Treasury security returns, which is updated monthly. The model contains underlying data set and time series information for Treasury securities, which run from February 4, 2008 (based on available historical data) and, after implementing the proposed enhancements, the model would be updated on a daily basis as new data and time series information becomes available. The proposed enhancements would promote a more accurate approach to margining within STANS, as it relates to Treasury securities, particularly when markets are volatile because the daily statistical updates would prevent the model from becoming stale between monthly updates.
Based on simulation testing for the period from January 14, 2015, to March 6, 2015, risk margins (
In order to inform Clearing Members of the proposed change, OCC provided a general update at a recent OCC Roundtable
OCC believes that the proposed change concerning scale factors described above is consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
The proposed model changes described above would enhance the manner in which OCC computes margin requirements for Clearing Members. Specifically, the proposed changes to the uniform scale factor for equity-based products to rely only on post-1957 information would reduce model risk and improve the quality of data by avoiding unnecessary assumptions related to the composition of the SPX before its inception. The proposed four new scale factors for equity-based products would more accurately measure the relationship between current and long-run market volatility with proxies that are correlated more closely to certain products within the equity asset class. The proposed daily statistical updates for the Treasury yield curve model would allow OCC to monitor and response to material changes in the volatility of Treasury securities while also mitigating pro-cyclicality. Taken together, the changes to the uniform scale factor, the addition of new equity based scale factors, and the introduction of daily statistical updates for the Treasury yield curve model would cause STANS to more accurately compute Clearing Member margin requirements to reflect the risk of Clearing Member portfolios thereby promoting robust risk management in that the risk that Clearing Member margin assets would be insufficient should OCC need to use such assets to close-out the positions of a defaulted Clearing Member would be reduced. Further, the proposed changes would promote robust risk management by making it less likely that the default of a Clearing Member would stress the financial resources available to OCC, which include mutualized resource funds deposited by non-defaulting Clearing Members as Clearing Fund.
OCC believes that the proposed changes would reduce the nature and level of risk presented to OCC because, in several respects, the modification of the uniform scale factor used in STANS and the introduction of new scale factors would increase the accuracy of OCC's margin calculations. First, OCC would simplify its process for establishing the uniform scale factor by basing it on the one-day variances
For use with certain exchange-traded funds, OCC proposes to implement in STANS four new scale factors that would be based on the Russell 2000® Index, Dow Jones Industrial Average Index, NASDAQ-100 Index and S&P 100 Index. The separately forecasted volatility for each of these indexes would be represented in the resulting scale factor. OCC believes applying a scale factor based on an index to which certain exchange-traded funds are more
Under the proposed change, a floor of the sample variance would be introduced with respect to each scale factor. The sample variance floor would mitigate pro-cyclicality risk in the relevant return scenarios because it would potentially result in the collection of more margin during periods of relatively lower market volatility. In the absence of using the sample variance as a floor, the margin collected could drop significantly during periods of low volatility and then dramatically increase when, between monthly updates to a pending time series, market events cause increases in the variance of the underlying data set for the scale factor.
OCC would also implement processing changes that would update the statistical models for common factors related to Treasury securities on a daily basis. These model changes would allow OCC to monitor and respond to material changes in the volatility of Treasury securities while also mitigating pro-cyclicality. The proposed enhancements would promote a more accurate approach to margining within STANS, as it relates to Treasury securities, particularly when markets are volatile because the daily statistical updates would mitigate the risk that the model would become stale between monthly updates.
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed change would enhance OCC's management of risk and reduce the nature or level of risk presented to OCC.
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date any additional information requested by the Commission is received. OCC shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
OCC shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance notice 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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2017-801 and should be submitted on or before February 28, 2017.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to establish certain market data products. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish the MIAX PEARL Top of Market (“ToM”) and MIAX PEARL Liquidity Feed (“PLF”) data products.
ToM provides market participants with a direct data feed that includes the Exchange's best bid and offer, with aggregate size, and last sale information, based on order and quoting interest on the Exchange. The ToM data feed includes data that is identical to the data sent to the processor for the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”). The ToM and OPRA data leave the MIAX PEARL System
PLF is a real-time full order book data feed that provides information for orders on the MIAX PEARL order book. PLF will provide real-time information to enable users to keep track of the simple order book for all symbols listed on MIAX PEARL. PLF will provide the following real-time data to its users with respect to each order for the entire order book: Origin, limit price, side, size, and time-in-force (
PLF will provide subscribers with specific order book data that should enhance their ability to analyze market conditions, and to create and test trading models and analytical strategies. The Exchange believes the PLF is a valuable tool that subscribers can use to gain comprehensive insight into the limit order book in a particular option.
The proposed data products provide valuable information that can help subscribers make informed investment decisions, and operate in the same manner as similar data products offered by the Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX Options”), namely the MIAX Options Top of Market data product (“MIAX ToM”)
The Exchange represents that it will make ToM and PLF equally available to any market participant that wishes to subscribe to it. The Exchange will establish monthly fees for the ToM data product and the PLF data product by way of separate proposed rule changes, which the Exchange will submit after the ToM and PLF products are established.
