Page Range | 11131-11297 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 11221 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
82 FR 11246 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency Meeting | |
82 FR 11158 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska | |
82 FR 11177 - Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 11177 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 11148 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Wrightsville Beach, NC | |
82 FR 11224 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 11222 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 11202 - Application for New Awards; National Professional Development Program | |
82 FR 11196 - Applications for New Awards; Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program | |
82 FR 11227 - Pediatric Postmarketing Pharmacovigilance and Drug Utilization Reviews; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
82 FR 11226 - Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 11183 - Request for Information Regarding Use of Alternative Data and Modeling Techniques in the Credit Process | |
82 FR 11245 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor | |
82 FR 11242 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Default Investment Alternatives Under Participant Directed Individual Account Plans | |
82 FR 11244 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Occupational Requirements Survey | |
82 FR 11243 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Pre-Implementation Planning Checklist Report for State Unemployment Insurance Information Technology Modernization Projects | |
82 FR 11193 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
82 FR 11242 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth Program National Evaluation | |
82 FR 11218 - Washington State Department of Ecology Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Final Affirmative Determination | |
82 FR 11218 - Statutory Requirements for Substantiation of Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Delay of Effective Date | |
82 FR 11176 - Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee: Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 11215 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 11214 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 11176 - Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee: Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 11148 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sturgeon Bay, Sturgeon Bay, WI | |
82 FR 11182 - National Sea Grant Advisory Board; Meeting | |
82 FR 11179 - Marine Mammals; File No. 20465 | |
82 FR 11237 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Electronic Visa Update System | |
82 FR 11230 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Questionnaire and Data Collection Testing, Evaluation, and Research for the Health Resources and Services Administration | |
82 FR 11171 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Assessment Exemption for Organic Commodities | |
82 FR 11173 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program Regulations-Reporting and Record-Keeping Burden | |
82 FR 11229 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Nurse Faculty Loan Program-Revised Program Specific Data Form, OMB No. 0915-0378-Revision | |
82 FR 11178 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015 | |
82 FR 11131 - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008; Extension of Effective Dates and Comment Period | |
82 FR 11164 - World Trade Center Health Program; Petition 014-Autoimmune Diseases; Finding of Insufficient Evidence | |
82 FR 11231 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; The National Health Service Corps and NURSE Corps Interest Capture Form | |
82 FR 11180 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species; File Nos. 15682, 16094, 17845, 19627, 20197, 20452, 20341, and 20658 | |
82 FR 11181 - Endangered Species; File No. 20315 | |
82 FR 11154 - VA Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Guidelines | |
82 FR 11153 - Veterans Benefits Administration; Loan Guaranty: Technical Corrections | |
82 FR 11151 - Recognition of Tribal Organizations for Representation of VA Claimants; Delay of Effective Date | |
82 FR 11192 - Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 11212 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene and Protests | |
82 FR 11213 - Moon Lake Electric Association, Inc.; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments | |
82 FR 11214 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
82 FR 11217 - Merchant Hydro Developers LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
82 FR 11217 - Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests | |
82 FR 11195 - Cancellation of Notice of Availability of a Draft Detailed Project Report With Integrated Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for the Pier 70 Central Basin Continuing Authorities Program Section 107 Navigation Improvement Project at the Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA | |
82 FR 11191 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Request for Nominations | |
82 FR 11152 - Fertility Counseling and Treatment for Certain Veterans and Spouses, Correction | |
82 FR 11214 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
82 FR 11216 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 11228 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Nurse Faculty Loan Program, Annual Performance Report Financial Data Form | |
82 FR 11247 - New Postal Products | |
82 FR 11211 - National Coal Council | |
82 FR 11232 - Meetings Announcement for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee Required by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) | |
82 FR 11182 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 11225 - Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances-Questions and Answers (Regarding the Selection and Justification of Starting Materials); International Council for Harmonisation; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
82 FR 11293 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
82 FR 11235 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
82 FR 11131 - Access to Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) for Employees of Certain Indian Tribal Employers | |
82 FR 11172 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 11290 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Rule 24.9(e) | |
82 FR 11278 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the iShares iBonds Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust Under Bats Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares | |
82 FR 11272 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule To Establish an Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) | |
82 FR 11275 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees for Use of Use of the Exchange's Equities Platform | |
82 FR 11277 - Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, et al.; Notice of Application | |
82 FR 11251 - Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, et al.; Notice of Application | |
82 FR 11252 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the CHX Liquidity Enhancing Access Delay | |
82 FR 11248 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to the Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions | |
82 FR 11241 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
82 FR 11156 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Regulatory Amendment 16; Technical Amendment | |
82 FR 11166 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Framework Amendment 4 | |
82 FR 11192 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 11159 - Designation of Product Categories for Federal Procurement | |
82 FR 11248 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 11247 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 11246 - New Postal Product | |
82 FR 11159 - Uninterruptible Monitoring of Coolant and Fuel in Reactors and Spent Fuel Pools | |
82 FR 11236 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 11234 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 11237 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 11233 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 11235 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 11237 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 11233 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 11236 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 11241 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Hospira | |
82 FR 11238 - Frank D. Li, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
82 FR 11175 - Siskiyou (OR) Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 11174 - Butte County Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 11175 - Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board | |
82 FR 11174 - Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 11196 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; JFD Limited | |
82 FR 11196 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License; PhareTech | |
82 FR 11221 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
82 FR 11221 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 11156 - Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Finalize Catalog of Reimbursement Expenses | |
82 FR 11162 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 11137 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
82 FR 11146 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes | |
82 FR 11134 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 11144 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
82 FR 11140 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
82 FR 11132 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
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.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule; delay of the effective date.
This rule delays the effective date of the final rule titled,
The effective date for the rule amending 5 CFR part 890 published at 81 FR 95397, December 28, 2016, is delayed until March 21, 2017.
Padma Shah, Policy Analysis Group by telephone (202) 606-0004.
On December 28, 2016, OPM published a rule, titled
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Final rule and interim final rule; delay of effective dates 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 Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is extending the effective dates and comment period for this rule, which was published January 6, 2017 and implements provisions of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) affecting the eligibility, benefits, certification, and employment and training (E&T) requirements for applicant or participant households in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
FNS invites interested persons to submit comments on the interim rule provisions at 7 CFR 273.11(e) and 273.11(f). Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments submitted in response to the interim rule provision will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the comments publicly available on the Internet via
Sasha Gersten-Paal, Branch Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 810, Alexandria, Virginia, 22302, (703) 305-2507,
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the
The January 6, 2017 rule amends the SNAP regulations to: Exclude military combat pay from the income of SNAP households; raise the minimum standard deduction and the minimum benefit for small households; eliminate the cap on the deduction for dependent care expenses; index resource limits to inflation; exclude retirement and education accounts from countable resources; clarify reporting requirements under simplified reporting; permit States to provide transitional benefits to households leaving State-funded cash assistance programs; allow States to establish telephonic and gestured signature systems; permit States to use E&T funds to provide job retention services; and update requirements regarding the E&T funding cycle. These provisions are intended to more accurately reflect needs, reduce barriers to participation, and improve efficiency in the administration of the program. This rule also replaces outdated language in SNAP certification regulations with the new program name and updates procedures for accessing SNAP benefits in drug and alcohol treatment centers and group living arrangements with use of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. This rule provides States with regulatory options for conducting telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews and for averaging student work hours.
Finally, the Department issued a portion of the rule as an interim final rule (with a request for additional comment) that will require that drug and alcohol treatment and group living arrangements (GLA) centers to: Submit completed change report forms to the State agency when a resident leaves the center; notify the State agency within 5 days when the center is not able to provide the resident with their EBT card at departure; and return EBT cards to residents with pro-rated benefits based up on the date of their departure.
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, FNS finds that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the brief extension of the effective dates and comment period are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). FNS believes that affected parties need to be informed as soon as possible of the extensions and their length.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of intergranular cracks on the front spar chord lugs of the outboard horizontal stabilizer. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the front spar chord lugs and lug bores of the horizontal stabilizer, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 28, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; 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 737-300, -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.
Boeing had no objection to the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (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 AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to provide a grace period of 27 months after the effective date of the AD in which to accomplish the initial inspection on horizontal stabilizers, including replacement horizontal stabilizers. ANA stated that these revisions would reduce the burden on operators. ANA proposed new, complex language for paragraph (i) of the proposed AD that would incorporate their proposal.
We partially agree. We agree that the 27-month after the effective date of this AD grace period applies to replacement horizontal stabilizers. However, we do not agree to add a grace period of 27 months to paragraph (i) of this AD or to incorporate ANA's proposed language. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to clarify the provisions to address ANA's concern and to align more closely with the language used in similar ADs.
The compliance time in paragraph (g) of this AD applies to all horizontal stabilizers, including those installed after the effective date of this AD. Because the unsafe condition is related to corrosion, the compliance times in this AD are measured in months. Therefore, time accumulated on a horizontal stabilizer on and off an airplane applies to the initial compliance time and the repetitive inspection interval. A horizontal stabilizer that is off the airplane when the next inspection is due is not required to be inspected until it is ready to be installed on the airplane.
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 737-55A1092, dated August 7, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspections for corrosion and cracking of the front spar chord lugs of the horizontal stabilizer, and inspections for corrosion of the lug bores. 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 346 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD 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 28, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports of intergranular cracks on the front spar chord lugs of the outboard horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the front spar chord lugs of the horizontal stabilizer. Such cracking could cause stabilizer instability, adversely affect controllability of the airplane, and adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 27 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, and do all applicable repairs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1092, dated August 7, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable repairs before further flight. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1092, dated August 7, 2015.
(1) Do a detailed inspection for corrosion and an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the front spar chord lugs of the left and right horizontal stabilizers.
(2) Do a detailed inspection for corrosion of the lug bores of the front spar chord of the left and right horizontal stabilizers.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1092, dated August 7, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD: A horizontal stabilizer may be installed on any airplane, provided all applicable actions required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) and paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD are done within the compliance times specified in the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1092, dated August 7, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) 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 (k) 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) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; 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 737-55A1092, dated August 7, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-10-17 for all Airbus Model A300 and A310 series airplanes, and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F
This AD is effective March 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of June 17, 2011 (76 FR 27875, May 13, 2011).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-10-17, Amendment 39-16698 (76 FR 27875, May 13, 2011) (“AD 2011-10-17”). AD 2011-10-17 applied to all Airbus Model A300 and A310 series airplanes, and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2015-0115, dated June 23, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”) to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations applicable to the Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALIs) are currently listed in the Airbus Airworthiness Limitations Sections [ALS] Part 2.
Airbus recently revised the A300 ALS Part 2 and this Revision 02 was approved by EASA. Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 Revision 02 introduces more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations, which have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.
EASA issued AD 2014-0124 to require compliance with the maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations defined in Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 Revision 01.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124 for A300 aeroplanes and requires implementation of new or more restrictive maintenance instructions and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 Revision 02.
The requirements for A310 and A300-600 aeroplanes remain unchanged and are covered by EASA AD 2014-0124R1 [FAA AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19, 2014), contains the corresponding requirements for the Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes].
The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in certain structure (principal structural elements), which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.
Airbus requested that we reference the correct MCAI in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD, which is EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0115, dated June 23, 2015.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have confirmed that EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0115, dated June 23, 2015, is the MCAI that should be referenced in this AD. We have revised this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section, Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALIs), Revision 02, dated October 3, 2014. This service information describes airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT ALIs.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
We estimate that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2011-10-17 and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2011-10-17 is $85 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $935, or $85 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 28, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2011-10-17, Amendment 39-16698 (76 FR 27875, May 13, 2011) (“AD 2011-10-17”).
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/pylons; 55, Stabilizers; and 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a revision of certain airworthiness limitations item (ALI) documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in certain structure; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (s) of AD 2011-10-17, with changes. Within 3 months after June 17, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-10-17): Revise the maintenance program to incorporate the structural inspections and inspection intervals defined in the Airbus A300 ALI Document AI/SE-M2/95A.1308/07, Issue 4, dated June 2008. Thereafter, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD and except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, no alternative structural inspections or inspection intervals may be approved. The initial ALI tasks must be done at the times specified in Airbus A300 ALI Document AI/SE-M2/95A.1308/07, Issue 4, dated June 2008.
Within 3 months the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the structural inspections and inspection intervals defined in Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated October 3, 2014. The initial compliance times for the ALI tasks identified in Airbus A300 ALS, Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated October 3, 2014, are at the applicable times specified in Airbus A300 ALS, Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated October 3, 2014, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the applicable initial ALI tasks constitutes terminating action for the requirements of paragraphs (g) of this AD for that airplane only.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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. The AMOC
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2011-10-17 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0115, dated June 23, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 28, 2017.
(i) Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section, Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated October 3, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 17, 2011 (76 FR 27875, May 13, 2011).
(i) Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Inspections Document AI/SE-M2/95A.1308/07, Issue 4, dated June 2008.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office- EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(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.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of single and multiple uncommanded spoiler panel extensions during flight when there was a hydraulic system failure. This AD requires replacing certain spoiler power control units (PCUs) with new or changed PCUs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 28, 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
Myra Kuck, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety/Mechanical & Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5316; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757 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.
United Airlines expressed support for the NPRM.
MOOG Commercial Aircraft Group (MOOG) requested that we revise the applicability to include Boeing Model
We do not agree with MOOG's request. The designation “Model 757-200SF” is used for marketing purposes, but is not included on the Model 757 type certificate data sheet. Therefore, we have not included this reference in the applicability of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) requested that we revise the compliance time from 51 months to 36 months.
We do not agree with ALPA's request. ALPA did not submit any supporting data to justify its request. We have determined that the compliance time of 51 months is appropriate based upon failure probabilities, risk assessments, replacement rates, and part availability. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to clarify the unsafe condition. The NPRM stated that the AD would prevent an “uncommanded extension of spoiler panels.” Boeing stated that an “uncommanded extension of multiple spoiler panels on one wing” more accurately describes the unsafe condition. Boeing explained that there is sufficient lateral control authority available to overcome an uncommanded extension of a single spoiler panel on one wing, or coincident uncommanded extension of a spoiler panel on each wing.
We agree with Boeing's request and rationale. We have revised the Discussion section of this final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly.
MOOG requested that we revise paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to emphasize the need to accomplish the service information in order to prevent the unsafe condition.
We find that clarification is necessary. As stated in paragraph (g) of this AD, the spoiler PCUs must be replaced in accordance with the specified service information to address the unsafe condition. Service information that is incorporated by reference in an AD becomes part of the AD, and the applicable requirements must be accomplished as stated in the AD. Paragraph (e) of this AD is intended to specify the unsafe condition; details about accomplishing the service information are not included in this paragraph. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
MOOG requested that to add clarity, we revise the
We agree that the additional details in Boeing's comment provide a better understanding of the unsafe condition. We have added that information to the Discussion section, as discussed in our response to Boeing's comment. We have not added this information to the
Boeing requested that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM to clarify that “spoiler panel float” occurred when there was a hydraulic system pressure loss, and that when the flaps were extended beyond 20 degrees, the spoiler panel float became severe enough to adversely impact airplane control. Boeing explained that spoiler float will occur at all flap detents in the presence of a failed hydraulic system and a compromised spoiler actuator. Boeing explained that the magnitude of the spoiler float angle at the flap detents of 20 degrees and below is relatively modest and results in a rolling moment that is well within the airplane's capabilities to offset. Boeing stated that when a flap detent greater than 20 degrees is selected, the magnitude of the spoiler float angle increases dramatically, and the float angle becomes large enough to reduce the margin of airplane control authority.
We agree with Boeing's request because it provides additional details that clarify the unsafe condition. We have revised this final rule accordingly.
Thomson Airways stated that MOOG should be providing full industry support and warranty to correct its design fault. Thomson Airways stated that this spoiler PCU upgrade is increasing the ownership costs on an already aging fleet through poor design on behalf of MOOG.
The FAA does not control warranty coverage. Manufacturers are responsible to determine appropriate industry warranty coverage. Therefore, we have not revised this AD in this regard.
FedEx Express (FedEx) requested that we clarify whether a pre-service-bulletin part may be installed in positions 2, 4, 9, 10, and 11 after the effective date of the AD, but before the 51-month compliance date, provided the pre-service-bulletin part is removed and replaced with a post-service bulletin part before the 51-month compliance time.
We agree that it is necessary to provide clarification. An operator may install a pre-service-bulletin part before the 51-month compliance time specified in this AD. As stated in paragraph (g) of this AD, the spoiler PCUs must be replaced at the specified positions with a new or changed PCU within 51 months after the effective date of this AD. However, after an operator complies with paragraph (g) of this AD, only new or changed PCUs may be installed (even if compliance is accomplished before the 51-month compliance time) at the locations identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. No change to this AD is needed in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.
We agree with APB that STC ST01518SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this 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 757-27A0154, dated July 22, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing certain spoiler PCUs with new or changed PCUs. 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 573 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 28, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0154, dated July 22, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27; Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of single and multiple uncommanded spoiler panel extensions during flight when there was a hydraulic system failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded extension of multiple spoiler panels on one wing, in the event of a hydraulic system failure, which could result in the loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 51 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace each spoiler power control unit (PCU) with a new or changed PCU at spoiler positions 2, 3, and 4 on the left wing, and spoiler positions 9, 10, and 11 on the right wing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0154, dated July 22, 2016.
(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 (i) 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 (h)(4)(i) and (h)(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
For more information about this AD, contact Myra Kuck, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety/Mechanical & Environmental Systems branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5316; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0154, dated July 22, 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 referenced 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) 2012-16-07 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-500 series airplanes. AD 2012-16-07 required inspections of the fuselage skin at the chem-milled steps, and repair if necessary. This new AD adds new inspections, permanent repairs of time-limited repairs, related investigative and corrective actions if necessary, and skin panel replacement. This AD was prompted by evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) that indicates that the fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and reports of cracking in certain areas of the fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 28, 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
Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-16-07, Amendment 39-17154 (77 FR 48423, August 14, 2012) (“AD 2012-16-07”). AD 2012-16-07 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-500 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.
Boeing requested that we remove the paragraph (h)(5) exception specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that paragraph (h)(5) of the proposed AD refers to structure with time-limited repairs and is not applicable to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, which deals with actions on unrepaired structure.