MIAX PEARL believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The ToM market data product is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing all subscribers with top of market data that includes the Exchange's best bid and offer, with aggregate size, and last sale information, based on order and quoting interest on the Exchange that should enable them to make informed decisions on trading on MIAX PEARL by using the ToM data to assess current market conditions that directly affect such decisions.
The PLF market data product is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing all subscribers with limit order book data that should enable them to make informed decisions on trading MIAX PEARL options by using the PLF data to assess current market conditions that directly affect such decisions.
The proposed ToM and PLF market data products facilitate transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by enhancing the subscriber's ability to make decisions on trading strategy and by providing data which should help bring about such decisions in a timely manner to the protection of investors and the public interest. The market data provided by both ToM and PLF removes impediments to, and is designed to further perfect, the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by making the MIAX PEARL market more transparent and accessible to market participants making routing decisions concerning their options orders. The Exchange notes that the data provided on each of these data products are similar to and provide the same data as provided by data products of MIAX Options with respect to options traded on that exchange.
The proposed ToM and PLF market data products are also designated to protect investors and the public interest by providing data to subscribers that is already currently available on other
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the contrary, the Exchange believes that the new market data products will enhance competition in the U.S. options markets by providing users of MIAX PEARL market data products that are similar to that which are currently provided on other competing options exchanges.
Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has noted that waiving the operative delay would enable the Exchange to make the ToM and PLF market data products available to subscribers at the time of the launch of trading on the Exchange, which is scheduled for February 6, 2017. The Exchange has further argued that this would enable the Exchange to better compete with other exchanges by offering market participants additional data in order to seek the market center with the best prices and the most liquidity on which to execute their transactions. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because such waiver will enable the Exchange to begin offering these data products at the time of the launch of trading on the Exchange. In addition, as noted by the Exchange, the proposal is consistent with the rules of other self-regulatory organizations previously approved by the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02 (“Trust Issued Receipts”): ProShares UltraPro 3x Crude Oil ETF and ProShares UltraPro 3x Short Crude Oil ETF. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts: ProShares UltraPro 3x Crude Oil ETF and ProShares UltraPro 3x Short Crude Oil ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”).
Each Fund is a series of the ProShares Trust II (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust.
In its capacity as the Custodian for the Funds, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (the “Custodian”) is responsible for holding and safekeeping the Funds' investment assets and cash and/or cash equivalents pursuant to a custodial agreement. The Custodian is also the registrar and transfer agent for the Shares. In addition, in its capacity as Administrator for the Funds, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (the “Administrator”) performs certain administrative and accounting services for the Funds and prepares certain Commission, NFA and CFTC reports on behalf of the Funds. In its capacity as Distributor for the Funds, SEI Investments Distribution Co. (the “Distributor”) performs functions and duties relating to distribution and marketing.
According to the Registration Statement, the investment objective of the Fund is to seek, on a daily basis, investment results that correspond (before fees and expenses) to three times (3x) the performance of the Bloomberg WTI Crude Oil Subindex
According to the Registration Statement, the investment objective of the Fund is to seek, on a daily basis, investment results that correspond (before fees and expenses) to three times (3x) the inverse of the performance of the Benchmark. The Fund does not seek to achieve its investment objective over a period greater than a single trading day.
In seeking to achieve the Funds' investment objectives, ProShare Capital will utilize a mathematical approach to determine the type, quantity and mix of investment positions that ProShare Capital believes, in combination, should produce daily returns consistent with the Funds' respective objectives. ProShare Capital would rely on a pre-determined model to generate orders that result in repositioning the Funds'
Each Fund will seek to achieve its respective investment objective by investing, under normal market conditions,
In the event position, price or accountability limits are reached with respect to Futures Contracts,
Although each Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest substantially all of its assets in Futures Contracts, each Fund will also hold cash or cash equivalents, such as U.S. Treasury securities or other high credit quality, short-term fixed-income or similar securities (such as shares of money market funds and collateralized repurchase agreements) pending investment in Futures Contracts or Financial Instruments as collateral for the Funds' investments.
The Funds do not intend to hold Futures Contracts through expiration, but instead intend to “roll” their respective positions. When the market for these contracts is such that the prices are higher in the more distant delivery months than in the nearer delivery months, the sale during the course of the “rolling process” of the more nearby contract would take place at a price that is lower than the price of the more distant contract. This pattern of higher futures prices for longer expiration Futures Contracts is referred to as “contango.” Alternatively, when the market for these contracts is such that the prices are higher in the nearer months than in the more distant months, the sale during the course of the “rolling process” of the more nearby contract would take place at a price that is higher than the price of the more distant contract. This pattern of higher futures prices for shorter expiration futures contracts is referred to as “backwardation.” The presence of contango in certain futures contracts at the time of rolling could adversely affect a Fund with long positions, and positively affect a Fund with short positions. Similarly, the presence of backwardation in certain futures contracts at the time of rolling such contracts could adversely affect a Fund with short positions and positively affect a Fund with long positions.
The Funds do not expect to have exposure to Futures Contracts and Financial Instruments greater than three times (3x) the Funds' net assets. Thus, the maximum margin held at a Future Commission Merchant would not exceed three times the margin requirement for either Fund.
According to the Registration Statement, a Fund's per Share NAV will be calculated by taking the current market value of its total assets; subtracting any liabilities; and dividing that total by the total number of outstanding Shares.
Each Fund's NAV will be calculated on each day other than a day when the Exchange is closed for regular trading. The Funds will compute their NAVs at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”), which is the designated closing time of the crude oil futures market on NYMEX, or an earlier time as set forth on
Futures Contracts traded on a U.S. exchange are calculated at their then current market value, which is based upon the settlement price or the last traded price before the NAV time, for that particular Futures Contract traded on the applicable U.S. exchange on the date with respect to which the NAV is being determined. If a Futures Contract traded on a U.S. exchange could not be liquidated on such day, due to the operation of daily limits or other rules of the exchange upon which that position is traded or otherwise, ProShare Capital may choose to determine a fair value price as the basis for determining the market value of such position for such day. Such fair value prices would generally be determined based on available inputs about the current value of the Futures Contracts and would be based on principles that ProShare Capital deems fair and equitable so long as such principles are consistent with normal industry standards. Money market instruments will be priced for NAV purposes at amortized cost.
In calculating the NAV of a Fund, the settlement value of a Fund's non-exchange traded Financial Instruments will be determined by applying the closing price level of the Benchmark to the terms of such Financial Instruments. However, in the event that the Benchmark is not being priced due to the operation of daily limits or otherwise, ProShare Capital may choose to fair value a Fund's non-exchange traded Financial Instruments for purposes of the NAV calculation. Such fair value prices would generally be determined based on available inputs about the current value of the underlying Benchmark and would be based on principles that ProShare Capital deems fair and equitable so long as such principles are consistent with normal industry standards.
Cash and cash equivalents will be valued based on price quotations or other indications of value provided by
In order to provide updated information relating to a Fund for use by investors and market professionals, the Exchange will calculate an updated “Indicative Fund Value” (“IFV”). The IFV will be calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share of a Fund as a base and updating throughout the Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. E.T. to 4:00 p.m. E.T. changes in the value of the investments held by a Fund.
According to the Registration Statement, each Fund intends to create and redeem Shares in one or more “Creation Units” of 50,000 Shares each. A creation transaction generally takes place when an Authorized Participant deposits a specified amount of cash in exchange for a specified number of Creation Units. Similarly, Shares generally may be redeemed only in Creation Units, for cash. The prices at which creations and redemptions occur are based on the next calculation of the NAV after an order is received.
“Authorized Participants” will be the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Creation Units. An Authorized Participant is an entity that has entered into an Authorized Participant Agreement with the Trust and ProShare Capital.
On any “Business Day”, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Distributor to create one or more Creation Units. For purposes of processing both purchase and redemption orders, a “Business Day” for each Fund means any day on which the NAV of such Fund is determined. Purchase orders for Creation Units must be placed by 2:00 p.m. E.T. or earlier if NYSE Arca or other exchange material to the valuation or operation of such Fund closes before the cut-off time. The day on which the Distributor receives a valid purchase order is referred to as the purchase order date. If the purchase order is received after the applicable cut-off time, the purchase order date will be the next Business Day. Purchase orders are irrevocable.
By placing a purchase order, an Authorized Participant generally agrees to deposit cash with the Custodian.
According to the Registration Statement, the procedures by which an Authorized Participant can redeem one or more Creation Units will mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Units. On any Business Day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Distributor to redeem one or more Creation Units.
The redemption procedures allow Authorized Participants to redeem Creation Units. Individual shareholders may not redeem directly from a Fund. By placing a redemption order, an Authorized Participant agrees to deliver the Creation Units to be redeemed through DTC's book entry system to the applicable Fund not later than noon E.T. on the first Business Day immediately following the redemption order date (T+1). ProShare Capital can extend the deadline for a Fund to receive the Creation Units required for settlement up to the third Business Day following the redemption order date (T+3).
Upon request of an Authorized Participant made at the time of a redemption order, ProShare Capital may determine, in addition to delivering redemption proceeds, to transfer futures contracts to the Authorized Participant pursuant to an exchange of futures contract for related position (“EFCRP”) or to a block trade sale of futures contracts to the Authorized Participant.
The redemption proceeds from a Fund will consist of the cash redemption amount and, if permitted by ProShare Capital with respect to a Fund, an EFCRP or block trade with the relevant Fund as described above. The redemption amount is equal to the NAV of the number of Creation Unit(s) of such Fund requested in the Authorized Participant's redemption order as of the time of the calculation of such Fund's NAV on the redemption order date.
The NAV for the Funds' Shares will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time. The intraday, closing prices, and settlement prices of the Futures Contracts will be readily available from the applicable futures exchange Web sites, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or major market data vendors.
Complete real-time data for the Futures Contracts is available by subscription through on-line information services. ICE Futures U.S. and NYMEX also provide delayed futures and options on futures information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on their respective Web sites. The specific contract specifications for Futures Contracts are also available on such Web sites, as well as other financial informational sources. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”). Quotation information for cash equivalents, OTC swaps and forward contracts may be obtained from brokers and dealers who make markets in such instruments. Quotation information for exchange-traded swaps will be available from the applicable exchange and major market vendors. Intra-day price and closing price level information for the Benchmark will be available from major market data vendors. The IFV will be available through on-line information services.