We agree with Boeing's request to remove the paragraph (h)(5) reference in paragraph (g) of this AD for the reason provided by Boeing. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (h)(4), (k)(1), and (k)(2) of the proposed AD to specify that the skin
Boeing also requested that we revise the compliance time for skin panel replacement in paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD to a time approved by the FAA through the alternative method of compliance (AMOC) process instead of the time specified in the service information. Boeing asserted that a reset of the compliance times is necessary if the panel is replaced before 53,000 total flight cycles. Since a Boeing authorized representative may not approve extensions of compliance times, Boeing pointed out that the AMOC approval for a reset of the compliance times from total flight cycles to flight cycles from when the panel is replaced would have to come from the FAA.
We partially agree with Boeing's requests. We agree to revise the compliance time condition to “before 53,000 total flight cycles” in paragraphs (h)(4), (k)(1), and (k)(2) of this AD; and to “at or after 53,000 total flight cycles” in paragraph (k) of this AD for the terminating action to address Boeing's LOV concerns.
We also acknowledge the request to change the compliance time in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD from the applicable time for the next inspection as specified in the service information to a time approved by the FAA. However, we have determined that a change to this AD is not necessary. Operators may always request approval for alternative compliance times using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. The compliance time in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD is an appropriate compliance time and provides an acceptable level of safety. It should also provide operators with sufficient information for maintenance planning purposes and allow the inspections to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of the proposed AD to provide reference to the specific part of the service information. Boeing stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD includes specific service information part references, so this change would make paragraph (i) consistent with the formatting of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.
We do not agree with Boeing's requests. Paragraph (g) of this AD, in part, specifies the specific service information paragraph reference for doing repairs that are terminating action for the repetitive inspections at the repaired locations only. We determined that this reference is needed for clarity. We do not agree that the other references are needed for clarity. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the proposed AD to specify that table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1315, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2015 (“SASB 737-53-1315 R1”), is for post-modification airworthiness limitation inspections at the modified locations. Boeing explained that, since airworthiness limitation inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules, it is unnecessary to mandate them in this AD.
We agree with Boeing's request. We have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify that the post-modification inspections are airworthiness limitations that are required by maintenance and operational rules; therefore, these inspections are not required by this AD.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD, which specifies replacing the applicable skin panels and doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. Boeing requested that we remove the phrases “do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions,” in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1315 R1 and “do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.” Boeing suggested replacing these phrases with in accordance with “Part 2: Skin Panel Replacement of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1315, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2015,” to be similar to the wording in other NPRMs.
We disagree with the request to refer to “Part 2” of SASB 737-53-1315 R1. We do not agree that the reference is needed for clarity. We also do not agree with removing the phrase “all applicable related investigative and corrective actions” because that phrase indicates there are on-condition actions. The skin panel replacement includes a conditional action that specifies reinstalling a certain lap joint modification. The sentence “do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight” is included to reinforce the compliance time for the on-condition actions. We have not changed this AD in regard to these requests.
For airplanes subject to the requirements of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, Boeing requested that we add a paragraph that specifies that inspections are not required in areas that are spanned by an FAA-approved repair that has met certain conditions. Boeing submitted specific conditions. Boeing stated that its request is to address elimination of inspections for repairs that have been accomplished for damage other than chem-mill cracking.
We do not agree with Boeing's request. Paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to do the applicable inspections and related investigative and corrective actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1315 R1. This service information already contains the criteria Boeing proposed. Therefore, this criteria does not need to be repeated in this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur 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” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
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 SASB 737-53-1315 R1. The service information describes procedures for inspection and repair of the fuselage skin panels between station 727 and station 1016, and between stringers S-14 and S-25; and also describes procedures for skin panel replacement. 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 33 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
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 28, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012-16-07, Amendment 39-17154 (77 FR 48423, August 14, 2012) (“AD 2012-16-07”).
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) that indicates that the fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and reports of cracks at the chem-milled steps in the fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the aft lower lobe fuselage skins, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1315, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2015 (“SASB 737-53-1315 R1”), except as required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do the applicable inspections to detect cracks in the fuselage skin panels; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1315 R1, except as required by paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified SASB 737-53-1315 R1. Accomplishment of a repair in accordance with “Part 3: Repair” of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1315 R1, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph at the repaired locations only.
(1) Where SASB 737-53-1315 R1, specifies compliance times “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance times after the effective date of this AD.
(2) The Condition column of table 1 of Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1315 R1, refers to airplanes in certain configurations as of the “issue date of Revision 1 of this service bulletin.” However, this AD applies to airplanes in the specified configurations “as of the effective date of this AD.”
(3) Where SASB 737-53-1315 R1, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions or work instructions, before further flight, repair or perform the work instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.
(4) For airplanes on which an operator has a record that a skin panel was replaced with a production skin panel before 53,000 total flight cycles: At the applicable time for the next inspection as specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” SASB 737-53-1315 R1, except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Perform inspections and applicable corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
(5) The Condition column of table 2 of Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1315 R1, refers to airplanes in certain configurations as of the “issue date of Revision 1 of this service bulletin.” However, this AD applies to airplanes in the specified configurations regardless of when the time limited repair is installed.
For airplanes with a time limited repair installed as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1315, dated July 29, 2011; or SASB 737-53-1315 R1: At the applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1315 R1, except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(5) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do the applicable inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1315 R1, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified SASB 737-53-1315 R1.
(2) Make the time limited repair permanent and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1315 R1, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing the permanent repair required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD for the permanently repaired area only.
Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1315 R1, specifies post-modification airworthiness limitation inspections in compliance with 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the modified locations, which support compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2). As airworthiness limitations, these inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore unnecessary to mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these inspections require FAA approval, but do not require an alternative method of compliance.
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD: Replace the applicable skin panels, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1315 R1. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Doing the skin panel replacement required by this paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for that skin panel only, provided the skin panel replacement was done with a production skin panel at or after 53,000 total flight cycles.
(1) Before 60,000 total flight cycles, but not before 53,000 total flight cycles.
(2) Within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, but not before 53,000 total flight cycles.
This paragraph provides credit for the zone 1 actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, as described in SASB 737-53-1315 R1, if the zone 1, 2, and 3 actions, as described in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1315, dated July 29, 2011, were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1315, dated July 29, 2011, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. Boeing Special Attention Bulletin 737-53-1315, dated July 29, 2011, was incorporated by reference in AD 2012-16-07.
(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 (n)(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, 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) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-16-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(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 Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1315, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2015.
(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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-23-06 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. AD 2014-23-06 required modifying the main landing gear (MLG) by installing a new bracket on the left and right lower aft-wing planks. This new AD requires modification of the MLG with an improved design. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that inboard and outboard hydraulic lines of the brakes were found connected to the incorrect ports on the swivel assembly of the MLG. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 28, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7303; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-23-06, Amendment 39-18022 (79 FR 69037, November 20, 2014) (“AD 2014-23-06”). AD 2014-23-06 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-10R1, dated May 4, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:
Cases of inboard and outboard hydraulic brake lines connected to the incorrect port of the swivel assembly on the main landing gear were found in service. Cross-connected brake hydraulic lines can cause the brakes and/or the anti-skid system to operate incorrectly. During a high speed rejected take-off, inability for the brakes to operate correctly could be catastrophic. The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the modification to prevent inadvertent cross-connection of the inboard and outboard hydraulic brake lines.
Following the initial release of this [Canadian] AD, operators reported that the modifications required by Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 601R-32-110 Rev. NC., dated 19 December 2013, still have a potential for incorrect connection. Subsequently, the SB has been revised to introduce a modified design and this [Canadian] AD revision is issued to mandate the incorporation of the modified design.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, Revision C, dated May 4, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the MLG by installing a block on the left and right lower aft-wing planks. 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 526 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 9 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $190 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $502,330, or $955 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 28, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014-23-06, Amendment 39-18022 (79 FR 69037, November 20, 2014) (“AD 2014-23-06”).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that inboard and outboard hydraulic lines of the brakes were found connected to the incorrect ports on the swivel assembly of the main landing gear (MLG). We are issuing this AD to prevent incorrect installation of the brake hydraulic lines, which could cause the brakes and the anti-skid system to operate incorrectly, and result in catastrophic failure during a high-speed rejected takeoff.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, dated December 19, 2013, has been incorporated: Within 6,600 flight hours or 37 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, modify the MLG, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, Revision C, dated May 4, 2016.
(2) For airplanes on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, dated December 19, 2013, has not been incorporated: Within 4,400 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, modify the MLG, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, Revision C, dated May 4, 2016.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Part B of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015; or Revision B, dated January 26, 2016.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Part A of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015; or Revision B, dated January 26, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-10R1, dated May 4, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, Revision C, dated May 4, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
(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 certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that there are design deficiencies in the software used for monitoring the disconnect for the flight control computer (FCC)-hosted flight controls actuation main ram linear variable differential transducer (LVDT). This AD requires an update of the FCC software. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 28, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone: 800-810-4853; fax: 912-965-3520; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Myles Jalalian, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5572; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service Change Number 037, Revision A, dated June 28, 2016; and Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service Change Number 037, Revision A, dated June 28, 2016. The service information describes procedures for doing an update of the FCC software. This service information is distinct because it applies to different airplanes. 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 90 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD 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 28, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 6001 through 6164 inclusive.
Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Model GVI airplanes are also referred to by marketing designations G650 and G650ER.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27; Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that there are design deficiencies in the software used for monitoring the disconnect for the flight control computer (FCC)-hosted flight controls actuation main ram linear variable differential transducer (LVDT). We are issuing this AD to prevent undetected actuation of the main ram LVDT. Undetected actuation of the main ram LVDT, if not corrected, could result in mechanical failure of the flight control surface actuator mechanism under force fight (the actuator is working against the intended load forces), causing primary surface hardover, spoiler hardover, and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do an FCC software update, in accordance with the Modification Instructions of Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service Change 037, Revision A, dated June 28, 2016; or Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service Change 037, Revision A, dated June 28, 2016; as applicable.
Although Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service Change 037, Revision A, dated June 28, 2016; and Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service Change 037, Revision A, dated June 28, 2016; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
(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 (j) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
For more information about this AD, contact Myles Jalalian, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5572; 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) Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service Change 037, Revision A, dated June 28, 2016.
(ii) Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service Change 037, Revision A, dated June 28, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone: 800-810-4853; fax: 912-965-3520; email:
(4) You may view this service information at 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:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the S.R. 74 Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 8th Annual Wrightsville Beach Marathon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
The deviation is effective from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. on March 25, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-1087] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6422, email
The event director, Without Limits, with approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the S.R. 74 Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations. This temporary deviation is necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 8th Annual Wrightsville Beach Marathon. The bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 20 feet above mean high water.
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(4). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m., on March 25, 2017. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels including recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts 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 rule with request for comments.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating regulation that governs the Bayview (State Route 42/57) Bridge, Mile 3.0, Maple-Oregon Bridge, Mile 4.17, and Michigan Street Bridge, Mile 4.3, all over Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal in Sturgeon Bay, WI, to allow testing of the remote operation equipment for all three drawbridges. The operating schedules are not changing. The three drawbridges will be remotely operated by a single tender throughout the 2017 navigation season with request for comments from all stakeholders on the safety and effectiveness of the remote operation arrangement.
This interim rule is effective from March 23, 2017 to midnight on March 15, 2018. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 1, 2017.
You may submit comments or view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this interim rule, call or email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, or
The Coast Guard is issuing this interim 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), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the operating schedules and methods to signal for openings of the three drawbridges across Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal under this regulation are not changing, and WI-DOT has been testing the remote operation equipment the past two navigation seasons without any reported negative impact to safety or navigation. Also, stakeholders and the general public will have the opportunity, and are encouraged, to submit comments throughout most of the interim rule period.
The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499. The operating schedules for the three drawbridges that cross Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal in Sturgeon Bay, WI are found under the existing regulation, 33 CFR 117.1101; Surgeon Bay. All three drawbridges are bascule-type bridges with unlimited vertical clearance in the open position. In the closed position, the three drawbridges provide the following clearances: Bayview Bridge 42-feet, Maple-Oregon Bridge 25-feet, and Michigan Street Bridge 14-feet. Under the current regulations, from March 15 thru November 30, the Bayview Bridge opens on signal for vessels 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Between December 1 and March 14 the Bayview Bridge will open for vessels if at least 12-hours advance notice is provided. Between March 15 and December 31, the Maple-Oregon Bridge will open for recreational vessels on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Between March 15 and December 31 the Michigan Street Bridge will open for vessels on the hour and half-hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Between January 1 and March 14 both the Maple-Oregon and the Michigan Street Bridges will open for vessels if at least 12-hours advance notice is provided. All three drawbridges open at any time for commercial vessels. Due to the close proximity of the Maple-Oregon and the Michigan Street Bridges, both are required to open simultaneously if requested by a commercial vessel and both shall open on signal at any time if at least 10 vessels have accumulated at either bridge waiting for an opening or vessels are seeking shelter from severe weather.
WI-DOT, owner of all three drawbridges, has requested the Coast Guard authorize permanent remote operation of Bayview Bridge and Michigan Street Bridge, with operation from a single tender stationed at the middle bridge, Maple-Oregon Bridge, under the provisions of 33 CFR 117.42. This interim rule is intended to allow remote operation arrangement throughout the 2017 navigation season under testing conditions to fully evaluate any impacts at the conclusion of the test period. Authorizing temporary remote operation of the Sturgeon Bay drawbridges provides a good opportunity to evaluate the use of current technology to monitor and operate remote drawbridges. This is particularly true given the conditions on this waterway and the demonstrated record over time by the bridge owner, WI-DOT, to efficiently manage and operate their drawbridges within the Ninth Coast Guard District.
The Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal carries large (freighter) and smaller (tug/barge) commercial vessels, recreational vessels (including sailing vessels), vessels seeking emergency yard services, transient vessels, and vessels seeking shelter from severe weather. There are numerous commercial, recreational, and transient facilities along Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal, including a shipyard capable of servicing freighter size commercial vessels. Vessels may enter or exit the Ship Canal through east or west entrances, with some traffic passing through the entire waterway and requiring openings of all three drawbridges, and some traffic reaching facilities without requiring any drawbridge openings by entering the waterway from either the Lake Michigan or Green Bay sides.
Based on data provided by WI-DOT for the 2014 and 2015 navigation seasons, the following charts show the number of commercial and recreational vessel traffic openings for each bridge:
Bayview Bridge:
Maple-Oregon Bridge:
Michigan Street Bridge:
WI-DOT will gather additional throughout the 2017 navigation season and during this interim rule. WI-DOT will also collect additional data to evaluate the remote operation arrangement, including vehicular and pedestrian traffic totals. The operating schedules for all three drawbridges will not be changed.
WI-DOT completed installation of remote operation equipment on all three drawbridges in 2014 and operated all three drawbridges via remote operation equipment from the middle bridge, Maple-Oregon, during the 2015 and 2016 navigation seasons. During this period WI-DOT identified improvements to equipment, best practices and protocols.
WI-DOT has proposed permanently operating the Bayview and Michigan Street Bridges with a single bridge tender operating remote equipment from the Maple-Oregon Bridge, which is located between the Bayview and Michigan Street Bridges. In order to fulfill the required methods to receive and respond to bridge opening requests from vessels, as outlined in Subpart A of 33 CFR 117, WI-DOT will employ the following equipment and protocols; separate programmable logic controllers (PLC) designed for each bridge on fiber optic connections, digital camera coverage (with ability to pan and provide overlap video coverage) of all approaches from land and water, thermal imaging during severe weather or restricted visibility, two-way audio capability, VHF-FM marine radiotelephone, landline telephone, horn, signal lights, back-up and redundant systems, exclusive duties of bridge tenders, and signage at the bridges advising mariners of communication and signaling methods. WI-DOT has developed protocols to suspend the remote operation arrangement and provide tenders at each drawbridge during emergencies or equipment failures and during busy holidays or weekends (Memorial Day, July Fourth, Labor Day). At the conclusion of the comment period of this interim rule period WI-DOT will provide a report documenting various data and observations, including; frequency of bridge openings, vehicular traffic counts, vessel traffic counts (and type), pedestrian counts, frequency of equipment failure and temporary suspension of remote operation, frequency of restricted visibility, best practices, lessons learned, and any other information useful for evaluating the remote operation arrangement. The Coast Guard and WI-DOT will evaluate the data and all comments provided by stakeholders and the general public and determine whether to extend the test period, modify the arrangement, or make the remote operation arrangement permanent in Sturgeon Bay.
The existing operating schedules of the drawbridges will not be changed during the interim rule period, and are not expected to be changed following the period.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 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 fact no changes to operating schedules are implemented with this action. The remote drawbridge operation is expected and designed to be transparent to vessels with no additional requirements or actions necessary to pass any of the three drawbridges.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Interim Rule imposes no changes or additional requirements for any vessel operator or small entity to pass a drawbridge compared to current conditions.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Commandant Instruction.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The draws of the Bayview (State Route 42/57) and Michigan Street bridges, miles 3.0 and 4.3, respectively, at Sturgeon Bay, are remotely operated by the tender at Maple-Oregon bridge, mile 4.17, and shall open as follows:
Department of Veterans Affairs.
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 (“Recognition of Tribal Organizations for Representation of VA Claimants”) published January 19, 2017, from February 21, 2017, until March 21, 2017.
The effective date of the rule that published on January 19, 2017, at 82 FR 6265, is delayed until March 21, 2017.
Brandon A. Jonas, Staff Attorney, Benefits Law Group, Office of the General Counsel, (022D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7699. (This is not a toll free number.)
On January 19, 2017, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a final rule amending its regulations concerning recognition of certain national, State, and regional or local organizations for purposes of VA claims representation. Specifically, the rulemaking allows the Secretary to recognize tribal organizations in a similar manner as the Secretary recognizes State organizations. The final rule allows a tribal organization that is established and funded by one or more tribal governments to be recognized for the purpose of providing assistance on VA benefit claims. In addition, the rulemaking allows an employee of a tribal government to become accredited through a recognized State organization in a similar manner as a County
VA 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” (White House memorandum). 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, VA's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
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, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 15, 2017, for publication.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Interim final rule; correcting amendment.
The Department of Veterans Affairs published in the
Patricia M. Hayes, Ph.D. Chief Consultant, Women's Health Services, Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420. (202) 461-0373. (This is not a toll-free number.)
VA published an interim final rule at 82 FR 6275 (January 19, 2017) that implemented section 260 of the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, and Zika Response and Preparedness Act (Pub. L. 114-223) as it pertains to fertility counseling and treatment for certain veterans and spouses. This law states that VA may use appropriated funds available to VA for the Medical Services account to provide fertility counseling and treatment using assisted reproductive technology (ART) to a veteran with a service-connected disability that results in the inability of the veteran to procreate without the use of fertility treatment, and to the spouse of such veteran. The ART treatments referred to in this law are those relating to reproductive assistance provided to a member of the Armed Forces who incurs a serious injury or illness on active duty pursuant to title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 1074(c)(4)(A), as described in a policy memorandum issued by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs on April 3, 2012, titled “Policy for Assisted Reproductive Services for the Benefit of Seriously or Severely Ill/Injured (Category II or III) Active Duty Service Members,” and the guidance issued to implement such policy, including any limitations on the amount of benefits available to each eligible member.