In addition, the Funds' Web site,
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of a Fund.
The Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption to the dissemination of the IFV or the value of the Benchmark occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IFV, the value of the Benchmark persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the
The Exchange 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. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Early, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200. The trading of the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02(e), which sets forth certain restrictions on Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders acting as registered Market Makers in Trust Issued Receipts to facilitate surveillance. The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, each Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares of each Fund will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“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.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts 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 certain Futures Contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).
Not more than 10% of the net assets of a Fund in the aggregate invested in Futures Contracts shall consist of Futures Contracts whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolios of the Funds or Benchmark, and (b) limitations on portfolio Benchmark shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Funds 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 a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The risks involved in trading the Shares during the Early and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IFV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (2) the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (3) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (4) how information regarding the IFV is disseminated; (5) that a static IFV will be disseminated, between the close of trading on the ICE Futures U.S. and NYMEX and the close of the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session; (6) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (7) trading information.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders of the suitability requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a) in an Information Bulletin. Specifically, ETP Holders will be reminded in the Information Bulletin that, in recommending transactions in the Shares, they must have a reasonable basis to believe that (1) the recommendation is suitable for a customer given reasonable inquiry concerning the customer's investment objectives, financial situation, needs, and any other information known by such ETP Holder, and (2) the customer can evaluate the special characteristics, and is able to bear the financial risks, of an investment in the Shares. In connection with the suitability obligation, the Information Bulletin will also provide that ETP Holders must make reasonable efforts to obtain the following information: (1) The customer's financial status; (2) the customer's tax status; (3) the customer's investment objectives; and (4) such other information used or considered to be reasonable by such ETP Holder or registered representative in making recommendations to the customer.
Further, the Exchange states that FINRA has implemented increased sales
In addition, the Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to a Fund. The Information Bulletin will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that a Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will also reference that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of Futures Contracts traded on U.S. markets.
The Information Bulletin will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares and that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 2:30 p.m. E.T. each trading day. The Information Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares will be publicly available on the Funds' Web site.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA. Not more than 10% of the net assets of a Fund in the aggregate invested in Futures Contracts shall consist of Futures Contracts whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA. The intraday, closing prices, and settlement prices of the Futures Contracts will be readily available from the applicable futures exchange Web sites, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, major market data vendors or on-line information services.
Complete real-time data for the Futures Contracts is available by subscription from on-line information services. ICE Futures U.S. and NYMEX also provide delayed futures information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on the Funds' Web site. The specific contract specifications for Futures Contracts are also available on such Web sites, as well as other financial informational sources. Information regarding options will be available from the applicable exchanges or major market data vendors. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA. In addition, the Funds' Web site will display the applicable end of day closing NAV. Each Fund's total portfolio composition will be disclosed each Business Day on the Funds' Web site. The Web site disclosure of portfolio holdings will be made daily and will include, as applicable, (i) the composite value of the total portfolio, (ii) the name, percentage weighting, and value of the Futures Contracts and Financial Instruments, (iii) the name and value of each Treasury security and cash equivalent, and (iv) the amount of cash held in each Fund's portfolio.
Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares and of the suitability requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a). The Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to a Fund. The Information Bulletin will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that a Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will also reference that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of Futures Contracts traded on U.S. markets. The Information Bulletin will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares and that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 2:30 p.m. E.T. each trading day. The Information Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares will be publicly available on the Funds' Web site.
Trading in Shares of a Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 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 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 additional types of Trust Issued Receipts based on oil prices that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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 October 17, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts on the Exchange. Each Fund is a commodity pool that is a series of the ForceShares Trust. ForceShares LLC will be the sponsor of the Funds (“Sponsor”). ALPS Distributors, Inc. will be the marketing agent for the Shares. U.S. Bank National Association will be the Funds' custodian (“Custodian”) and will hold the Funds' cash and cash equivalents. The Custodian will also be the registrar and transfer agent for the Shares.
The Long Fund's primary investment objective is to seek daily investment
Under normal market condition, each Fund will seek to achieve its primary investment objective by investing primarily in Big S&P Contracts such that daily changes in the Fund's net asset value (“NAV”) are expected to closely track the changes, in the case of the Long Fund, or the inverse of the changes, in the case of the Short Fund, in the closing settlement price of the lead month Big S&P Contracts (“Benchmark”) on a leveraged basis. Each Fund will also invest in E-Mini
Each Fund may acquire or dispose of Stop Options on Primary S&P Interests in pursuing its secondary investment objective of recouping a small amount of a Fund's losses that may result from large movements in the Benchmark. Stop Options are expected to average less than approximately 5% of each Fund's portfolio.
On a day-to-day basis, each Fund will invest the remainder of its assets in money market funds, depository accounts with institutions with high quality credit ratings, or short-term debt instruments that have terms-to-maturity of less than 397 days and exhibit high quality credit profiles, including U.S. government securities and repurchase agreements (collectively, “Cash Equivalents”). Cash Equivalents are expected to comprise approximately 70-85% of each Fund's portfolio.
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 requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, 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 proposal 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 that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by February 28, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 14, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in Amendment No. 1,
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
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims;
Litigation matters; 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.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including an object list, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) will meet from 2:00 until 5:00 p.m., on Tuesday, February 28, in Washington, DC at the State Department, 320 21st St. NW. The meeting will be hosted by the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, Patricia M. Haslach, and Committee Chair Paul R. Charron. The ACIEP serves the U.S. government in a solely advisory capacity, and provides advice concerning topics in international economic policy. It is expected that during this meeting, the ACIEP subcommittee on sanctions policy and the Stakeholder Advisory Board will provide updates on their recent work.
This meeting is open to the public, though seating is limited. Entry to the building is controlled. To obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public planning to attend must,
For additional information, contact Alan Krill, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-2231, or
On November 30, 2016, the Board adopted a final rule to establish new regulations requiring all Class I railroads and the CTCO, through its Class I members, to report certain service performance metrics on a weekly, semiannual, and occasional basis.
On January 20, 2017, a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies from Reince Priebus, Chief of Staff to President Trump, was issued.
1. The final date for reporting under the
2. The proceeding in Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 3) will be discontinued as described above, effective March 23, 2017.
3. Notice of the Board's action will be published in the
By the Board, Acting Chairman Begeman, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Elliott.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold its regular business meeting on March 9, 2017, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the Supplementary Information section of this notice.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 9, 2017, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel Scranton, Platform Lounge (Main Floor), 700 Lackawanna Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Informational presentation of interest to the Middle Susquehanna Subbasin area; (2) adoption of final FY2018 budget; (3) ratification/approval of contracts/grants; (4) resolution setting a five-year docket term for withdrawals related to natural gas; (5) report on delegated settlements; and (6) Regulatory Program projects.
Projects listed for Commission action are those that were the subject of a public hearing conducted by the Commission on February 2, 2017, and identified in the notice for such hearing, which was published in 82 FR 898, January 4, 2017.
The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting. Comments on the Regulatory Program projects were subject to a deadline of February 13, 2017. Written comments pertaining to other items on the agenda at the business meeting may be mailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically through
Public Law 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Twentieth Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the Twentieth Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The meeting will be held February 22, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: The MITRE Corporation, MITRE 1 Auditorium, 7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102.
Andy Cebula, NAC Secretariat, 202-330-0652,
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Twentieth Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC). The agenda will include the following:
With the approval of the Chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the 2017 Boys Town Centennial Commemorative Coin Program as follows:
Products containing gold coins will be priced according to the 2016 Pricing of Numismatic and Commemorative Gold and Platinum Products Grid posted at
Ann Bailey, Program Manager for Numismatic and Bullion; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
Public Law 114-30.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice.
This notice provides updated information to participants in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Home Loan Guaranty program concerning the maximum allowable bankruptcy attorney fees that are incurred by a servicer for legal services performed on their behalf. The notice also provides the allowable maximum attorney fees in calculating the indebtedness used to determine the guaranty claim payable upon loan termination. The table in this notice contains the amounts the Secretary has determined to be reasonable and customary for all States, following an annual review of amounts allowed by other government-related home loan programs.
The new maximum amounts for bankruptcy attorney fees will be allowed for each bankruptcy filed on or after March 9, 2017.
Mr. Andrew Trevayne, Assistant Director for Loan and Property Management (261), Loan Guaranty Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-8795 (Not a toll-free number).
The VA Home Loan Guaranty program authorized by title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 37, offers a partial guaranty against loss to lenders who make home loans to veterans. VA regulations concerning the payment of loan guaranty claims are set forth at 38 CFR 36.4300,
The Secretary annually reviews allowances for legal fees in connection with the termination of single-family housing loans, including foreclosure, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, and bankruptcy-related services, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). Based on increases in bankruptcy attorney fees announced over the past year by these entities, the Secretary has deemed it necessary to publish in the
There has been no change to the amounts VA will allow for attorney fees for foreclosure termination and for deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. VA will continue to monitor these fees on an annual basis, as we are aware that other entities are conducting ongoing reviews of these fees.
The following table represents the Secretary's determination of the reasonable and customary cost of legal services for the preferred method of terminating VA loans in each jurisdiction under the provisions of 38 CFR 36.4314(b)(5)(ii).
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Acting Chief of Staff, approved this document on January 27, 2017, for publication.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule establishes the 2017-2018 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), including harvest specifications consistent with default harvest control rules in the PCGFMP. This action also includes regulations to implement Amendment 27 to the PCGFMP, which adds deacon rockfish to the PCGFMP, reclassifies big skate as an actively managed stock, adds a new inseason management process for commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries in California, and makes several clarifications to existing regulations.
This final rule is effective February 7, 2017.