VA added new § 17.380 which states that IVF may be provided when clinically appropriate to a veteran who has a service-connected disability that results in the inability of the veteran to procreate without the use of fertility treatment, as well as a spouse of such veteran. IVF services available to such veterans are the same as those provided by DoD to a member of the Armed Forces who incurs a serious injury or illness on active duty pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1074(c)(4)(A), as described in DoD policy guidance, including any limitations on the amount of such benefits available to such a member. Fertility counseling and treatment other than IVF is available to veterans as part of the medical benefits package at § 17.38.
We also added new § 17.412 which states that VA may provide fertility counseling and treatment using ART to a spouse of a veteran with a service-connected disability that results in the inability of the veteran to procreate without the use of fertility treatment to the extent such services are available to enrolled veterans under the medical benefits package. It also states that VA may provide IVF to a spouse of a veteran with a service-connected disability that results in the inability of the veteran to procreate without the use of fertility treatment. Such health care services may be provided when clinically appropriate and consistent with the benefits relating to reproductive assistance provided to a member of the Armed Forces who incurs a serious injury or illness on
In paragraph (b) of both §§ 17.380 and 17.412 we incorrectly stated that authority to provide health care services under these sections expires on September 30, 2017, the end of fiscal year 2017. In this correction, we amend both paragraphs to reflect that authority to provide health care services under these sections expires on September 30, 2018.
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, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 15, 2017, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and Dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA is correcting 38 CFR part 17 by making the following correcting amendments:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
Section 17.38 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1701, 1705, 1710, 1710A, 1721, 1722, 1782, and 1786.
Sections 17.380 and 17.412 are also issued under sec. 260, Public Law 114-223, 130 Stat. 857.
Section 17.415 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 7301, 7304, 7402, and 7403.
Sections 17.640 and 17.647 are also issued under sec. 4, Public Law 114-2, 129 Stat. 30.
Sections 17.641 through 17.646 are also issued under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and sec. 4, Public Law 114-2, 129 Stat. 30.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
On June 15, 2010, VA published a document in the
This correction is effective on February 21, 2017.
Jeffrey F. London, Director, Loan Guaranty Service (26), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-8862. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On June 15, 2010, at 75 FR 33704, VA amended what had been the 36.4800 series of 38 CFR part 36 to eliminate redundant and obsolete regulations, found from 38 CFR 36.4800 through 36.4893, and redesignated those sections as CFR 36.4300 through 36.4393.
On October 22, 2010, at 75 FR 65238, VA amended the cross-references in the 36.4300 series to reflect the June 15, 2010, amendments. At that time, VA inadvertently failed to update a number of cross-references. Additionally, VA attempted to amend 38 CFR 36.4309(c)(1)(vii) to replace a reference to 36.4826 with a reference to 36.4326. However, VA erroneously cited paragraph (c)(1)(vi) as containing the reference to 36.4826. Consequently, the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, published by the Government Printing Office, could not implement the change, noting an “inaccurate amendatory instruction” at the bottom of 38 CFR 36.4309.
With this notice, VA is amending §§ 36.4309, 36.4322, 36.4335, and 36.4378, to correct the outdated cross-references to the 36.4800 series regulations.
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, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 15, 2017, for publication.
Condominiums, Housing, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—veterans, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, VA is amending 38 CFR part 36 with the following correcting amendments:
38 U.S.C. 501 and as otherwise noted.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Interim final rule.
This document implements a portion of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, which requires the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to verify ownership and control of veteran-owned small businesses (VOSB), including service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB) in order for these firms to participate in VA acquisitions set-aside for SDVOSB/VOSBs. This interim final rule contains a minor revision to require re-verification of SDVOSB/VOSB status only every three years rather than biennially. The purpose of this change is to reduce the administrative burden on SDVOSB/VOSBs regarding participation in VA acquisitions set asides for these types of firms.
Written comments may be submitted by: Mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (00REG1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; or email through
Thomas McGrath, Director, Center for Verification and Evaluation (00VE), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington DC 20420, phone (202) 461-4300.
In a final rule published in the
In administering this program since February 2010, VA has concluded that an annual examination is not necessary to adequately maintain the integrity of the program and proposes a 3-year eligibility period. This change is appropriate because VA conducts a robust examination of personal and company documentation to verify ownership and control by Veterans of applicant businesses. In addition to verifying individual owners' service-disabled veteran status or veteran status, in accordance with 38 CFR 74.20(b), VA reviews an applicant's financial statements; Federal personal and business tax returns; personal history statements; articles of incorporation/organization; corporate by-laws or operating agreements; organizational, annual and board/member meeting records; stock ledgers and certificates; State-issued certificates of good standing; contract, lease and loan agreements; payroll records; bank account signature cards; and licenses. Given the depth of this review, annual or biennial re-verification examinations have become an unnecessary administrative burden on both applicants/participants and VA.
Given this extensive initial examination, VA is confident that the integrity of the verification program will not be compromised by establishing a 3-year eligibility period. This is borne out by fiscal year 2016 data that shows that out of 1,109 reverification applications, only ten were denied. Therefore, only 0.9 percent of firms submitting reverification applications were found to be ineligible after two years. Other integrity aspects of the program remain adequate to oversee a 3-year eligibility period. Once verified, 38 CFR 74.15(a) mandates that the participant must maintain its eligibility during its tenure and, if ownership or control changes occur, must inform VA's Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) of any changes that would adversely affect its eligibility. Moreover, in accordance with 38 CFR part 74.20(a), VA has the right to conduct random, unannounced site examinations of participants or to conduct a further examination upon receipt of specific and credible information that a participant is no longer eligible. Lastly, in the course of specific SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside acquisitions, VA contracting officers and also competing SDVOSB/VOSBs have the right to raise a SDVOSB/VOSB status protest to VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) if either has a reasonable basis upon which to challenge the SDVOSB/VOSB status of a verified firm.
Establishment of a longer, 3-year eligibility period is consistent with other Federal set-aside programs. With respect to the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business certification program, U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 126.500 require that any qualified HUBZone small business concern seeking to remain on the HUBZone approved list must recertify every 3 years with SBA. With regard to SBA's Section 8(a) Business Development program, SBA authorizes a program term of up to 9 years in 13 CFR 124.2. For VA's SDVOSB/VOSB verification program, VA has now determined that a program term of 3 years is reasonable given the mandatory nature of VA's SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside authority in contrast to the discretionary nature of the HUBZone and Section 8(a) set-aside programs. In accordance with 38 U.S.C. 8127 and VA Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR part 819, VA is required to set aside any open market procurement for SDVOSBs and then VOSBs, first and second respectively, if two or more such concerns are reasonably anticipated to submit offers at fair and reasonable pricing. Given the large volume of appropriated funds subject to these set-aside requirements, a 3-year eligibility period prior to re-examination is deemed reasonable to adequately balance the burden on SDVOSB/VOSBs and to protect the integrity of the program.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds good cause to issue this interim final rule prior to notice and comment procedures. The interim rule makes a minor modification to extend the eligibility period for SDVOSB/VOSBs after VA's initial robust verification examination and approval from 2 years to 3 years. The rule will reduce the
For these reasons, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is issuing this as an interim final rule. In view of the detrimental effects of continuing an unnecessary administrative burden on program participants and verifying officials, and to avoid delays in verification caused by repetitive biennial reviews, the Secretary finds it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest to delay the effective date of this regulation for the purpose of soliciting advance public comment. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs will consider and address comments that are received within 60 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the
For these same reasons, and because this interim final rule relieves a restriction, the Secretary finds that this rule will be effective on the date of publication.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, applies to this final rule. This interim final rule is generally neutral in its effect on small businesses because it relates only to small businesses applying for verified status in VA's SDVOSB/VOSB verified database. The overall impact of the rule will benefit small businesses owned by veterans or service-disabled veterans because it will reduce their administrative burden associated with maintaining verified status by extending the need for re-verification by VA from 2 years to 3 years. VA has estimated the cost to an individual business to be null. Increasing the verification period will decrease the frequency of any costs. On this basis, the Secretary certifies that the adoption of this interim final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this regulation is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
VA has already established the SDVOSB/VOSB verification program in regulation at 38 CFR part 74, and the minor change in this interim final rule will modify the term of eligibility after initial verification from 2 years to 3 years before re-verification would be required.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This interim final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
This interim final rule affects the verification guidelines of veteran-owned small businesses, for which there is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number.
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, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 15, 2017 for publication.
Administrative practice and procedures, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business, Veteran, Veteran-owned small business, Verification.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 74 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, 513, and as noted in specific sections.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final action; requirements and procedures.
In this document the Incentive Auction Task Force and the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts: Updates to the categories of eligible equipment and services, as well as updated baseline costs, in the catalog of eligible reimbursement expenses (Catalog); an economic methodology for adjusting the Catalog's baseline costs annually such that they remain accurate, by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Producer Price Index, WPUFD4 series; and revisions to the online Reimbursement Form to incorporate the updates to the Catalog, which will be embedded in the Reimbursement Form, as well as other features, including checkboxes for entities to indicate if they are seeking upgrades or partial payment requests, which are designed to make it more user-friendly.
February 21, 2017.
Copies of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by email to
Pamela Gallant, 202-418-0614, or Raphael Sznajder, 202-418-1648, of the Media Bureau, Video Division.
With the assistance of a third-party contractor, Widelity, Inc., and based on the record to date, the Media Bureau has developed, updated, and now adopted an updated catalog of eligible reimbursement expenses (Catalog) for reimbursement-eligible entities to use for reference during the post-incentive auction transition. The Catalog is not exhaustive, but rather a tool to facilitate the process for reimbursement-eligible entities to claim reimbursement on the Reimbursement Form. This Public Notice (available at: DA 17-154), adopts not only the proposed updated categories and prices for the reimbursement expenses listed, but also adopts an economic methodology to update the prices in the Catalog throughout the three-year reimbursement period so that they accurately reflect the current market for the equipment and services listed in the Catalog. The Catalog that the Incentive Auction Task Force and the Media Bureau adopt will be embedded in the on-line Reimbursement Form (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399) which will be used by entities seeking reimbursement to file estimated costs and reimbursement claims for the costs they actually incur. The Reimbursement Form is a web-based electronic form containing previously approved information collections (under existing OMB control number 3060-1178). The Commission previously sought, and, on March 17, 2016, obtained OMB approval for the information collection requirements contained in the Reimbursement Form, which became effective on March 24, 2016, for a period of three years. (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; technical amendment.
NMFS is hereby making a technical amendment to our regulations without altering the substance of the regulations. These changes will clarify our regulations to make them more easily understood by the public. As a result of a previously published final rule to implement Regulatory Amendment 16 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), that published in the
This final rule is effective February 21, 2017.
Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 16, which includes an environmental impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Nikhil Mehta, 727-824-5305; email:
Black sea bass is in the snapper-grouper fishery and is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and
On December 29, 2016, NMFS published the final rule for Regulatory Amendment 16 (81 FR 95893). The final rule for Regulatory Amendment 16 revised the seasonal prohibition on the use of black sea bass pot gear in the South Atlantic and added an additional gear marking requirement for black sea bass pot gear. The purpose of that final rule was to reduce the adverse socioeconomic impacts from the previous seasonal black sea bass pot gear prohibition while continuing to protect Endangered Species Act listed North Atlantic right whales in the South Atlantic. That final rule also required additional gear markings to help identify black sea bass pot gear in the South Atlantic. This technical amendment to that final rule clarifies that black sea bass pot commercial trip limits are meant to be in effect year-round.
On June 1, 2012, NMFS published the final rule for Amendment 18A to the FMP (77 FR 32408). Among the measures in Amendment 18A was the establishment of a year-round commercial trip limit of 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight; 1,180 lb (535 kg), round weight.
On September 23, 2013, NMFS published the final rule for Regulatory Amendment 19 to the FMP (78 FR 58249). Regulatory Amendment 19 established an annual prohibition on the use of black sea bass pot gear from November through April.
On November 7, 2014, NMFS published the final rule for Regulatory Amendment 14 to the FMP (79 FR 66316). One of the measures implemented through Regulatory Amendment 14 was the establishment of a 300 lb (136-kg), gutted weight; 354 lb (161 kg), round weight, commercial trip limit for the black sea bass hook-and-line component in the South Atlantic from January 1 through April 30, each year. In addition, NMFS changed the commercial trip limit for the black sea bass pot component from year-round to May 1 through October 31, each year. The intent of referencing the May through October dates for the black sea bass pot commercial trip limit was because at that time, May through October was the only time period that pots could be fished. The final rule for Regulatory Amendment 14 simply clarified the seasonal differences in commercial trip limits among the different black sea bass gear components (pots and hook-and-line) in the commercial sector.
The final rule for Regulatory Amendment 16 revised the black sea bass pot seasonal prohibition. As of December 29, 2016, sea bass pots are allowed to be fished year-round in specific areas in the South Atlantic. During the development of the rulemaking to implement Regulatory Amendment 16, NMFS inadvertently did not revise the relevant regulatory text to correctly reference that the commercial trip limits for black sea bass fishers are meant to be in effect year-round. However, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's stated intent in Regulatory Amendment 16 was to retain the 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight; 1,180 lb (535 kg), round weight, year-round commercial trip limit for the black sea bass pot sector originally implemented in 2012.
Currently, the regulations at § 622.191(a)(8)(ii) contain a reference that the 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight; 1,180 lb (535 kg), round weight, commercial trip limit is only applicable from May 1 through October 31. The May 1 through October 31 condition was added to clarify the seasonal differences in commercial trip limits among the hook-and-line and black sea bass pot components in the commercial sector. As currently written, the regulations at § 622.191(a)(8)(ii) incorrectly have no commercial trip limit in place from November 1 through April 30. As had been described in Regulatory Amendment 16, the intent by NMFS and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council was for the commercial trip limit for sea bass pots to be in effect year-round.
This technical amendment corrects the text within § 622.191(a)(8)(ii) to accurately state that the black sea bass pot trip limit is in effect year-round.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic black sea bass and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this regulatory clarification constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this final rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, because the rules establishing the commercial trip limits and the seasonal closures have already been subject to notice and comment and not immediately correcting the regulatory text would result in confusion and uncertainty for the affected entities.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
These measures are thus exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because prior notice and comment have been waived under the APA.
Black sea bass, Commercial trip limits, Fisheries, Fishing, South Atlantic.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) Sea bass pot component. Until the applicable quota specified in § 622.190(a)(5) is reached—1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight; 1,180 lb (535 kg), round weight.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 16, 2017, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2017.
Obren Davis, 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. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The A season allowance of the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 4,854 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016) and inseason adjustment (81 FR 95063, December 27, 2016).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2017 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 4,844 mt and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. 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 directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 14, 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
Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is extending by 30 days the deadline to submit comments on the proposed rule to designate 12 product categories for federal procurement, which was published on January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4206) under the authority of section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill), and further amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill), 7 U.S.C. 8102. The 60-day comment period in the proposed rule is scheduled to end on March 14, 2017. The extended comment period will now close on April 13, 2017. In this proposed rule, USDA is proposing to amend the Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement (Guidelines) to add 12 sections that will designate the product categories within which biobased products would be afforded procurement preference by Federal agencies and their contractors.
Comments on the proposed rule published January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4206) must be received on or before April 13, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods. All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory Information Number (RIN). The RIN for this rulemaking is 0599-AA24. Also, please identify submittals as pertaining to the “Proposed Designation of Product Categories.”
•
•
•
• Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for regulatory information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice) and (202) 690-0942 (TTY).
Marie Wheat, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20024; email:
USDA is extending the public comment period for an additional 30 days. The public comment period will end on April 13, 2017, instead on March 14, 2017.
Biobased products, Procurement.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; denial.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated September 10, 2015, submitted by Dr. Alexander DeVolpi (the petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on September 21, 2015, and was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-113. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require “installation of ex-vessel instrumentation for uninterruptible monitoring of coolant and fuel in reactors and spent-fuel pools.” The NRC is denying the petition because the Commission finds that the issues raised by the petitioner have been addressed by actions taken by the NRC in response to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident.
The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-50-113, is closed on February 21, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0230, when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this petition. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this petition by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jennifer C. Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-2328; email:
Section 2.802 of title 10 of the
The petitioner requested that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities,” to require “installation of ex-vessel instrumentation for uninterruptible monitoring of coolant and fuel in reactors and spent-fuel pools.”
The NRC is denying the petition because the issues raised by the petitioner have been addressed through actions taken in response to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident. The NRC determined that there is no sufficient technical or regulatory basis to amend the NRC's regulations as requested by the petitioner.
The petitioner proposed that Recommendation 5.1A in the 2014 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report entitled “Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants” should be mandated (as an NRC regulation) to require installation of ex-vessel instrumentation for uninterruptible monitoring of coolant and fuel in reactors and spent fuel pools. The petitioner stated that NAS gave a high priority to this recommendation and the petitioner indicated that he has developed instrumentation that is capable of uninterruptible monitoring of critical thermodynamic parameters. The petitioner included diagrams and explanations of his patented instrumentation and supportive technical papers and requested that the NRC require use of such instrumentation to prevent or mitigate accidents. In particular, the petitioner contends that the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 might have been prevented if real-time uninterruptible ex-vessel reactor water-level monitoring had been in place. Further, the petitioner states that one or two of the Fukushima Dai-ichi meltdowns might have been delayed or averted if uninterruptible ex-vessel real-time reactor water-level monitoring had been in place and operating on self-contained low-current battery supplies.
The NRC staff responded to the NAS report and its recommendations in SECY-15-0059, “Seventh 6-Month Status Update on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tōhoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami,” dated April 9, 2015. The NRC staff's discussion of Recommendation 5.1A in enclosure 6 of SECY-15-0059 addresses the installation of ex-vessel instrumentation for uninterruptible monitoring of coolant and fuel in reactors and spent fuel pools. The NRC staff found that this recommendation was addressed by existing requirements and other ongoing activities. The issues that the petitioner's proposal would address are being or have already been addressed by NRC actions taken in response to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident, as summarized in this document.
Instrumentation used to support strategies in the mitigation of beyond-design-basis events is addressed in Order EA-12-049, “Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events.” This Order ensures that plant operators have the information concerning key parameters needed to support implementation of mitigation strategies to maintain or restore core cooling, spent fuel pool cooling, and containment prior to the onset of core or spent fuel damage. Either installed instrumentation remains powered during an extended loss of alternating current power via safety-related batteries and other power supplies that provide coping capabilities for an indefinite period of time, or portable instruments are used that are independent from installed plant power systems. If mitigation strategies are not successful and severe accident conditions develop, the enhancements made in response to Order EA-12-049 will provide for monitoring of key parameters on the condition of the reactor, containment, and spent fuel pool throughout the accident's progression until instrumentation becomes unavailable or unreliable. These enhancements should also enable licensees to more easily transition to the use of computational aids when direct diagnosis of key plant conditions cannot be determined reliably from instrumentation. Further, spent fuel pool instrumentation is also required by Order EA-12-051, “Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation,” to remotely report three distinct water levels: Normal level; low level but still enough to shield workers above the pools from radiation; and a level near the top of the spent fuel rods, at which more water should be added without delay.
Following the issuance of the Orders, the NRC staff presented its evaluation of enhanced instrumentation for beyond-design-basis conditions in enclosure 5 to SECY-15-0137, “Proposed Plans for Resolving Open Fukushima Tier 2 and 3 Recommendations.” The staff recommended that the Commission not pursue additional regulatory requirements for enhanced reactor and containment instrumentation. The NRC staff concluded that additional studies are unlikely to support additional regulatory requirements related to enhanced reactor and containment instrumentation for beyond-design-basis conditions, when evaluated against the criteria for operating reactors in § 50.109, “Backfitting,” or the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”
In the staff requirements memorandum associated with SECY-15-0137, the Commission directed the NRC staff to provide the final results of its evaluation following interactions with external stakeholders and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). Accordingly, the NRC staff provided updated information regarding enhanced reactor and
The additional NRC staff evaluations further support the conclusion that regulatory actions to require enhancements to reactor and containment instrumentation to support the response to severe accidents would not provide a substantial safety enhancement, and therefore, additional regulatory actions would not be warranted when evaluated against the § 50.109 criteria. The ACRS agreed in its March 15, 2016, letter that no further regulatory action is warranted in support of the closure of the recommendation on enhanced instrumentation.
In addition to the discussions in SECY-15-0137 and SECY-16-0041, the NRC staff notes that, depending on an accident's progression, licensees will use available indicators and technical assessments of the evolving scenario to implement adequate measures to protect public health and safety in accordance with the NRC's emergency preparedness requirements. If an accident progresses to fuel damage, specific additional actions may be required, including initiating predetermined protective actions for the public.
Moreover, the NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to establish regulatory requirements for nuclear power reactor applicants and licensees to mitigate beyond-design-basis events to reflect requirements imposed on current licensees by Order and the lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident. This proposed rule, “Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events,” which was published in the
Therefore, in accordance with the NRC staff's evaluation in SECY-15-0137, the Commission's direction on SECY-15-0137, updated information provided in SECY-16-0041, and existing emergency preparedness requirements, and the proposed Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events rulemaking, the NRC has determined that additional instrumentation requirements to address severe accident conditions proposed in PRM-50-113 are not necessary.
For the reasons cited in Section II of this document, the NRC has concluded that the issues raised by the petitioner have been addressed by NRC actions taken in response to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident and there is no sufficient technical or regulatory basis to amend the NRC's regulations as requested by the petitioner. Therefore, the NRC is denying PRM-50-113.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the methods listed in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a full scale fatigue test campaign on these airplanes in the context of the extended service goal. This proposed AD would require inspections of the affected frame locations, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 7, 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 NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
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 Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0146, dated July 20, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following the results of a new full scale fatigue test campaign on the A321 airframe in the context of the A321 extended service goal, it was identified that cracks could develop on the fastener holes of frame (FR) 35.1, FR 35.2, and FR 35.3 between stringers (STR) 29 and STR 32 and at the FR 35.2 to Slidebox junction (Triform fitting), both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage. Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed an inspection programme, published in Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1308, SB A320-53-1309, SB A320-53-1310, SB A320-53-1311, SB A320-53-1312 and SB A320-53-1313, each containing instructions for a different location. For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive special detailed (rototest) inspections (SDI) of the affected frame locations and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.
This [EASA] AD is considered an interim action, pending the development of a permanent solution.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed the following Airbus service information. This service information describes procedures for repetitive rototest inspections for cracking of the affected frame locations, and contacting Airbus for repair instructions. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to different frame locations.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1308, dated November 4, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1309, dated November 4, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1310, dated November 4, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1311, dated November 4, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1312, dated November 4, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1313, dated November 4, 2015.
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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 176 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have no way to estimate the costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs.
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 April 7, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a full scale fatigue test campaign on Airbus Model A321 series airplanes in the context of the extended service goal. It was determined that cracks could develop on the fastener holes of certain frames on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the affected airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fastener holes at certain frame locations, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, do a rototest inspection for cracking at frame (FR) 35.1, FR 35.2, and FR 35.3 on the LH and RH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), and (g)(6) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,300 flight cycles.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1308, dated November 4, 2015 (FR 35.1 LH side).
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1309, dated November 4, 2015 (FR 35.1 RH side).
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1310, dated November 4, 2015 (FR 35.2 LH side).
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1311, dated November 4, 2015 (FR 35.2 RH side).
(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1312, dated November 4, 2015 (FR 35.3 LH side).
(6) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1313, dated November 4, 2015 (FR 35.3 RH side).
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Although the service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph. Repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0146, dated July 20, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Denial of petition for addition of a health condition.
On September 29, 2016, the Administrator of the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program received a petition to add autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List). Upon reviewing the information provided by the petitioner, the Administrator has determined that Petition 014 is not substantially different from Petitions 007, 008, 009, 011, and 013, which also requested the addition of autoimmune diseases, including various subtypes. The Administrator has published responses to the five previous petitions in the
The Administrator of the WTC Health Program is denying this petition for the addition of a health condition as of February 21, 2017.
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS: C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855)
Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-347, as amended by Pub. L. 114-113), added Title XXXIII to the Public Health Service (PHS) Act,
All references to the Administrator of the WTC Health Program (Administrator) in this notice mean the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or his or her designee.
Pursuant to section 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act, interested parties may petition the Administrator to add a health condition to the List in 42 CFR 88.15. Within 90 days after receipt of a petition to add a condition to the List, the Administrator must take one of the following four actions described in section 3312(a)(6)(B) and 42 CFR 88.16: (1) Request a recommendation of the STAC; (2) publish a proposed rule in the
In addition to the regulatory provisions, the WTC Health Program has developed policies to guide the review of submissions and petitions
On September 29, 2016, the Administrator received a petition from a WTC Health Program member to add “autoimmune conditions like Rheumatoid Arthritis” to the List, considered Petition 014.
In accordance with WTC Health Program policy, the medical basis for a potential addition to the List may be demonstrated by reference to a peer-reviewed, published epidemiologic study about the health condition among 9/11-exposed populations or to clinical case reports of health conditions in WTC responders or survivors.
A literature search conducted in response to Petition 007
The literature review did not identify any newly-published, relevant studies of autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, in the 9/11-exposed population.
Finding no newly-published, relevant studies with regard to Petition 014, the Administrator has accordingly determined that insufficient evidence is available to take further action at this time, including either proposing the addition of autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, to the List (pursuant to PHS Act, sec. 3312(a)(6)(B)(ii) and 42 CFR 88.16(a)(2)(ii)) or publishing a determination not to publish a proposed rule in the
For the reasons discussed above, the Petition 014 request to add autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions is denied.
The Secretary, HHS, or her/his designee, the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), authorized the undersigned, the Administrator of the WTC Health Program, to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the WTC Health Program. Anne Schuchat, M.D., Acting Director, CDC, and Acting Administrator, ATSDR, approved this document for publication on February 9, 2017.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Framework Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP) as prepared and submitted jointly by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Councils). For the recreational sector, this proposed rule would establish bag and vessel limits, and revise the minimum size limit and accountability measures (AMs) for Atlantic migratory group cobia (Atlantic cobia). This proposed rule would also establish a commercial trip limit for Atlantic cobia. Framework Amendment 4 and this proposed rule apply to the commercial and recreational harvest of Atlantic cobia in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) from Georgia through New York. The purpose of Framework Amendment 4 and this proposed rule is to slow the rate of harvest of Atlantic cobia and reduce the likelihood that landings will exceed the commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACL), thereby triggering the AMs and reducing harvest opportunities.
Written comments must be received on or before March 23, 2017.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0167,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Framework Amendment 4 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-551-5753, or email:
The coastal migratory pelagic fishery of the Gulf and Atlantic Regions is managed under the FMP and includes the management of the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia. The FMP was prepared jointly by the Councils and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. All weights described in this proposed rule are in round weight.
The current recreational AM for Atlantic cobia provides that if landings exceed the stock ACL (commercial and recreational ACLs combined), then during the following fishing year, the length of the recreational season will be reduced by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings may achieve the recreational annual catch target (ACT) of 500,000 lb (226,796 kg) for 2016 and subsequent fishing years), but do not exceed the recreational ACL.
The current commercial AM for Atlantic cobia provides that if commercial landings reach or are estimated to reach the commercial quota (ACL), then the commercial sector will be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. The commercial quota for Atlantic cobia is 50,000 lb (22,680 kg).
Additionally, cobia is currently defined as a limited harvest species and no person may possess more than two cobia per day in or from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ, regardless of whether harvested by the commercial or recreational sector.
In 2015, recreational landings for Atlantic cobia exceeded the 2015 recreational ACL of 630,000 lb (285,763 kg) and the 2015 stock ACL of 690,000 lb (312,979 kg). Therefore, as a result of the stock ACL being exceeded in 2015, the 2016 recreational season for Atlantic cobia in Federal waters closed on June 20, 2016 (81 FR 12601, March 10, 2016). Because the recreational closure occurred during months of high recreational effort for cobia, the early closure had negative social and economic impacts on recreational anglers, charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) businesses, for-hire clients, and associated businesses such as tackle shops.
The following actions in Framework Amendment 4 and this proposed rule are intended to slow the rate of harvest of Atlantic cobia and reduce the likelihood that sector landings will exceed the sector and stock ACLs, thereby triggering the AMs and reducing harvest opportunities. The goal is to provide equitable access for all recreational participants in the participants in the Atlantic cobia component of the coastal migratory pelagics fishery.
For the recreational sector, this proposed rule would establish bag and vessel limits and revise the minimum size limit and AMs for Atlantic cobia. This proposed rule would also establish a commercial trip limit for Atlantic cobia. As a result of the proposed recreational bag and possession limits and the commercial trip limit, Atlantic migratory cobia would no longer be subject to the two fish per person per day possession limit for limited harvest species.
The current minimum size limit for the recreational harvest of Atlantic cobia in the EEZ is 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length. This proposed rule would increase the recreational minimum size limit for the Atlantic cobia recreational sector to 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length. This modification would result in a recreational harvest reduction in the Atlantic, that in combination with the proposed recreational bag and vessel limits, would be expected slow the rate of recreational harvest and thereby reduce the likelihood of exceeding the recreational and stock ACLs and thereby triggering the AM.
This proposed rule would remove Atlantic cobia from the limited harvest species possession limit and would establish a recreational bag limit of one fish per person per day or six fish per vessel, whichever is more restrictive.
As explained above, the proposed increase in the recreational minimum size limit, and the proposed recreational bag limit and vessel limit are expected to slow the harvest rate and reduce the likelihood that recreational landings will exceed the ACL and trigger the recreational AMs for the following fishing year.
This proposed rule would revise the recreational AMs for Atlantic cobia. Currently, if the sum of commercial and recreational landings of cobia exceed the stock ACL, then during the following fishing year, the length of the recreational fishing season will be reduced to ensure that the harvest achieves the recreational ACT, but does not exceed the recreational ACL. Also, the current recreational AM uses a moving average of the most recent 3 years of landings to compare to the ACL. Additionally, if Atlantic cobia are overfished, and the stock ACL is exceeded, then during the following fishing year the recreational ACL and ACT would be reduced by the amount of any recreational ACL overage.
Framework Amendment 4 would remove the current 3-year average of landings to compare to the ACL. NMFS expects that using a single year of landings to determine if an overage occurred will better represent the patterns and behavior of the Atlantic cobia fishery. Cobia landings can be variable; including very high or very low recreational landings into a 3-year average can result in an artificial reduction or lengthening of the recreational fishing season, respectively.
The proposed recreational AM would require that if the recreational ACL and the stock ACL are exceeded, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings, and, if necessary, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the recreational vessel limit, to no less than 2 fish per vessel to ensure recreational landings achieve the recreational ACT, but do not exceed the recreational ACL in that fishing year. Any reduction to the proposed recreational vessel limit would only apply for the fishing year in which it is implemented. Additionally, if the reduction to the vessel limit is insufficient to ensure that recreational landings will not exceed the recreational ACL, then the length of the recreational fishing season would also be reduced to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in that fishing year. The recreational vessel limit and the length of the recreational fishing season would not be reduced if NMFS determines, based on the best scientific information available, that a recreational vessel limit and fishing season reduction are unnecessary.
There is currently no specific commercial trip limit for Atlantic cobia. However, as previously discussed, Atlantic cobia is currently a limited harvest species and there is a possession limit of two cobia per person per day for both sectors. This proposed rule would remove Atlantic cobia from the limited harvest species possession limit and establish a commercial trip limit for Atlantic cobia of two fish per person per day or six fish per vessel per day, whichever is more restrictive.
Establishing a commercial trip limit will reduce the rate of harvest of cobia to help ensure the commercial and stock ACLs are not exceeded and the AMs triggered, resulting in a reduced season length or reduced vessel limit for the recreational sector and a commercial closure as a result of exceeding the commercial quota.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Framework Amendment 4, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this rule, if adopted, would not have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
NMFS expects this proposed rule to directly affect federally permitted commercial fishermen fishing for Atlantic cobia. Recreational anglers fishing for Atlantic cobia would also be directly affected by the proposed action, but they are not considered business entities under the RFA. Charter vessel and headboat operations are business entities but they are only indirectly affected by the proposed rule. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
From 2010 through 2015, excluding the Mid-Atlantic states, an annual average of 98 vessels took 318 commercial trips that combined landed an average of 13,469 lb (6,109 kg) gutted weight of Atlantic cobia annually with a dockside value (2014 dollars) of $31,115. Average annual dockside revenue from Atlantic cobia represented approximately 3.6 percent of total dockside revenues from trips that landed Atlantic cobia from 2010 through 2015. For the Mid-Atlantic states during the same time period, an annual average of 24 vessels took 178 commercial trips that combined landed an average of 14,732 lb (6,682 kg) landed weight of Atlantic cobia annually with a dockside value (2014 dollars) of $39,227. For these vessels, per vessel revenue (2014 dollars) from Atlantic cobia was approximately $1,644. On average, vessels in the South Atlantic that harvested Atlantic cobia also took 2,338 commercial fishing trips per year without Atlantic cobia landings. Combining all sources of revenues, the average annual dockside revenues of vessels that landed Atlantic cobia was $74,066 (2014 dollars) per vessel. Annual dockside revenues from Atlantic cobia landings represented, on average, approximately 0.4 percent of the total dockside revenues from all commercial landings from 2010 through 2015 of vessels that landed Atlantic cobia. On average, the crew size per trip, including captains, of vessels in the South Atlantic that landed Atlantic cobia was 1.8 persons for hook and line vessels, 2.0 persons for gillnet vessels, and 2.4 persons for vessels using other gear types. The overall average crew size per trip for all vessels landing Atlantic cobia was less than 2 persons. Similar information on overall revenues from all sources and crew size for vessels in the Mid-Atlantic is not available. However, it is expected that the crew size for vessels in the Mid-Atlantic would be
Because all entities expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are assumed to be small entities, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities; however, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
The proposed rule would establish a commercial cobia trip limit of two fish per person per day and would also implement a limit of six fish per vessel per day, whichever is more restrictive. This action would affect only those vessels with a crew of more than three persons. Noting that the 2010 through 2015 average crew size for vessels landing Atlantic cobia was less than two persons per trip, it is likely that this action would have only minor effects on vessel revenues. It is, therefore, expected that this proposed rule would not have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to have significant economic impacts on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Annual catch limits, Cobia, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(2)
(ii) 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length, for cobia that are not sold (recreational sector).
(a)
(1) * * *
(vi) Atlantic migratory group cobia that are not sold (recreational sector)—1, not to exceed 6 fish per vessel per day.
(b)
(c)
(2) [Reserved]
(f)
(i) If the sum of the cobia landings that are sold, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the quota specified in § 622.384(d)(2) (ACL), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to prohibit the sale and purchase of cobia for the remainder of the fishing year;
(ii) In addition to the measures specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, if the sum of the cobia landings that are sold and not sold in or from the Atlantic migratory group, as estimated by the SRD, exceeds the stock ACL, as specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, and Atlantic migratory group cobia are overfished, based on the most recent status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the applicable quota (ACL), as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, for that following year by the amount of any applicable sector-specific ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
(2) The following ACLs and AMs apply to cobia that are not sold (recreational sector). If recreational landings for cobia, as estimated by the SRD, exceed both the recreational ACL of 620,000 lb (281,227 kg), and the stock ACL, as specified paragraph (f)(3) of this section, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings, and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the recreational vessel limit, specified in § 622.382(a)(1)(vi), to no less than 2 fish per vessel to ensure recreational landings achieve the recreational ACT, but do not exceed the recreational ACL in that fishing year. Any recreational vessel limit reduction that is implemented as described in this paragraph is only applicable for the fishing year in which it is implemented. Additionally, if the reduction in the recreational vessel limit is determined by the AA to be insufficient to ensure that recreational landings will not exceed the recreational ACL, the AA will also reduce the length of the recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in that fishing year. The recreational vessel limit and the length of the recreational fishing season will
(3) The stock ACL for Atlantic migratory group cobia is 670,000 lb (303,907 kg).
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (“AMS”) intention to request an extension for the form currently used by marketers to apply for exemption from market promotion assessments under 23 marketing order programs.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 24, 2017.
Contact Andrew Hatch, Supervisory Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Tel: (202) 720-2491, Email:
Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Tel: (202) 720-2491; or Email:
Comments are welcome and should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the
All comments to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval, and will become a matter of public record.
Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), marketing orders may authorize production and marketing research, including paid advertising, to promote various commodities, which is paid for by assessments that are levied on the handlers who are regulated by the Orders.