Information relevant to this final rule and Amendment 27, which includes an Environmental Assessment (EA), the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), a regulatory impact review (RIR), final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), and amended PCGFMP, are available from Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Electronic copies of this final rule are also available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site:
Gretchen Hanshew, phone: 206-526-6147, fax: 206-526-6736, or email:
This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at
This final rule implements the 2017-2018 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish species taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, the harvest specifications consistent with default harvest control rules, and Amendment 27 to the PCGFMP. The purpose of this action is to conserve and manage Pacific Coast groundfish fishery resources to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to ensure conservation, to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats (EFH), and to realize the full potential of the Nation's fishery resources. This action includes harvest specifications for 2017-2018 consistent with existing or revised default harvest control rules for all stocks, and establishes management measures designed to keep catch within the appropriate limits. The harvest specifications are set consistent with the optimum yield (OY) harvest management framework described in Chapter 4 of the PCGFMP. This final rule also implements Amendment 27 to the PCGFMP. Amendment 27 adds deacon rockfish to the PCGFMP, reclassifies big skate as “in the fishery,” adds a new inseason management process for California fisheries, and makes several clarifications. This rule is authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1854 and 1855 and by the PCGFMP.
This final rule contains two types of major provisions. The first are the harvest specifications (overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs)), and the second are management measures designed to keep fishing mortality within the ACLs. The harvest specifications (OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs) in this rule have been developed through a rigorous scientific review and decision making process, which is described in detail in the proposed rule for this action (81 FR 75266, October 28, 2016) and is not repeated here.
This final rule includes ACLs for the five overfished species managed under the PCGFMP. For the 2017-2018 biennium darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch (POP) have rebuilding plan changes to their harvest control rules, while maintaining the current target year for rebuilding (T
This rule also implements Amendment 27 to the PCGFMP. Amendment 27 consists of five components that: (1) Reclassify big skate from an ecosystem component species to “in the fishery,” (2) add deacon rockfish to the list of species in the PCGFMP, (3) establish a new inseason management process in California for black, canary, and yelloweye rockfishes, (4) make updates to clarify several stock assessment descriptions, and (5) update several sections of the PCGFMP because canary rockfish and petrale sole are rebuilt. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 27 to the PCGFMP (Amendment 27) published on September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67287) and the public comment period closed on November 29, 2016. Public comments received on the Amendment 27 are discussed below in “Comments and Reponses.”
In addition to the annual specifications, this final rule implements the same management measures that were described in the proposed rule, with a few modifications that are discussed below in “Changes from the Proposed Rule.” This final rule also corrects a computational error to the sablefish ACLs and revises sablefish trip limits, per the Council's recommendations made at its November 2016 meeting (See “Comments and Responses” and “Changes From the Proposed Rule,” below).
During the comment period of the proposed rule and NOA for Amendment 27, NMFS received one comment letter from the public in support of the proposed regulation changes to preserve fish populations and better regulate the fisheries in Washington, Oregon, and California. NMFS also received a letter from Department of the Interior stating they had reviewed the proposed rule and had no comments to offer. NMFS addresses other comments below.
Corrected ACLs are included in Tables 1a and 2a, Subpart C. The Council's sablefish allocation framework and policies described in the proposed rule were applied to the updated ACLs, resulting in corrected allocations, as described below in “Changes From the Proposed Rule.”
As described above in Comments and Responses, sablefish ACLs were based on an incorrect north/south apportionment, resulting in incorrect proposed ACLs. For the reasons described above, the 2017-2018 sablefish ACLs and management measures for the areas north and south of 36° N. lat. are revised in this final rule to be consistent with the FMP and related analyses, including past EIS and RIR documents.
The proposed rule included a reduction in trip limits for 2017-2018 for the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex and black rockfish between 42° N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat. for both limited entry fixed gear and open access fisheries. This reduced trip limit is to keep harvest of Minor Nearshore Rockfish and co-occurring species within their harvest targets and ACLs. In the October 23, 2016, proposed rule, consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposed to reduce the trip limit for this complex in both the limited entry fixed gear and open access fisheries from “8,500 lb per 2 months, no more than 1,200 lb of which may be species other than black rockfish” (the trip limit currently in
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1)(A)), the Administrator, West Coast Region, has determined that this final rule and Amendment 27 to the PCGFMP are necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery and consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective upon publication in the
In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the corrections contained in this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. At its November meeting, the Council recommended corrections to 2017 and 2018 sablefish harvest specifications and resulting management measures be implemented as quickly as possible. There was not sufficient time after that meeting to allow for prior notice and opportunity for public comment before implementing these corrections so that NMFS could manage these fisheries using the best available science in accordance with the FMP (Section 2.1) and applicable law (National Standard 2). The corrected ACLs and resulting management measures are based on the best available scientific information regarding the relative biomass of sablefish north and south of 36° N. lat. The corrections implemented in this final rule are consistent with the impacts analyses for the proposed action, because the coastwide harvestable surplus (the sum of the northern and southern ACLs) is unchanged from the proposed rule; only the area-specific apportionment was incorrect. Further, correcting the sablefish ACLs is consistent with provisions in the FMP (Section 5.5) to allow timely corrections to ACLs due to technical errors, and also with the long-term formal allocation structure for sablefish north of 36° N. lat., which is predicated on an ACL calculated based on the relative biomass for the area north of 36° N. lat. Delaying the corrected sablefish ACLs and resulting management measures would keep regulations in place that are not based on the best available scientific information. Such a delay would impair achievement of the FMP goals and objectives of managing for appropriate harvest levels while providing for year-round fishing and marketing opportunities. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment.