On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (7 U.S.C. 7901) amended the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7201), exempting any person who handles or markets solely 100 percent organic products from paying these assessments with respect to any agricultural commodity that is produced on a certified organic farm, as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502). A certified organic handler can apply for this exemption by completing a “Certified Organic Handler Application for Exemption from Market Promotion Assessments Paid Under Federal Marketing Orders,” and submitting it to the applicable marketing order committee or board.
Section 900.700 of the regulations (7 CFR part 900.700) provides for exemption from assessments. This notice applies to the following marketing orders: 7 CFR parts 906, Oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; 915, Avocados grown in south Florida; 922, Apricots grown in designated counties in Washington; 923, Sweet cherries grown in designated counties in Washington; 925, Grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California; 927, Pears grown in Oregon and Washington; 929, Cranberries grown in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in New York; 930, Tart cherries grown in Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin; 932, Olives grown in California; 948, Irish potatoes grown in Colorado; 955, Vidalia onions grown in Georgia; 956, Sweet onions grown in the Walla Walla Valley of southeast Washington and northeast Oregon; 958, Onions grown in certain designated counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon; 959, Onions grown in South Texas; 966, Tomatoes grown in Florida; 981, Almonds grown in California; 982, Hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington; 984, Walnuts grown in California; 985, spearmint oil produced in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and parts of Nevada and Utah; 986, Pecans produced in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas; 987, Domestic dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California; 989, Raisins produced from grapes grown in California; and 993, Dried prunes produced in California.
The information collected is used only by authorized marketing order committee or board employees, who are the primary users of the information, and by authorized representatives of the USDA, including the AMS Specialty Crops Program's regional and headquarters staff, who are the secondary users of the information.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 23, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision to a currently approved information collection in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Regulations (7 CFR part 246) for the reporting and record-keeping burdens associated with the WIC Program regulations.
Written comments must be received on or before April 24, 2017.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to: Kurtria Watson, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 524, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Kurtria Watson at 703-305-2196 or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Kurtria Watson at 703-605-4387.
The reporting and record-keeping burdens covered by this Information Collection Burden (ICB) include requirements that involve the certification of WIC participants; the nutrition education that is provided to participants; the authorization, training and monitoring of vendors; and the collection of vendor pricing information in order to comply with the Federal regulations regarding WIC cost containment. State Plans are the principal source of information about how each State agency operates its WIC Program. Information collected from participants and local agencies is collected through State-developed forms or Management Information Systems. The information collected is used by the Department of Agriculture to manage, plan, evaluate, make decisions and report on WIC program operations. This information collection is requesting a revision in the burden hours due to program changes related to Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) delivery and program adjustments that primarily reflect expected changes in the number of WIC participants; WIC authorized vendors; and WIC local agencies. The revisions decreased the approved reporting burden by 169,424 hours and decreased the total approved record-keeping burden by 88,203 hours.
Dated: February 13, 2017.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Butte County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Oroville, California. 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 on February 28, 2017, at 6:30 p.m. For anyone who would like to attend via conference call, please contact the person listed under the
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 the Feather River Ranger District, Conference Room, 875 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Lee Anne Schramel, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-283-7850 or by 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 recommend projects for Title II funds.
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 16, 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 Lee Anne Schramel, Plumas National Forest Supervisor's Office, 159 Lawrence Street, Quincy, California 95971; or by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (LTBFAC) will meet in South Lake Tahoe, California. The Committee is established pursuant to Executive Order 13057, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. Additional information concerning the Committee can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, from 1:00
The meeting will be held at the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Heather Noel, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, USDA Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 by phone at 530-543-2608, or by 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 this meeting is to:
1. Provide an update on the South Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) secondary list and priority setting,
2. Provide a review of LTFAC goals and objectives,
3. Provide the 2017 schedule of meetings, and
4. Provide membership and vacancy information.
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 submit a request in writing by February 24, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. However, 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, time requests for oral comments, or requests for remote access via a conference call line must be sent to Heather Noel, USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150; by email at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Golden Pond, Kentucky. The Board is authorized under Section 450 of the Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Board is to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the means of promoting public participation for the land and resource management plan for the recreation area; and environmental education. Board information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on March 2, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
All Board meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Land Between The Lakes Administration Building, 100 Van Morgran Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Christine Bombard, Board Coordinator, by phone at 270-924-2002 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 Environmental Education, and
2. Effectively communicate future land management plan activities.
The meeting is open to the public. The Board discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Board members; however, persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) before February 16, 2017. Written comments must be sent to Tina Tilley, Area Supervisor/DFO, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Siskiyou (OR) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Brookings, Oregon. 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
The meeting will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., on the following dates:
• March 8, 2017, and
• March 9, 2017.
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 Best Western Plus Beachfront Inn, South Conference Room, 16008 Boat Basin Road, Brookings, Oregon.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Virginia Gibbons, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 541-618-2113 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. Review project proposals, and
2. Make project recommendations for Title II funds.
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 March 3, 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 Virginia Gibbons, RAC Coordinator, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon 97525; by email to
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 8, 2017, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on March 7, 2017, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on March 23-24, 2017, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.
1. Welcome Remarks & Update of ETRAC activities.
2. Update on Export Control Issues.
3. Review: Emerging Technologies in the News:
• Regulatory uncertainty and the associated business risk for emerging technologies” by Robert A. Hoerr Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
• “Denied Access” Pentagon Betting on New Technologies to Foil Future Adversaries.
• “China's $9 billion effort to beat the U.S. in genetic testing” Washington Post December 30, 2016.
• Tech Connect World Innovation Conference and Expo—May 14-17, 2017—Washington, DC.
• “Encourage governments to need scientific advice” by ETRAC member William Colglazier
• 3D Graphene” TechConnect interviews.
• `Airborne Optics and Photonics'
4. Discussion of recent export control and emerging technologies activities.
• Council on Government Relations—Research Compliance and Administration.
• Committee.
• Association of University Technology Managers—Global Issues session at AUTM Annual Meeting in March, 2017.
• Advanced Design and Production Technologies at Sandia National Laboratories.
• JASON-: Scientific group that advises government on matters of science, technology and national security.
• The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine—Dual Use Research of Concern: Options for Future Management—January 4, 2017.
5. Discussion on Industry Sectors being reviewed by the ETRAC.
6. Comments from the Public.
7. Industry presentations.
8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and l0(a)(3).
The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section l0(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 9, 2017, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that
1. Opening remarks and introductions by the Bureau of Industry and Security Senior Management.
2. A discussion with industry on current illicit procurement trends related to the carbon fiber production process and associated commodities by Michael Burnett from Export Enforcement.
3. Regime and working group discussions.
4. Public Comments/New Business/Closed session.
5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
On December 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico. The review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (Golden Dragon), Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (Nacobre), and IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (IUSA). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015. No interested party submitted comments on the preliminary results. The final results do not differ from the preliminary results.
Dennis McClure or George Ayache, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-2623, respectively.
This review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Golden Dragon,
We invited parties to comment on the
The merchandise subject to the order is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090, and also may enter under HTSUS subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum,
As noted in the
The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by the following companies during the POR:
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a).
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of these final results for all shipments of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 26.03 percent, the all-others rate established in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We intend to issue and publish these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-6349 (Responsible Party: Dr. John Bengtson), has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on 21 species of marine mammals.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 23, 2017.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Amy Hapeman or Shasta McClenahan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
AFSC's Marine Mammal Laboratory requests a 5-year permit to monitor and evaluate cetacean trends, abundance, distribution, and health in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas, and in the Gulf of Maine and mid-Atlantic waters. Up to 21 species of cetaceans may be targeted for study including the following endangered or threatened species/stocks: Cook Inlet beluga (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit and permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that permits and permit amendments have been issued to the following entities:
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Carrie Hubard (File Nos. 15682, 17845 and 20532), Sara Young (File Nos. 16094 and 20452), Shasta McClenahan (File Nos. 17845, 20532, and 20658), Amy Hapeman (File Nos. 19627, 20197, & 20658), and Erin Markin (File Nos. 19627, & 20197) at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permits and amendments were based on a finding that such permits and amendments: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Kristen Hart, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey, 3205 College Ave., Davie, Florida, 33314 has applied in due form for a permit to take green (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 23, 2017.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Erin Markin or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a five-year research permit to continue projects studying green, hawksbill, and loggerhead sea turtles in the U.S. Virgin Islands, including Buck Island Reef National Monument, Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument, and Virgin Islands National Park. Proposed research would involve vessel surveys for abundance counts and capture of turtles to determine connectivity of populations, monitor movement, identify habitat utilization, estimate abundance, and determine diet composition of sea turtles. Annually, up to 160 green, 190 hawksbill, and 10 loggerhead sea turtles would be captured by hand, rodeo, or dip, tangle, or cast nets. Each turtle would be subject to epibiota removal, flipper and passive integrated transponder tagging, temporary carapace marking, morphometric measurements, gastric lavage, photograph/video, opportunistic recapture, fecal collection, and blood/tissue sampling. Loggerhead sea turtles and a subset of green and hawksbill sea turtles would also be outfitted with up to three transmitters at a time.
National Sea Grant Advisory Board (NSGAB), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Board. Board members will discuss and provide advice on the National Sea Grant College Program (NSGCP) in the areas of program evaluation, strategic planning, education and extension, science and technology programs, and other matters as described in the agenda found on the National Sea Grant College Program Web site at
The meeting will be held at the Washington Plaza Hotel at 10 Thomas Circle NW., Washington, DC 20005.
For any questions concerning the meeting, please contact Ms. Mary Ann Garlic, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC 3, Room 11717, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or
In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Written comments should be received by Ms. Mary Ann Garlic using the methods under the
The Board, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice.
The agenda for this meeting will be available at:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a joint public meeting of its Whiting Committee and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee and Advisory Panel will review and approve draft alternatives for Amendment 22 to the Small Mesh Multi-Species FMP, including limited access qualification criteria, permit conditions, and possession limits. Council staff will provide an update on the schedule for planned 2017 actions, including a specifications package for 2018-2020. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for information.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) seeks information about the use or potential use of alternative data and modeling techniques in the credit process. Alternative data and modeling techniques are changing the way that some financial service providers conduct business. These changes hold the promise of potentially significant benefits for some consumers but also present certain potentially significant risks. The Bureau seeks to learn more about current and future market developments, including existing and emerging consumer benefits and risks, and how these developments could alter the marketplace and the consumer experience. The Bureau also seeks to learn how market participants are or could be mitigating certain risks to consumers, and about consumer preferences, views, and concerns.
Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2017.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2017-0005, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All submissions, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
For general inquiries, submission process questions or any additional information, please contact Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, at 202-435-7275.
12 U.S.C. 5511(c).
The Bureau would like to encourage responsible innovations that could be implemented in a consumer-friendly way to help serve populations currently underserved by the mainstream credit system. To that end, in reviewing the comments to this request for information (RFI), the Bureau seeks not only to understand the benefits and risks stemming from use of alternative data and modeling techniques but also to begin to consider future activity to encourage their responsible use and lower unnecessary barriers, including any unnecessary regulatory burden or uncertainty that impedes such use.
The Bureau encourages comments from all interested members of the public. The Bureau anticipates that the responding public may encompass the following groups, some of which may overlap in part:
• Individual consumers;
• Consumer, civil rights, and privacy advocates;
• Community development and service organizations;
• Lenders, including depository and non-depository institutions;
• Consumer reporting agencies, including specialty consumer reporting agencies;
• Data brokers and aggregators;
• Model developers and licensors, as well as companies involved in the analysis of new or existing models;
• Consultants, attorneys, or other professionals who advise market participants on these issues;
• Regulators;
• Researchers or members of academia;
• Telecommunication, utility, and other non-financial companies that rely on consumer data for eligibility decisions;
• Participants in non-U.S. consumer markets with knowledge of or experience in the use of alternative data or modeling techniques for use in the credit process; and
• Any other interested parties.
All commenters are welcome to respond in any manner they see fit, including by sharing their knowledge of standard practices, their understanding of the market as a whole, or their own positions and views on the questions included in this RFI. Commenters may also choose to answer only a subset of questions. The information obtained in response to this RFI will help the Bureau monitor consumer credit markets and consider any appropriate steps. Comments may also help industry develop best practices. The Bureau seeks information predominantly pertaining to products and services offered to consumers. However, because some of the Bureau's authorities relate to small business lending,
For the purposes of this RFI, we define the following terms. None of these definitions should be construed as statutory or regulatory definitions or descriptions of statutory or regulatory coverage.
• “Traditional data” refers to data assembled and managed in the core credit files of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies, which includes tradeline information (including certain loan or credit limit information, debt repayment history, and account status), and credit inquiries, as well as information from public records relating to civil judgments, tax liens, and bankruptcies. It also refers to data customarily provided by consumers as part of applications for credit, such as income or length of time in residence.
• “Alternative data” refers to any data that are not “traditional.” We use “alternative” in a descriptive rather than normative sense and recognize there may not be an easily definable line between traditional and alternative data.
• “Traditional modeling techniques” refers to statistical and mathematical techniques, including models, algorithms, and their outputs, that are traditionally used in automated credit processes, especially linear and logistic regression methods.
• “Alternative modeling techniques” refers to all other modeling techniques that are not “traditional,” including but not limited to decision trees, random forests, artificial neural networks, k-nearest neighbor, genetic programming, “boosting” algorithms, etc. We use “alternative” in a descriptive rather than normative sense and recognize that there may not be an easily definable line between traditional and alternative modeling techniques.
• “The credit process” refers to all the processes and decisions made by the creditor during the full lifecycle of the credit product, including marketing, pre-screening, fraud prevention, application procedures, underwriting, account management, credit authorization, the setting of pricing and terms, as well as the renewal, modification, or refinancing of existing credit, and the servicing and collection of debts.
Most of today's automated decisions in the credit process use traditional modeling techniques that rely upon traditional data elements as inputs. When lenders make decisions about consumers relating to applications for credit, increases or reductions in credit lines, extensions of new offers of credit, or other decisions in the credit process, lenders typically evaluate consumers using a standard set of information that includes consumer-supplied data (such as income, assets and, if secured, any collateral) and other traditional data supplied by one or more of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies. Many lenders base their decisions, in whole or in part, on scores using traditional data as inputs and generated from commercially-available, third-party models such as one of the many developed by FICO or VantageScore Solutions. Other lenders may base their decisions, in whole or in part, on proprietary scoring algorithms that use traditional data, and perhaps scores from these third-party models, as well as consumer-supplied information, as inputs. In addition to using common inputs, there is similar consistency in the modeling techniques used to generate these automated decision engines. They have predominantly been developed using multivariate regression analysis to correlate past credit history and current credit usage attributes to consumer credit outcomes to determine whether, based on the performance of other previous consumers who had similar attributes at the time credit was extended, it is likely that the consumer being evaluated will default on or become seriously delinquent on the loan within a certain period of time (often 1-2 years). These traditional data and modeling techniques have facilitated the standardization and automation of the credit process, leading to efficiencies in the provision of credit over the past few decades.
Yet the use of traditional data and modeling techniques has left some important gaps in access to mainstream credit for certain consumer groups and segments. The Bureau estimates that 26 million Americans are “credit invisible,” meaning that they have no file with the major credit bureaus, while another 19 million are “unscorable” because their credit file is either too thin or too stale to generate a reliable score from one of the major credit scoring firms.
Several commentators have suggested that alternative data and modeling techniques could address this problem and reach some of the millions of consumers currently shut out of the mainstream credit system and enable others to obtain more favorable pricing based on more refined assessments of their risks.
If these claimed benefits prove valid, the use of alternative data and modeling techniques could significantly reshape the consumer (and business) credit market. Potentially millions of consumers previously locked out of mainstream credit could become eligible for credit products that might help them buy a car or a home. An increasing ability for lenders to accurately assess risk could reduce the price of credit for those who are shown to be good risks (although it could
At the same time, other commentators have pointed out that alternative data and modeling techniques could present risks for consumers. These risks include but are not limited to potential issues with the accuracy of alternative data and modeling techniques; the lack of transparency, control, and ability to correct data that might result from their use; potential infringements on consumer privacy; and the risk that certain data could dampen social mobility, result in discriminatory outcomes, or otherwise disadvantage certain groups, characteristics, or behaviors.
The Bureau seeks to learn more about these potential benefits and risks. In further educating ourselves and the public, the Bureau seeks to encourage responsible uses of alternative data and modeling techniques while mitigating the various risks.
Based on its research to date, the Bureau is aware of a broad range of alternative data and modeling techniques that firms are either using or contemplating. These innovations may be in different stages of development and market adoption. As set forth below, the Bureau seeks more information about the stages of development and extent of adoption of these innovations. In some cases they are broadly used by a wide range of market participants, while others are in earlier stages of development. Some may be used often in fraud detection or marketing, for example, but rarely in underwriting. Some have been developed by established data aggregators or model developers who license their technologies or “platforms” to lenders; others have been developed for proprietary use by established lenders; and still others are being used by early stage lenders as a basis for lending at lower cost or profitably in certain channels or to consumer segments that established lenders have not traditionally served or can only serve at higher cost. Among the numerous online or marketplace lenders that have formed over the past few years, many have identified use of proprietary alternative data or machine learning techniques as central to their business strategies and comparative advantage.
Just how “alternative” or “traditional” certain data or modeling techniques are depends on one's perspective. Labeling data or modeling techniques as “alternative” is not intended as a normative judgment, but to describe the fact that they have not customarily been used in decisions in the credit process. Any mention in this document of particular types of alternative data or modeling techniques should not be construed as endorsement or disapproval by the Bureau.
Data that some have labeled “alternative” include but are not limited to the following:
• Data showing trends or patterns in traditional loan repayment data.
• Payment data relating to non-loan products requiring regular (typically monthly) payments, such as telecommunications, rent, insurance, or utilities.
• Checking account transaction and cashflow data and information about a consumer's assets, which could include the regularity of a consumer's cash inflows and outflows, or information about prior income or expense shocks.
• Data that some consider to be related to a consumer's stability, which might include information about the frequency of changes in residences, employment, phone numbers or email addresses.
• Data about a consumer's educational or occupational attainment, including information about schools attended, degrees obtained, and job positions held.
• Behavioral data about consumers, such as how consumers interact with a web interface or answer specific questions, or data about how they shop, browse, use devices, or move about their daily lives.
• Data about consumers' friends and associates, including data about connections on social media.
Modeling techniques that some have labeled “alternative” include but are not limited to the following:
• Decision trees (or sets of decision trees, such as “random forests”).
• Artificial neural networks.
• Genetic programming.
• “Boosting” algorithms.
• K-nearest neighbors.
Given the rapidly evolving credit market landscape, the Bureau is eager to learn more about types of alternative data and modeling techniques, including but not limited to those listed above, and their uses and impacts.
The Bureau is aware that several market participants,
Similarly, the Department of the Treasury's May 2016 report on marketplace lending referenced the use
The Obama Administration completed two reports on big data, each referencing both the promises and risks posed by alternative data in the credit process.
Finally, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (FRB), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) recently issued joint guidance
These agencies' attention to the use of alternative data and modeling techniques in the credit process reflects the growing importance of these methods and approaches in the marketplace. As a Federal agency designated by Congress to oversee compliance with the various consumer financial protection statutes and regulations as they apply to
Alternative data and modeling techniques have the potential to benefit consumers in several ways listed below. These benefits, as well as others not identified here, could accrue differently in different product markets—what helps consumers in the credit card marketplace may not help consumers in the mortgage marketplace—or could provide different levels of benefits to different consumer segments—what helps consumers with no credit records may not help consumers with long traditional credit histories.
•
•
•
•
•
Through this RFI, the Bureau seeks to understand how consumers might benefit from the use of alternative data and modeling techniques (including in the ways identified above), the degree to which those benefits impact different consumer segments or products, and any specific empirical evidence relevant to the likelihood and extent of those benefits.
Use of alternative data and modeling techniques also carries several potential risks. The Bureau lists some such risks below not to dissuade the use of alternative data and modeling techniques but rather to highlight some of the challenges with such use, to encourage responsible use that takes consideration of and manages these risks, and to invite commenters to discuss their views about how these and other risks could be mitigated. As with the consumer benefits, this list of consumer risks may not encompass all of the perceived or potential consumer risks, and some risks may apply differently to different consumer or product segments.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Through this RFI, the Bureau seeks to understand risks to consumers from the use of alternative data and modeling techniques (including in the ways identified above), the degree to which those risks impact different product or consumer segments, and any specific empirical evidence relevant to the likelihood and extent of those risks. The Bureau also seeks to understand what steps market participants are taking to manage risks and realize benefits. The Bureau intends to use information gleaned from the questions below to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks from these developments.
This RFI is intended to cover past, current, and potential uses of alternative data and modeling techniques. The Bureau is interested in learning more about the specific types of alternative data and modeling techniques utilized for various decisions in the credit process, as well as the policies and procedures used to ensure the responsible use of these alternative data and methods. In addition, the Bureau seeks to learn how the use of alternative data and modeling techniques compares and contrasts with the use of traditional data and modeling techniques for those same decisions. Finally, of particular interest is a specific and empirical understanding of the current and potential consumer benefits and risks associated with the use of alternative data and modeling techniques, including risks related to specific statutes and regulations.
While the Bureau recognizes that some commenters may feel that answering the questions below raises concerns about revealing proprietary information, we encourage commenters to share as much detail as possible in this public forum.
The questions below are divided into four sections: (1) Alternative Data; (2) Alternative Modeling Techniques; (3) Potential Benefits and Risks to Consumers and Market Participants; and (4) Specific Statutes and Regulations. Each question speaks generally about all decisions in the credit process, but answers can differentiate, as appropriate, between uses in marketing, fraud detection and prevention, underwriting, setting or changes in terms (including pricing), servicing, collections, or other relevant aspects of the credit process. The questions are phrased in the present tense, but the Bureau is equally interested in information about any past but discontinued uses or in any potential future uses that commenters are considering or are aware of. The Bureau welcomes any relevant empirical research or studies on these topics.
This section asks questions about the types, sources, and purposes of alternative data. Comments referencing specific practices, firms, or data are especially helpful.
1. What types of alternative data are used in decisions in the credit process? Please describe not only the broad categories (
2. For each type of alternative data identified above:
a. Please describe the specific decisions in which this type of alternative data is used, the specific purpose for using it, and the product(s) and consumer segment(s) for which it is used. For example, are certain data used to create a proprietary score for underwriting mortgage loans for non-prime applicants while other data are used to determine whether credit line increases or decreases are appropriate for existing credit card users?
b. Please describe any goals, objectives, or challenges that the use of this type of alternative data is designed to accomplish or address. For example, a certain type of data might be used in order to provide a more timely assessment of the consumer's current income while another type of data might be used to more accurately predict the stability of future income streams. Please describe the extent to which use of alternative data has in fact advanced or addressed these goals, objectives, or challenges.
c. Please describe the source of the data, being as specific as possible, including if the data are provided by the consumer or obtained from or through a third party. If obtained from a third party, please indicate if that third party considers itself to be a consumer reporting agency subject to the FCRA.
d. Please describe the format in which the data are received or generated, being as specific as possible.
e. Please describe the breadth or coverage of the data. Are there certain consumer segments for whom the data are unavailable?
f. Please describe whether the data include both positive and negative observations. For example, do records of rental payments include instances where consumers paid on time as well as when they were late?
g. Please describe if the data are specific to the individual consumer (
h. Please describe the quality of the data, in terms of apparent errors, missing information, and consistency over time.
i. Please describe the methods or procedures used to assess the coverage, quality, completeness, consistency, accuracy, and reliability of the data, as well as who is responsible for overseeing those methods or procedures.
j. Please describe the original purpose for which the data were initially generated, assembled, or collected, and the standard for coverage, quality, completeness, consistency, accuracy, and reliability that the original data provider applied. Was the consumer able to see, dispute, or correct the data at the time they were originally collected or with the original collector of the data or with the subsequent user?
k. Could this particular type of alternative data feasibly be furnished to one or more of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies? What would be the investment(s) required to do so? What prevents such furnishing today?
l. Please describe whether and how the data are used in identifying and constructing target lists for marketing credit online, by mail, or in person (
m. Please describe whether and how the data are used to screen for potential fraud prior to assessing creditworthiness.
3. For each type of alternative data identified above, please describe the process for deciding whether to use that type of data, including the criteria used for evaluating the data and its potential use. If applicable, please describe the basis for determining the relationship between the data and the outcome they are designed to predict. If the
4. For each type of alternative data identified above, please describe whether the data are used alongside other traditional or alternative data. How much impact does the alternative data have on the relevant decision? Is this data used only after a preliminary decision based on the exclusive use of traditional data, for example, to re-evaluate consumers who failed a model that used only traditional data? Or is it used at the same time? Are there particular decisions or particular products or consumer segments where firms rely exclusively or predominantly on the use of alternative data?
5. Are there types of alternative data that have been evaluated but are not being used in decisions in the credit process? If so, please describe and explain the evaluation process and outcomes and the reason(s) why the alternative data are not being used for the particular credit-related decision.
6. For questions 1 through 5 above, please describe any differences in your answers as they pertain to lending to businesses (especially small businesses) rather than consumers.
This section asks questions about alternative modeling techniques. Comments referencing specific practices, firms, or data are especially helpful.
What types of alternative modeling techniques are used in decisions in the credit process? Please describe these modeling techniques in as much detail as possible, including but not limited to:
a. A detailed explanation of the modeling technique, and how it transforms inputs into outputs.
b. The product or consumer segment(s) it is used for.
c. The outcome(s) the modeling technique aims to predict.
d. The final output that the modeling technique generates, such as a score within a defined range or a pass/fail decision, including any identification of the main factors impacting the final output.
e. A detailed explanation of the specific data types used as inputs, including both traditional and alternative data.
f. Whether the modeling technique is used concurrently with, subsequent to, or in conjunction with other traditional or alternative modeling techniques. How much impact does the alternative modeling technique have on the decision it informs?
7. For each type of alternative modeling technique identified above, please describe the model development and governance process (
a. Whether the process differs based upon the type of outcome being predicted.
b. Whether the process differs for alternative versus traditional modeling techniques.
c. Whether the process differs when alternative versus traditional data are used.
d. Whether specific tests or validations are performed to assess compliance with fair lending or other regulatory requirements. Are these similar to or different from those used for traditional modeling techniques?
e. A description of any judgmental, subjective, or discretionary decisions made in the development phase. For example, for machine learning techniques, what are decisions the developer must make in supervising the training phase, or providing parameters or limits on its operation?
f. A description of how, if at all, the process handles:
i. Sample selection for model testing/validation.
ii. Potential measurement error.
iii. Overfitting.
iv. Correlations with characteristics prohibited under fair lending laws.
v. Direction of the relationship between features and outcomes (
vi. Any other noteworthy considerations.
8. For questions 7 and 8 above, please describe any differences in your answers as they pertain to lending to businesses (especially small businesses) rather than consumers.
This section asks questions about the potential benefits and risks related to the use of alternative data and modeling techniques. The Bureau encourages commenters to be as specific as possible when describing the potential benefits and risks, including but not limited to which consumer segments or groups (
9. What does available evidence suggest about the potential benefits for
a. Improved risk assessment so that consumers are more accurately paired with appropriate credit products.
b. Increases in access to affordable credit.
c. Lower prices.
d. Quicker or more convenient decisioning process.
10. What does available evidence suggest about the potential benefits for
a. Improved risk assessment so that consumers are more accurately paired with appropriate credit products.
b. Increases in access to credit.
c. Lower prices.
d. Quicker or more convenient decisioning process.
11. What does available evidence suggest about the potential benefits for
a. An increased ability to accurately predict the likelihood of a certain outcome (
b. Risk assessment that is more reactive to real-time information.
c. Ability to assess and grant credit to more consumers.
d. Lower operational costs.
e. Quicker or more convenient decisioning process.
f. Competitive advantage, including the ability to compete with traditional methods.
12. What does available evidence suggest about the potential benefits for
a. An increased ability to accurately predict the likelihood of a certain outcome (
b. Risk assessment that is more reactive to real-time information.
c. Ability to assess and grant credit to more consumers.
d. Lower operational costs.
e. Quicker or more convenient decisioning process.
f. Competitive advantage, including the ability to compete with traditional methods.
13. What does available evidence suggest about the potential risks for
a. Impacts on consumer privacy.
b. Decreased transparency about the use of one's data and about how decisions in the credit process are made.
c. Decreased ability to dispute inaccurate information or correct errors.
d. Decreased ability of consumers to improve their credit standing.
e. Decreased completeness, consistency, accuracy, or reliability of data that affects decisions in the credit process.
f. Illegal discrimination.
g. The hardening of barriers to social and economic mobility.
h. Decreased access to affordable credit.
i. Decreased ability to inform and educate consumers about the factors affecting their credit standing.
14. What does available evidence suggest about the potential risks for
a. Decreased transparency about the use of one's data and about how decisions in the credit process are made.
b. Decreased ability to dispute inaccurate information or correct errors.
c. Decreased ability of consumers to improve their credit standing.
d. Illegal discrimination.
e. Decreased ability to inform and educate consumers about the factors affecting their credit standing.
15. What does available evidence suggest about the potential risks for
a. Decreased transparency about how decisions in the credit process are made.
b. Lack of historical performance data related to certain alternative data.
c. Decreased completeness, consistency, accuracy, or reliability of data.
d. Decreased ability to inform and educate consumers about the factors affecting their credit standing.
e. Decreased consumer trust or acceptance of lender decisions.
16. What does available evidence suggest about the potential risks for
a. Decreased transparency about how decisions in the credit process are made.
b. Lack of historical performance data related to certain modeling techniques.
c. Decreased ability to inform and educate consumers about the factors affecting their credit standing.
d. Decreased consumer trust or acceptance of lender decisions.
17. For questions 10 through 17 above, please describe any differences in your answers as they pertain to lending to businesses (especially small businesses) rather than consumers.
This section asks questions about specific statutes and regulations as they pertain to alternative data and modeling techniques. Nothing below should be interpreted as a legal conclusion or interpretation by the Bureau. While the questions below are focused on the activities of market participants, the Bureau is equally interested in information from researchers, consultants, and other third parties about the issues raised below. The Bureau also recognizes that market participants may be reluctant to comment publicly on potential legal uncertainties and invite such parties to submit comments through anonymized channels such as law firms, trade associations, and the like.
18. The ECOA and Regulation B prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, the fact that all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program, or the good faith exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Evidence of disparate treatment and evidence of disparate impact can be used to show discrimination under ECOA and Regulation B.
a. Are there specific challenges or uncertainties that market participants face in complying with ECOA and Regulation B with respect to the use of alternative data or modeling techniques?
b. In the absence of data on applicants' ethnicity, race, sex, or other prohibited basis group membership, how prevalent is the practice of proxying for those characteristics in order to test for potential fair lending risks in the use of alternative data or modeling techniques?
c. How, if at all, are market participants using demographically conscious model development techniques to ensure that models or modeling techniques do not result in illegal discrimination?
d. For respondents (such as market participants or consultants, attorneys, or other professionals who advise market participants) that evaluate models for potential fair lending risk, please answer the following questions. For each activity described in your answers, please specify the point(s) in time (
i. In general, what methods do market participants use to evaluate alternative data and modeling techniques for fair lending risk?
ii. What steps, if any, do market participants take to determine whether alternative data may be serving as a proxy for a prohibited basis? What thresholds, standards, or baselines are used to make this determination?
iii. What steps, if any, do market participants take to determine whether use of alternative data has a disproportionately negative impact on a prohibited basis? What thresholds, standards, or baselines are used to make this determination? To what extent, if any, do market participants use traditional data (or scores generated therefrom) as a baseline for making this determination?
iv. What steps, if any, do market participants take to determine if the use of alternative data meets a legitimate business need notwithstanding any disproportionately negative impact that use may have on a prohibited basis?
v. What steps, if any, do market participants take to ensure that a legitimate business need met by the use of alternative data cannot reasonably be achieved as well by means that are less disparate in their impact?
vi. What other steps, besides those already discussed in response to questions 19(d)(i)-(v) above, do market participants take to evaluate or manage potential fair lending risk arising from the use of alternative data or modeling techniques?
vii. When a lender identifies disparities affecting a prohibited basis group or other fair lending risks that arise from the use of a particular variable or model, what steps does the lender take as a result? To what extent do these steps mitigate that risk?
viii. How do the activities described in response to questions 19(d)(i)-(v) compare with the activities conducted when using traditional data or modeling techniques?
e. Many entities subject to the Bureau's supervisory or enforcement jurisdiction have risk management programs in place pursuant to guidance on model risk management issued by
f. Are market participants using alternative data or modeling techniques as a “second look” for those who do not meet initial eligibility requirements based on traditional data or modeling techniques? If so, what issues and challenges, if any, arise in that context? Have data that were first used in “second looks” eventually become included in initial screening processes?
g. When using alternative data or modeling techniques, or using multiple models, are there challenges in determining and disclosing to applicants the principal reasons for taking adverse action or describing the reasons for taking adverse action in a manner that relates to and accurately describes the factors actually considered or scored?
19. The FCRA and Regulation V regulate the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information, including consumer credit information.
a. Are there specific challenges or uncertainties that market participants face in complying with the FCRA with respect to the use of alternative data or modeling techniques?
b. What challenges do companies generating, selling, and brokering alternative data face in determining whether they are a consumer reporting agency subject to the FCRA?
c. What challenges do consumer reporting agencies assembling or evaluating alternative data face in implementing accuracy and dispute procedures and disclosing file information to consumers?
d. What challenges do lenders face when they obtain alternative data? Is it typically clear whether the data provider is a consumer reporting agency subject to the FCRA?
e. How, if at all, do market participants treat alternative data differently when they receive it from data providers or other sources that do not appear to be subject to the FCRA?
f. When using alternative data or modeling techniques, or using multiple credit scores, are there challenges in providing adverse action notices or risk-based pricing notices? For example, when using alternative modeling techniques, are there challenges in determining the key factors that adversely affected the consumer's score? Are there challenges in providing the source of the information? Do you have information showing whether consumers understand the information on these notices or take appropriate follow-up actions?
g. When using alternative data or modeling techniques, are there challenges in disclosing, pursuant to Section 615(b) of the FCRA, the nature of the information used in credit-related decisions when such information comes from a third party that is not a consumer reporting agency?
h. The FCRA permits consumer reports to be obtained for some non-credit decisions, such as employment and tenant screening. What potential impacts could alternative data and modeling techniques have on these non-credit decisions?
20. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with consumer financial products or services. Section 5 of the FTC Act similarly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with a broader set of transactions.
a. Are there specific challenges or uncertainties that market participants face in complying with the prohibitions on UDAAPs with respect to alternative data or modeling techniques?
b. What steps, if any, do users of alternative data or modeling techniques take to avoid engaging in UDAAPs?
c. What steps, if any, can the Bureau take to help minimize the risk of UDAAPs from the use of alternative data and modeling techniques?
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice; Request for Nominations.
The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army, independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the Committee's advice and recommendations. The Committee is comprised of no more than nine (9) members. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army appoints no more than seven (7) of these members. The purpose of this notice is to solicit nominations from a wide range of highly qualified persons to be considered for appointment to the Committee. Nominees may be appointed as members of the Committee and its sub-committees for terms of service ranging from one to four years. This notice solicits nominations to fill Committee membership vacancies that may occur through July 31, 2017. Nominees must be preeminent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise.
All nominations must be received (see
Interested persons may submit a resume for consideration by the Department of the Army to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer at the following address: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, ATTN: Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (Ms. Yates), Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.
Ms. Renea C. Yates, Designated Federal Officer, by email at
The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery was established pursuant to Title 10, United States Code Section 4723. The selection, service and appointment of members of the Committee are publicized in the Committee Charter, available on the Arlington National Cemetery Web site
a. Selection. The Committee Charter provides that the Committee shall be comprised of no more than nine members, all of whom are preeminent
By direction of the Secretary of the Army, all resumes submitted in response to this notice will be presented to and reviewed by a panel of three senior Army leaders. Potential nominees shall be prioritized after review and consideration of their resumes for: Demonstrated technical/professional expertise; preeminence in a field(s) of interest or expertise; potential contribution to membership balance in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed; potential organizational and financial conflicts of interest; commitment to our Nation's veterans and their families; and published points of view relevant to the objectives of the Committee. The panel will provide the DFO with a prioritized list of potential nominees for consideration by the Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries, in making an initial recommendation to the Secretary of the Army. The Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries; the Secretary of the Army; and the Secretary of Defense are not limited or bound by the recommendations of the Army senior leader panel. Sources in addition to this
b. Service. The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of a Committee member for a one-to-four year term of service; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve on the Committee or authorized subcommittee for more than two consecutive terms of service. The Secretary of the Army shall designate the Committee Chair from the total Advisory Committee membership. The Committee meets at the call of the DFO, in consultation with the Committee Chair. It is estimated that the Committee meets four times per year.
c. Appointment. The operations of the Committee and the appointment of members are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended) and departmental implementing regulations, including Department of Defense Instruction 5105.04, Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committee Management Program, available at
Additional information about the Committee is available on the Internet at:
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 23, 2017.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Reserve Forces Policy Board, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will take place.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017 from 8:15 a.m. to 3:50 p.m.