NMFS prepared an EA for this action and Amendment 27 that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of some of the components of this rule. The full suite of alternatives analyzed by the Council can be found on the Council's Web site at
When an agency proposes regulations, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to prepare and make available for public comment an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) document that describes the impact on small businesses, non-profit enterprises, local governments, and other small entities. The IRFA is to aid the agency in considering all reasonable regulatory alternatives that would minimize the economic impact on affected small entities. After the public comment period, the agency prepares a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) that takes into consideration any new information and public comments. This FRFA incorporates the IRFA and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action.
The comment period on the proposed rule closed on November 28, 2016, and no comments were received on the IRFA or the economic impacts of this action. An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The description of this action, its purpose, and its legal basis are described in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated here. The FRFA describes the impacts on small entities, which are defined in the IRFA for this action and not repeated here. Analytical requirements for the FRFA are described in Regulatory Flexibility Act, section 604(a)(1) through (5), and summarized below.
This final rule will regulate businesses that participate in the groundfish fishery. This rule directly affects limited entry fixed gear permit holders, trawl quota share (QS) holders and Pacific whiting catch history endorsed permit holders (which include shorebased Pacific whiting processors), tribal vessels, charterboat vessels, and open access vessels. QS holders are directly affected as their QS are affected by the ACLs. Vessels that fish under the trawl rationalization program receive their quota pounds from the QS holders, and thus are indirectly affected. Similarly, mothership (MS) processors are indirectly affected as they receive the fish they process from limited entry permits that are endorsed with Pacific whiting catch history assignments.
To determine the number of small entities potentially affected by this rule, NMFS reviewed analyses of fish ticket data and limited entry permit data, information on charterboat, tribal, and open access fleets, available cost-earnings data developed by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, and responses associated with the permitting process for the Trawl Rationalization Program where applicants were asked if they considered themselves a small business based on SBA definitions. This rule will regulate businesses that harvest groundfish.
There were 355 active commercial passenger fishing vessels (charter) engaged in groundfish fishing in California in 2014. In 2014, an estimated 189 charter boats targeted groundfish in Oregon and Washington. All 544 of these vessels and associated small businesses are likely to be impacted by changes in recreational harvest levels for groundfish.
With limited access to data for all the affiliated business operations for vessels and buyers, particularly in the open access and fixed gear fisheries, NMFS estimates the type of impacted vessels and buyer entities based solely on West Coast ex-vessel revenue. This may be an underestimate of the number of large-entities in the fishery, as many vessels and buyers may be affiliated, and may have income from non-West Coast sources (particularly Alaska).
Open access vessels are not federally permitted so counts based on landings can provide an estimate of the affected vessels. The analysis for the 2013-2014 Pacific Groundfish Harvest Specifications and Management Measures Environmental Impact Statement contained the following assessment, which is deemed as containing reasonable estimates for this rule, as these fisheries have not changed significantly in recent years. In 2011, 682 directed open access vessels fished while 284 incidental open access vessels fished for a total of 966 vessels. Over the 2005-2010 period, 1,583 different directed open access vessels fished, and 837 different incidental open access vessels fished, for a total of 2,420 different vessels. The four tribal fleets sum to a total of 54 longline vessels, 5 Pacific whiting trawlers, and 5 non-whiting trawlers, for an overall total of 64 vessels. Available information on average revenue per vessel suggests that all the entities in these groups can be considered small.
It is expected that a total of 873 catcher vessels (CVs), 227 buyers, 9 Catcher/Processors (C/Ps) and 6 MS entities will be impacted by this rule, for a total of 1,115, if commercial groundfish participation in 2017-2018 follows similar patterns to those of the last full year of available data (2015), and counting only those vessels and buyers who had at least $1,000 worth of groundfish sales or purchases in 2015.
During development of the 2017-2018 harvest specifications, a mistake was made in apportioning the sablefish ACLs north and south of 36° N. lat. While the coastwide values used for calculating revenues in the IRFA were correctly calculated, the area-specific ACLs in the proposed rule were incorrect. The proposed ACLs were based on a north/south dividing line of 34′27° N. lat. rather than the actual north/south dividing line of 36° N. lat. Correcting the percentages for apportioning the ACLs, results in area-specific ACLs that best represent the relative biomass for the areas in which those ACLs apply. The corrected ACLs and allocations are consistent with the FMP and will be corrected in this final rule, and thus is not expected to impact small entities. Coastwide sablefish harvest levels, which were correctly calculated in the proposed rule and analyzed under the IRFA, are not revised.
As part of the permitting process for the trawl rationalization program or for participating in nontrawl limited entry permit fisheries, applicants were asked if they considered themselves a small business. NMFS reviewed the ownership and affiliation relationships of QS permit holders, vessel account holders, catcher processor permits, MS processors, and first receiver/shore processor permits. As of August 1, 2016, Dock Street Brokers has West Coast limited entry trawl endorsed permits for sale for $60,000 for a 46.1′ permit, and two 43′ West Coast longline permits for $135,000-$140,000. QS may be valued anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the species and amount owned, although not enough sales have occurred yet to be able to confidently estimate their value.