The address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA.
Mr. Alex Sabol, Designated Federal Officer, (703) 681-0577 (Voice), (703) 681-0002 (Facsimile), Email—
This meeting notice is being published under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Public attendees requiring escort should arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 11:50 a.m. on March 8. To complete the security screening, please be prepared to present two forms of identification. One must be a picture identification card. In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the portion of this meeting scheduled to occur from 8:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in coordination with the Department of Defense FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that this portion of the meeting will be closed to the public because it is likely to disclose classified matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense is modifying a system of records, entitled, “Defense User Registration System (DURS) Records, DTIC 01” to be compliant with the OMB Circular A-108 and make other administrative changes. This system of records registers and certifies users of Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) products and services. It ensures that Department of Defense scientific and technological information is appropriately managed to enable scientific knowledge and technological innovations to be fully accessible to authorized recipients while applying appropriate safeguards to assure that the information is protected according to national security requirements.
Comments will be accepted on or before March 23, 2017. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPDD), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.
In addition to the formatting changes required by OMB Circular A-108, this modification reflects a change to the system location, categories of individuals, categories of records, authorities for maintenance of the system, purpose, routine uses, retrievability, safeguards, system manager and address, notification procedure, record access procedures, contesting record procedures, and record source categories.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 8, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication Under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016 81 FR 94424).
Unclassified
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Directorate of User Services, Communications and Customer Access Division, Attn: DTIC-UC, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218.
Chief, Customer Access and Communications Division, DTIC-UC, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218.
E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information; DoD Directive (DoDD) 5105.73 Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC); DoD Instruction (DoDI) 3200.12 DoD Scientific and Technical Information Program (STIP); and DoD Manual (DoDM) 3200.14, Volume 1, Principles and Operational Parameters of the DoD Scientific and Technical Information Program (STIP): General Processes.
To collect registration requests, validate eligibility, and maintain an official registry that identifies individuals who apply for, and are granted access privileges to DTIC owned or controlled computers, databases, products, services, and electronic information systems.
Department of Defense (DoD) military and civilian personnel and other U.S. Federal Government personnel, their contractors and grantees, and other government officials according to agreements with DoD who request access privileges to DTIC products, services, and electronic information systems.
Name; DoD Identification (ID) Number; citizenship; service type; personnel category; civilian pay grade; military rank; organization/company name; office mailing address/physical location; office email address; userid and password/reset questions; office telephone number(s); access eligibility; dissemination/distribution group codes; and personal and facility security clearance level(s).
Records also contain the government approving official's name, office phone number and email address; date of registration activation; and the projected date of expiration. Where applicable, the records contain contract number(s), contract expiration date(s), and the Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement (MCTDA) Certification Number.
Individuals, security personnel, the Defense Manpower Data Center Department of Defense Person Search (DMDC DPS), and the electronic Official Personnel Folder (eOPF).
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 552a(b)(3) as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Electronic storage media.
Individual name; DoD ID number; office email address.
Electronic records are to be deleted when DTIC determines they are no longer needed for administrative, audit, legal, or operational purposes.
Records are maintained in secure, limited access, and monitored areas. Database is monitored, access is password protected, and common access card (CAC) enabled. Firewalls and intrusion detection system are used. Physical entry by unauthorized persons is restricted through the use of locks, guards, passwords, and/or other security measures. Archived data is stored on compact discs, or magnetic tapes, which are kept in a locked, controlled access area. Access to personal information is limited to those individuals who require a need to know to perform their official assigned duties.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written requests to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20701-1155.
Signed, written requests should include the individual's full name, telephone number, street address, email address, and name and number of this system of records notice. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rules for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to Defense Technical Information Center; Attn: DTIC-UC, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218.
Signed, written requests should contain the individual's full name, telephone number, street address, email address, and name and number of this system of records notice. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
None.
October 4, 2010, 75 FR 61135; November 12, 2008, 73 FR 66852; April 25, 2005, 70 FR 21181.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice; cancellation.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) San Francisco District is canceling the notice of availability issued on February 10, 2017 (82 FR 10346) for the Draft Detailed Project Report with Integrated Environmental Assessment (DPR/EA) and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed Pier 70 Central Basin Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 107 Navigation Improvement Project in San Francisco, CA. The USACE is postponing the public review and comment period.
Questions concerning this notice should be addressed to Roxanne Grillo, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1398. Telephone: (415) 503-6859. Email:
None.
Department of the Navy: DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to JFD Limited a revocable, non-assignable, exclusive license to practice in the United States, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent No. 6,868,360, entitled “SMALL HEAD-MOUNTED COMPASS SYSTEM WITH OPTICAL DISPLAY”, issued March 15, 2005, Navy Case No. 84,835.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any.
Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City, 110 Vernon Ave., Code 00L, Panama City, FL 32407-7001.
Mr. James Shepherd, Patent Counsel, Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City, 110 Vernon Ave., Panama City, FL 32407-7001, telephone 850-234-4646, fax 850-235-5497, or
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to PhareTech located at 4720 Chevy Chase Drive, Apartment 406, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license throughout the United States (U.S.) in all the fields of use in the Government-Owned invention described in U.S. Patent Application number 14/734,186 filed on June 9, 2015 entitled “Low Latency Fiber Optic Local Area Network” inventors Beranek et al.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Technology Transfer Office, Attention Michelle Miedzinski, Code 5.0H, 22347 Cedar Point Road, Building 2185, Box 62, Room 2160, Patuxent River, Maryland 20670.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice.
Michelle Miedzinski, 301-342-1133, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, 22347 Cedar Point Road, Building 2185, Box 62, Room 2160, Patuxent River, Maryland 20670.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.217A.
The Federal TRIO programs, including the McNair Program, represent a national commitment to education for all students regardless of race, ethnic background, disability status, or economic circumstances. The Department of Education (Department) has a strong interest in ensuring that groups traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, such as low-income students, first-generation college students, students who are English learners, students with disabilities, homeless students, students who are in foster care, and other disconnected students, receive the support necessary to assist them in successfully pursuing doctoral degrees.
The Department views the McNair Program as a critical component of its efforts to improve postsecondary outcomes for students who have been traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education and graduate school by providing disadvantaged college students with effective preparation for doctoral study, and improving the quality of student outcomes so that more students are well prepared for graduate school and careers.
To strategically align the McNair Program with overarching national strategies for increasing the number of students pursuing and completing degrees in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, this notice includes a competitive preference priority intended to encourage applicants to propose activities that support this comprehensive goal, consistent with a logic model (as defined in this notice).
The inclusion of this competitive preference priority will encourage applicants to increase the number of individuals in the McNair Program's target population that have access to STEM programs at the postsecondary level and are prepared for graduate study in STEM. The McNair Program's target population includes groups underrepresented in graduate education, as defined in the McNair Program regulations; low-income individuals who are first generation college students; and groups underrepresented in STEM as documented by standard statistical references or other national survey data submitted to and accepted by the Secretary.
Consistent with 34 CFR 75.210, the Secretary will use the selection criteria outlined in 34 CFR 647.21 to evaluate the applications submitted for new
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to improve student achievement or other related outcomes by increasing the number of individuals from groups that have been historically underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women, who are provided with access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM or who are prepared for postsecondary study and careers in STEM. (up to 5 points)
The definition of “student achievement” from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities does not apply here because that definition applies only to elementary and secondary grades and subjects that are covered by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. For the purposes of this program, “other related outcomes” could include end-of-course grades, or improvement in research or laboratory skills, among other outcomes.
The definition of the term “groups underrepresented in graduate education” is from the McNair Program regulations, 34 CFR 647.7(b). The definitions of the terms “logic model” and “strong theory” are from 34 CFR 77.1.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 and subsequent fiscal years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Pursuant to 34 CFR 647.32(a), we will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the applicable maximum amount listed here for a single budget period of 12 months. We will also reject any application from a new applicant that proposes a budget to serve fewer than 25 participants or, for applicants that are current grantees, any application with a proposed budget to serve fewer than the number of participants the applicant was approved to serve in FY 2016.
For an applicant not currently receiving a McNair Program grant, the maximum award is $226,600 to serve a minimum of 25 eligible participants, based upon a per participant cost of no more than $9,064.
For an applicant currently receiving a McNair Program grant and applying to serve a different campus, the maximum award is $226,600 to serve a minimum of 25 eligible participants, based upon a per participant cost of no more than $9,064.
For an applicant currently receiving a McNair Program grant and not applying to serve a different campus, the maximum award is the amount equal to the applicant's grant award amount for FY 2016 (
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margin.
• Each page on which there is text or graphics will be counted as one full page.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions may be single spaced.
• Use a font size that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (character per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance Face Sheet (SF 424); Part II, the Budget Information Summary form (ED Form 524); Part III, the McNair Program Profile; Part III, the one-page Project Abstract narrative; and Part IV, the Assurances and Certifications. The page limit also does not apply to a table of contents, which you should include in the application narrative. If you include any attachments or appendices, these items will be counted as part of Part III, the application narrative, for purposes of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria, which also includes the budget narrative.
Any application addressing the competitive preference priority may include up to four additional pages for the priority. These additional pages must be used to discuss how the application meets the competitive preference priority. The additional pages allotted to address the competitive preference priority cannot be used for or transferred to the project narrative or any other section of the application.
Partial pages will count as a full page toward the page limit. For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limit, each page containing text will be counted as one full page.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the program contact person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application;
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Therefore, if you think
Once your SAM registration is active, it may take 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the McNair Program, CFDA number 84.217A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the McNair Program at www.
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the program contact person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Katie Blanding, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E105, Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 260-7464.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.217A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. We will not consider applications postmarked after the deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.217A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a) Need (16 Points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the applicant can clearly and definitively demonstrate the need for a McNair project to serve the target population. In particular, the Secretary looks for information that clearly defines the target population; describes the academic, financial and other problems that prevent potentially
(b) Objectives (9 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources—
(1) (2 points) Research or scholarly activity.
(2) (3 points) Enrollment in a graduate program.
(3) (2 points) Continued enrollment in graduate study.
(4) (2 points) Doctoral degree attainment.
(c) Plan of Operation (44 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality of the applicant's plans of operation, including—
(1) (4 points) The plan for identifying, recruiting and selecting participants to be served by the project, including students enrolled in the Student Support Services program;
(2) (4 points) The plan for assessing individual participant needs and for monitoring the academic growth of participants during the period in which the student is a McNair participant;
(3) (5 points) The plan for providing high quality research and scholarly activities in which participants will be involved;
(4) (5 points) The plan for involving faculty members in the design of research activities in which students will be involved;
(5) (5 points) The plan for providing internships, seminars, and other educational activities designed to prepare undergraduate students for doctoral study;
(6) (5 points) The plan for providing individual or group services designed to enhance a student's successful entry into postbaccalaureate education;
(7) (3 points) The plan to inform the institutional community of the goals and objectives of the project;
(8) (8 points) The plan to ensure proper and efficient administration of the project, including, but not limited to, matters such as financial management, student records management, personnel management, the organizational structure, and the plan for coordinating the McNair project with other programs for disadvantaged students; and
(9) (5 points) The follow-up plan that will be used to track the academic and career accomplishments of participants after they are no longer participating in the McNair project.
(d) Quality of key personnel (9 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of key personnel the applicant plans to use on the project on the basis of the following:
(1)(i) The job qualifications of the project director.
(ii) The job qualifications of each of the project's other key personnel.
(iii) The quality of the project's plan for employing highly qualified persons, including the procedures to be used to employ members of groups underrepresented in higher education, including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (including Native Hawaiians).
(2) In evaluating the qualifications of a person, the Secretary considers his or her experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project.
(e) Adequacy of the resources and budget (15 points). The Secretary evaluates the extent to which—
(1) The applicant's proposed allocation of resources in the budget is clearly related to the objectives of the project;
(2) Project costs and resources, including facilities, equipment, and supplies, are reasonable in relation to the objectives and scope of the project; and
(3) The applicant's proposed commitment of institutional resources to the McNair participants, as for example, the commitment of time from institutional research faculty and the waiver of tuition and fees for McNair participants engaged in summer research projects.
(f) Evaluation plan (7 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of the evaluation plan for the project on the basis of the extent to which the applicant's methods of evaluation—
(1) Are appropriate to the project's objectives;
(2) Provide for the applicant to determine, in specific and measurable ways, the success of the project in—
(i) Making progress toward achieving its objectives (a formative evaluation); and
(ii) Achieving its objectives at the end of the project period (a) summative evaluation); and
(3) Provide for a description of other project outcomes, including the use of quantifiable measures, if appropriate.
(g) Quality of project design (5 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice).
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of non-Federal reviewers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria in 34 CFR 647.21 and the competitive preference priority. The individual scores of the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer review score received in the review process. Additionally, in accordance with 34 CFR 647.22, the Secretary will award prior experience points to applicants that conducted a McNair Program project during budget periods 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, based on their documented experience. Prior experience points, if any, will be added to the application's average reader score to determine the total score for each application.
If there are insufficient funds for all applications with the same total scores, the Secretary will choose among the tied applications so as to serve geographic areas and eligible populations that have been underserved by the McNair Program.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
5.
In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Carmen Gordon, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5C111, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7311 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of English Language Acquisition, Department of Education.
Notice.
National Professional Development Program.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017.
Grants awarded under this program may be used—
(1) For effective pre-service or inservice professional development programs that will improve the qualifications and skills of educational personnel involved in the education of ELs, including personnel who are not certified or licensed and educational paraprofessionals, and for other activities to increase teacher and school leader effectiveness in meeting the needs of ELs;
(2) For the development of program curricula appropriate to the needs of the consortia participants involved;
(3) To support strategies that strengthen and increase parent, family, and community member engagement in the education of ELs;
(4) To develop, share, and disseminate effective practices in the instruction of ELs and in increasing the student academic achievement of ELs, including the use of technology-based programs;
(5) In conjunction with other Federal need-based student financial assistance programs, for financial assistance, including costs related to tuition, fees, and books for enrolling in courses required to complete the degree involved, to meet certification or licensing requirements for teachers who work in language instruction educational programs or serve ELs; and
(6) As appropriate, to support strategies that promote school readiness of ELs and their transition from early childhood education programs, such as Head Start or State-run preschool programs, to elementary school programs.
Educator effectiveness is the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement and success.
Through previous competitions, the NPD program has funded a range of grantees that are currently implementing 121 projects across the country. As the EL population continues to grow, it has become increasingly important to identify and support practices implemented by educators of ELs that effectively improve student learning outcomes.
However, there are limited studies that provide evidence about how to best prepare and support educators of ELs in ways that will ultimately improve student learning and outcomes. The existing studies that the Department has identified typically do not meet the highest standards for rigor, and largely focus on professional development for in-service teachers; few focused on preparation for pre-service teachers.
Nonetheless, the body of evidence on effective language, literacy, and content instruction for ELs, including specific instructional practices for English language acquisition, is growing steadily, as documented by the 2014 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Practice Guide for teaching ELs, available at:
In addition, in order to increase the body of evidence available to inform improved instruction for ELs, we encourage NPD applicants to propose projects that include a rigorous evaluation of proposed activities that, if well-implemented, would meet the WWC Evidence Standards with reservations. We believe that such evaluations will help ensure that projects funded under the NPD program are part of a learning agenda that expands the knowledge base on effective EL practices to ultimately enable all ELs to achieve postsecondary and career success.
For the FY 2017 NPD competition, the Department is particularly interested in supporting projects that improve parental, family, and community engagement. Literature suggests that educators who involve families in their children's education can strengthen their instructional effectiveness with ELs.
The Department is also interested in supporting dual language acquisition approaches that are effective in developing biliteracy skills. Evidence suggests that students who are biliterate have certain cognitive and social benefits compared to their monolingual peers. Further, recent research
In addition, we recognize that linguistic and cultural diversity is an asset, and that dual language approaches may also enhance the preservation of heritage languages and cultures. These approaches may be particularly impactful for diverse populations of ELs, such as immigrant children and youth and Native American students.
Finally, we are interested in the development of the early learning workforce. In this competition, we encourage pre-service preparation for early learning educators so that they can successfully support ELs. Because the foundational knowledge of developmental learning and language
This priority is:
Under this priority we provide funding to projects that provide professional development activities that will improve classroom instruction for ELs and assist educational personnel working with ELs to meet high professional standards, including standards for certification and licensure as teachers who work in language instruction educational programs or serve ELs.
These priorities are:
Projects that are supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice).
Projects that are designed to improve student outcomes through one or more of the following:
(a) Developing and implementing systemic initiatives (as defined in this notice) to improve parent and family engagement (as defined in this notice) by expanding and enhancing the skills, strategies, and knowledge (including techniques or use of technological tools needed to effectively communicate, advocate, support, and make informed decisions about the student's education) of parents and families.
(b) Providing professional development that enhances the skills and competencies of school or program leaders, principals, teachers, practitioners, or other administrative and support staff to build meaningful relationships with students' parents or families through systemic initiatives (as defined in this notice) that may also support students' learning at home.
(c) Implementing initiatives that improve community engagement (as defined in this notice), the relationships between parents or families and school or program staff by cultivating sustained partnerships (as defined in this notice).
We encourage applicants to propose projects to improve educator preparation and professional learning for dual language implementation models to support effective instruction for ELs. In particular, we encourage such approaches to take into account the unique needs of recently arrived limited English proficient students, immigrant children and youth, and Native American students, who are members of Federally recognized Indian tribes.
We encourage applicants to propose projects that improve the quality and effectiveness of the early learning workforce, including administrators, so that they have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to improve ELs' cognitive, health, social-emotional, and dual language development. Early learning programs are designed to improve early learning and development outcomes across one or more of the essential domains of school readiness (as defined in this notice) for children from birth through third grade (or for any age group within this range). Further, we encourage applicants to include in such projects these foundational professional learning domains for educators at all levels of teaching, including secondary preparation.
(A) Who is aged 3 through 21;
(B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;
(C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;
(ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a Native resident of the outlying areas; and
(II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or
(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and
(D) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—
(i) The ability to meet challenging State academic standards;
(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or
(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society. (Section 8101 of the ESEA)
(A) Are aged 3 through 21;
(B) Were not born in any State; and
(C) Have not been attending one or more schools in any one or more States for more than 3 full academic years. (Section 3201 of the ESEA)
(A) In which an English learner is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic standards; and,
(B) That may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English and a second language. (Section 3201 of the ESEA)
(A) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), and includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.