If permit ownership in 2017-2018 follows similar patterns to those of the last full year available data (2015), it is expected that a total of 312 permit owning entities will be impacted by this rule. An estimated 222 of these entities own both permits and vessels, and 16 of the first receiver permit holding companies actually received groundfish, and are thus included in the table above.
Accounting for joint vessel and permit ownership in the limited entry fisheries to the extent possible, an estimated 1,189 commercial entities and 544 charter entities will be impacted by this rule; 16 of these entities are considered large, and the remaining 1,717 are small. As some of these entities are likely owned by the same parent companies, this number is likely an overestimate of the true value.
There are no reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this action. There are no significant alternatives to the final rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any of the significant economic impact of this final rule on small entities.
A summary of the three measures that were analyzed but were excluded from the preferred alternative, and rationales for excluding them from the preferred alternative, were described in the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this final rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, regulations implementing the PCGFMP establish a procedure by which the tribes, which have treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the PCGFMP, request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes, in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.324(d) further state that the Secretary will develop tribal allocations and regulations in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus. The tribal management measures in this final rule have been developed following these procedures. The tribal representative on the Council made a motion to adopt the non-whiting tribal management measures, which was passed by the Council. Those management measures, which were developed and proposed by the tribes, were described in the proposed rule and are included in this final rule.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)
(B) * * *
(
For each overfished groundfish stock with an approved rebuilding plan, this section contains the standards to be used to establish annual or biennial
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The Tribal allocation is 525 mt in 2017 and 548 mt in 2018 per year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey through Vancouver area (North of 36° N. lat.) ACL. The Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.5 percent for estimated discard mortality.
(3)
(9)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(b)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(3) * * *
(ii)
(4)
(g)
(1) 44°41.76′ N. lat.; 124°30.02′ W. long.;
(2) 44°41.73′ N. lat.; 124°21.60′ W. long.;
(3) 44°25.25′ N. lat.; 124°16.94′ W. long.;
(4) 44°25.29′ N. lat.; 124°30.14′ W. long.;
(5) 44°41.76′ N. lat.; 124°30.02′ W. long.; and connecting back to 44°41.76′ N. lat.; 124°30.02′ W. long.
(h)
(1) 44°38.54′ N. lat.; 124°27.41′ W. long.;
(2) 44°38.54′ N. lat.; 124°23.86′ W. long.;
(3) 44°27.13′ N. lat.; 124°21.50′ W. long.;
(4) 44°27.13′ N. lat.; 124°26.89′ W. long.;
(5) 44°31.30′ N. lat.; 124°28.35′ W. long.; and connecting back to 44°38.54′ N. lat.; 124°27.41′ W. long.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(140) 39°37.50′ N. lat., 123°49.20′ W. long.;
(144) 39°13.00′ N. lat., 123°47.65′ W. long.;
(145) 39°11.06′ N. lat., 123°47.16′ W. long.;
(146) 39°10.35′ N. lat., 123°46.75′ W. long.;
(168) 37°39.85.′ N. lat., 122°49.90′ W. long.;
(k) * * *
(120) 38°30.57′ N. lat., 123°18.60′ W. long.;
(128) 37°48.22′ N. lat., 123°10.62′ W. long.;
(129) 37°47.53′ N. lat., 123°11.54′ W. long.;
(a) * * *
(107) 37°45.57′ N. lat., 123°9.46′ W. long.;
(h) * * *
(248) 36°47.60′ N. lat., 121°58.88′ W. long.;
(249) 36°48.24′ N. lat., 121°51.40′ W. long.;
(250) 36°45.84′ N. lat., 121°57.21′ W. long.;
(251) 36°45.77′ N. lat., 121°57.61′ W. long.;
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) For the trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the following shorebased trawl allocations:
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(i)
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) A vessel participating in the primary season will be constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated with each of the permits registered for use with that vessel. During the primary season, each vessel authorized to fish in that season under paragraph (a) of this section may take, retain, possess, and land sablefish, up to the cumulative limits for each of the permits registered for use with that vessel (
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(c) * * *
(1)
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(ii)
(iv) * * *
(A) Between the U.S./Canada border and 48°10′ N. lat. (Cape Alava) (Washington Marine Area 4), recreational fishing for lingcod is open,
(B) Between 48°10′ N. lat. (Cape Alava) and 46°16′ N. lat. (Columbia River) (Washington Marine Areas 1-3), recreational fishing for lingcod is open for 2017 from March 11 through October 21, and for 2018 from March 10 through October 20. Lingcod may be no smaller than 22 inches (56 cm) total length.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)
(B)
(iii) * * *
(A)
(D)
(3)
(i) * * *
(A)
(
(
(
(
(
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(B)
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(iv)
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(b) If you make an affirmative determination as to any of the considerations identified in subsection (a)—or if you conclude for any other reason after appropriate review that the Fiduciary Duty Rule is inconsistent with the priority identified earlier in this memorandum—then you shall publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the Rule, as appropriate and as consistent with law.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
(d) You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
| 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 |