(B) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample. (34 CFR 77.1)
Applicants may use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (
For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA: (1) Alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; (2) student learning objectives; (3) student performance on
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2. a.
We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application by emailing
Applicants must use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
•
The page limit for the application does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the bibliography, or the letters of support of the application. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III] of the application.
b.
Consistent with the process followed in the prior NPD competitions, we may post the project narrative section of funded NPD applications on the Department's Web site so you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure process.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you entered into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
Applications for grants for the NPD program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under the NPD program, CFDA number 84.365Z, must be submitted electronically using the
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the NPD program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.365Z), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.365Z), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(2) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replications of project activities or strategies including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice).
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(c)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(2) The extent to which the time commitment of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.
The following are technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook:
In addition, we invite applicants to view two Webinar recordings that were hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The first Webinar addresses strategies for designing and executing well-designed quasi-experimental design studies. This Webinar is available at:
2.
Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility at multiple points during the competition process, including before and after peer review; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that an NPD grant application does not meet an NPD requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.
For NPD grant applications, the Department intends to conduct a two-part review process to review and score all eligible applications. Content reviewers will review and score all eligible applications on the following three selection criteria: (a) Quality of the project design; (b) Quality of project personnel; and (c) Quality of the management plan. These reviewers will also review and score the second competitive preference priority. Peer reviewers with evaluation expertise will review and score selection criterion (d) Quality of the project evaluation.
We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) The Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection, analysis, and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Why each proposed performance target is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure.
(2) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and
(3) The applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project.
(d)
(e)
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Samuel Lopez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5C152, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-4300. FAX: (202) 205-1229 or by email at
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meetings.
This notice announces a meeting of the National Coal Council (NCC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 8:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
Sheraton Suites, Old Town Alexandria; 801 N. Saint Asaph St.; Alexandria, VA 22314.
Daniel Matuszak, U.S. Department of Energy, 4G-036/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0001; Telephone: 202-287-6915
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 comments, motions to intervene and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests 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.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
q.
Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Part 284 Natural Gas Pipeline Rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On December 19, 2016, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Shenandoah Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project to be located near Shenandoah Borough in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n. The proposed project would utilize head from the existing Fresno Dam, intake with trashrack, and outlet structure owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and consist of the following new facilities: (1) Two 150-foot-long penstocks consisting of (i) two 72-inch-diameter steel penstocks bifurcating into (ii) two 60-inch-diameter steel penstocks; (2) an underground powerhouse containing four 375-kilowatt Natel Energy turbines with a total rated capacity of 1.5 megawatts; (3) four discharge pipes diverting flows into the existing dam spillway; (4) a 25-square-foot switchyard; (5) an approximately 3.35-mile-long, 12.74-kilovolt partially underground transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 5,590 megawatt-hours.
o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
p.
On December 19, 2016, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Rattlin Run Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project to be located near Shenandoah Borough in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) As many as two new upper reservoirs with a combined surface area of 280 acres and a combined storage capacity of 5,040 acre-feet at a surface elevation of
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Delay of effective date.
In accordance with the Presidential directive as expressed in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review”, this action delays until March 21, 2017, the effective date of the
This action is effective February 21, 2017. The effective date of the
Scott M. Sherlock, Attorney Advisor, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8257; email address:
EPA bases this action on the Presidential directive as expressed in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, 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 sixty days from the date of the memorandum the effective dates of all regulations (defined in the January 20, 2017 memorandum to include “an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue”) that had been published in the
If deemed appropriate, EPA may consider delaying the effective date of this action beyond March 21, 2017.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of determination.
The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for all marine waters of Washington State inward from the line between New Dungeness Lighthouse and the Discovery Island Lighthouse to the Canadian border, and fresh waters of Lake Washington, Lake Union, and connecting waters between and to Puget Sound. This notice constitutes EPA's final determination on the petition submitted by the Washington State Department of Ecology on July 21, 2016, pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322, for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound. This determination does not itself constitute the designation of a no-discharge zone, rather, the State of Washington may now in its discretion
On November 7, 2016, EPA published notice of its preliminary affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters subject to Washington's proposed no-discharge zone [FR Number 2016-26877; 81 FR 78141, November 7, 2016] with a 30-day public comment period. At the request of stakeholders, EPA extended the 30-day public comment period from December 7, 2016 to December 23, 2016.
EPA received a total of 40,462 comments via letter, email, online using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, and in person. All forms of input were considered equally. Of the comments received, 328 were individual letters and 40,134 were form letters, mass mailers and/or petitions, a few with minor additions. Of the individual letters, approximately two-thirds supported and one-third opposed EPA's preliminary affirmative determination. Two mass mailers totaling 72 signatures opposed EPA's tentative affirmative determination and 40,062 supported it. Comments were submitted by individuals, environmental organizations, vessel associations, boating and yacht clubs, industry representatives, port authorities, county, federal, local and tribal governmental entities, and other interested groups.
In addition to comments expressing support or opposition to a Puget Sound no-discharge zone, many commenters specifically addressed the adequacy and availability of pumpout facilities, while others focused on broader issues beyond the scope of EPA's review and determination. All of the relevant comments received have been considered. EPA has prepared a response to comments that supports this determination. The response to comments document can be found at this Web site:
Catherine Gockel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Water and Watersheds, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101; telephone number (206) 553-0325; fax number (206) 553-1280; email address
The Department of Ecology has petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322, for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound. As described in the State's petition, submitted to EPA on July 21, 2016, the Washington State Department of Ecology has determined that the protection and enhancement of the quality of the waters of Puget Sound requires greater environmental protection, and petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for those waters, so that the State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters.
According to the Ecology's petition, the western boundary of the NDZ would be the exit of the Strait of Juan de Fuca near the entrance of Admiralty Inlet. This boundary is known and visible to vessel operators as it is the line between New Dungeness Lighthouse and Discovery Island Lighthouse. The northern boundary would be the border with Canada and heading south including all marine waters down to the south end of the south Sound and Hood Canal. The fresh waters of Lake Washington, Union Bay, Montlake Cut, Portage Bay, Lake Union, Fremont Cut, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and Salmon Bay (the connecting waters from Lake Washington to Puget Sound) would be included. For more information regarding the State's planned no-discharge zone, please go to:
The Washington State Department of Ecology developed its petition in order to establish a vessel sewage no-discharge zone for all marine waters of Washington State inward from the line between New Dungeness Lighthouse and the Discovery Island Lighthouse to the Canadian border, and fresh waters of Lake Washington, Lake Union, and connecting waters between and to Puget Sound, and has submitted a certificate that the protection and enhancement of the waters described in the petition require greater environmental protection than the applicable Federal standard.
EPA's determination is based on the information provided in Ecology's July 21, 2016 petition as well as supplemental information that Ecology submitted to EPA on October 14, 2016, regarding commercial vessel pumpout availability in Puget Sound. In reaching this final determination, EPA has conducted additional outreach to verify and confirm the information provided in Ecology's submittals and follow up on comments received. The information obtained further supports EPA's determination that adequate pumpout out facilities for the safe and sanitary removal of sewage are reasonably available for both commercial and recreational vessels. Additional detail is provided below and in EPA's response to comments document.
Guidelines issued pursuant to the Clean Vessel Act for recreational vessels recommend one pumpout station for every 300-600 boats [Clean Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines,
The State used two methods to develop a reasonable estimate of the recreational vessel population in Puget Sound. The first method was based on boater registration records obtained from the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL). Using data from the DOL, the maximum estimated number of recreational vessels in each of the Washington State counties bordering Puget Sound that might require access to pumpout facilities or services under NDZ regulations (
The second method was based on the number of moorages and slips available to boaters, using Google Earth imagery captured during the summers of 2011 and 2012 to count vacant and occupied marina slips and moored vessels. Using this method, the State estimates a recreational vessel population of 23,555. The State believes that this also may be an overestimate, albeit less of an overestimate than the number
The State's petition also provided information about 173 pumpout units at 102 locations, and 21 mobile pumpout boats available for recreational vessels in Puget Sound. EPA's review of Ecology's petition and the comments received has confirmed that the total number, location and availability of these pumpout facilities and services track the overall distribution of the recreational vessel population. The ongoing costs for recreational vessels to pumpout is minimal, with most pumpouts being free or $5 per pumpout. The majority of pumped sewage is sent to wastewater treatment plants; however, some is sent to onsite septic tanks that meet federal requirements.
The most conservative estimate of the ratio of pumpout facilities to recreational vessels is 1:171 boats for each pumpout facility, not including the mobile services. Based on DOL vessel registration data, there is a maximum of 43,677 recreation vessels in Puget Sound that could require access to pumpout facilities. As noted above, this is the State's most conservative (high) estimate. Using a 40 percent peak occupancy rate recommended by the Clean Vessel Act Technical Guidelines cited above, EPA has calculated that 17,471 of the 43,677 boats recreational vessels would require access to a pumpout facility during peak boating season. The State identified 102 recreational pumpout locations, which results in a ratio of 171 recreational vessels for each pumpout location, not including the mobile services. Applying the same 40% occupancy rate to the lower recreational vessel estimate of 23,555 obtained from the moorage count results in a ratio of 92 recreational vessels for each pumpout location, not including the mobile services.
Accordingly, even using the more conservative vessel count, the resulting ratio well exceeds the recommended minimum ratio of 1:600. In addition, EPA has confirmed that numerous mobile pumpout trucks and vessels are available to provide service for recreational vessels throughout Puget Sound. As set forth in Table 8 of Ecology's supplement information, there are 194 mobile pumpout companies; of these, at least 52 vacuum trucks and two mobile pumpout vessels are available for pumping out larger recreational vessels. Mobile pumpout services are available seven days a week, with extended hours during the busy summer months. These mobile services provide additional pumpout options to address concerns raised regarding location or access issues. Additional information is provided in EPA's response to comments document.
Based on this information, EPA determines that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage for recreational vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound.
Puget Sound is also used by many different sizes and types of commercial vessels. The State used a study conducted by the Puget Sound Maritime Air Forum (Starcrest, 2007) to develop a reasonable estimate of commercial vessel use of Puget Sound. The study concluded that there were 2,937 entries of large oceangoing vessels into Puget Sound in 2005, and an estimated 678 other commercial vessels that operate mostly within Puget Sound (
The large, oceangoing transient commercial vessels that are only in Puget Sound for a short period of time (
The State identified eight stationary pumpouts dedicated to WSDOT ferries, three dedicated to U.S. Navy vessels, one dedicated to the Victoria Clipper vessels and one for the McNeil Island Department of Corrections vessels. The Port of Bellingham cruise terminal area also has three stationary pumpouts, one of which is used for Alaska Marine Highway vessels and two other pumpouts that can serve other commercial vessels. Although not included in this analysis, EPA notes that two more commercial pumpouts are being installed, one in Seattle for all commercial vessels and another at the Port of Bellingham mostly for fishing vessels. Estimated dates for completion are March and September 2017, respectively.
The State's supplemental information identified five companies that specialize in commercial marine work and that are capable of removing sewage from commercial vessel holding tanks. These five companies have a combined total of approximately 52 trucks (capacity ranging from 2,200-7,000 gallons each) and two mobile barges (capacity of 3,000 gallons each). These companies serve all of Puget Sound and can provide pumpout services at a variety of docks and ports for all types of commercial vessels, including tugs, fishing vessels, USCG vessels, smaller cruise ships, tankers, and other vessels. EPA contacted four of the commercial marine work companies identified in Ecology's supplemental information document and confirmed that the information provided was accurate.
The State's petition and supplemental information also identified 21-23 mobile pumpout vessels. These mobile pumpouts primarily service recreational boats, but several have serviced commercial vessels such as charter boats, fishing vessels, U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and passenger vessels. The mobile pumpout boats have a capacity between 40 and 450 gallons and cover vast areas geographically as they are able to move to vessels, although some stay within their own marina or harbor area. In addition to the pumpouts described above, there are approximately 140 licensed or certified pumper truck companies in Puget Sound that primarily pump out septic tanks, but that can also pump out vessel sewage. The number of trucks in each company ranges from 1-13, and approximately half of these companies contacted by the State are currently, or are willing to, pump out commercial vessel sewage.
The State indicates that the number of commercial vessels that are likely to be in regular need of pumpout facilities within a no-discharge zone would include the non-ocean going vessels that include tugboats, commercial fishing vessels, small passenger vessels, NOAA research and survey vessels, WSDOT Ferries, military and other government vessels, excursion and other commercial vessels. Given that the WSDOT Ferries, military vessels, and Victoria Clipper vessels all have dedicated stationary pumpouts, they have been removed
With the two stationary commercial pumpouts, at least 52 Sound-wide commercial pumper trucks, and the two Sound-wide mobile commercial pumpout barges described above, this amounts to at least 56 pumpouts available for commercial vessels which results in an approximate ratio of 11:1, using either the 600 or 631 vessel estimates cited above. In addition to this ratio, EPA has considered the fact that these mobile pumpouts provide service throughout Puget Sound, provide sufficient capacity for commercial vessels, and generally do not experience dock access issues. Moreover, these pumpout services can be scheduled by appointment to accommodate vessel needs and itineraries, and are sufficiently diversified such that they do not experience seasonal fluctuations. Given the widespread availability and flexibility of these services and the overall ratio of 11:1, EPA determines that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage for commercial vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound.
EPA further notes that the estimated ratio may be conservative, given that a number of the mobile pumpout boats and pumper trucks described above may also provide commercial pumpout services.
A list of pumpout facilities, phone numbers, locations, hours of operation, water depth, and fees is provided at this link to the Washington Department of Ecology Web site:
Based on the information above, the EPA hereby makes a final affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Acting Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 17, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 7, 2017.
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 23, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
For 2017, CMS has a total of nine standardized ANOC/EOC documents: Health Maintenance Organization, Cost, Dual Eligible Special Needs, Medicare Medical Savings Account, Private-Fee-For-Service, Preferred Provider Organizations, Preferred Provider Organization with Prescription Drugs, Health Maintenance Organization with Prescription Drug, and Prescription Drug. These standardized documents will be used by MA organizations and Part D sponsors for the 2018 contract year.
In revising the standardized ANOC/EOCs for contract year 2018, we did not add to or remove any section from the prior contract year ANOC/EOC models. MA organizations and Part D sponsors are still required to use the standardized language in the ANOC/EOC models and to send this document to current members at least 15 days prior to the start of the annual enrollment period or by September 30, 2017 for the 2018 enrollment season, based on 42 CFR 422.111(a) (3) and 423.128(a)(3).
5.
As part of this information collection request for the national implementation of Home Health Care CAHPS, CMS is also requesting approval to conduct a randomized mode experiment with a sample of home health agencies. The mode experiment compared the responses to the survey across the three proposed modes to determine whether adjustments are needed to ensure that the data collection mode does not influence the survey results. In addition, data from the mode experiment will be used to determine which, if any, patient characteristics may affect the patients' rating of the care they receive and, if so, develop an adjustment model of those data based on those factors. CMS worked with RTI, the federal contractor to recruit approximately 100 home health agencies to participate in the mode experiment. The mode experiment included approximately 23,000 home health care patients.
6.
7.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by April 24, 2017.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The development of streamlined submissions forms enhances the collaboration and partnership between states and CMS by documenting our policy for states to use as they are developing program changes. Streamlined forms improve efficiency of administration by creating a common and user-friendly understanding of the information we need to quickly process requests for state plan amendments, waivers, and demonstration, as well as ongoing reporting.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances—Questions and Answers (regarding the selection and justification of starting materials).” The draft guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. The draft guidance consists of questions and answers that were developed to clarify the principles for selecting starting materials described in the ICH guidance “Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances”. The draft guidance is intended to provide additional clarification and to promote convergence on the considerations for the selection and justification of starting materials. The question-and-answer (Q&A) draft guidance focuses on chemical entity drug substances, and provides recommendation on the information that should be provided in marketing authorization applications and/or Master Files to justify the starting materials.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 23, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization, and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; CDER and CBER, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a Member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization and is funded by the Members of the ICH Association.
The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers.
In November 2016, the ICH Assembly endorsed the draft guidance entitled “Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances—Questions and Answers (regarding the selection and justification of starting materials)” and agreed that the guidance should be made available for public comment. The draft guidance is the product of the Q11 Quality Implementation Working Group of the ICH. The guidance consists of questions and answers that were developed to clarify the principles for selecting starting materials described in the ICH guidance “Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances” published November 20, 2012 (77 FR 69634), and available online at
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on April 6, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Tommy Douglas Conference Center, 10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, Maryland 20903. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
Caryn Cohen, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Caryn Cohen at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is establishing a public docket to collect comments related to the pediatric postmarketing pharmacovigilance and drug utilization reviews of products posted between September 17, 2016, and February 24, 2017, on the FDA Web site, but will not be presented at the March 6-7, 2017, Pediatric Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting. These reviews are intended to be available for review and comment by members of the PAC, interested parties (such as academic researchers, regulated industries, consortia, and patient groups), and the general public.
Submit either electronic or written comments by March 10, 2017. The docket will open on February 27, 2017, and remain open until March 10, 2017.
You may submit your comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submission as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Kenneth Quinto, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5145, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-2221, email:
FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our Nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
FDA is establishing a public docket FDA-2017-N-0595 to receive input on pediatric postmarketing pharmacovigilance and drug utilization reviews posted between September 17, 2016, and February 24, 2017, on the FDA Web site at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 24, 2017.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Section 846A of the Public Health Service Act provides the Secretary of HHS with the authority to enter into an agreement with schools of nursing for the establishment and operation of a student loan fund to increase the number of qualified nurse faculty. Under the agreement, HRSA makes awards to schools for the NFLP loan fund, which must be maintained in a distinct account. A school of nursing makes loans from the NFLP account to students enrolled full-time or, at the discretion of the Secretary, part-time in a master's or doctoral nursing education program that will prepare them to become qualified nursing faculty. Following graduation from the NFLP lending school, loan recipients may receive up to 85 percent NFLP loan cancellation over a consecutive 4-year period in exchange for service as full-time faculty at a school of nursing. The NFLP lending school collects any portion of the loan that is not cancelled and any loans that go into repayment due to default, and deposits these monies into the NFLP loan fund to make additional NFLP loans.
The school of nursing must keep records of all NFLP loan fund
HRSA 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.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 24, 2017.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
• Line Item D will be renamed “D1. NFLP Loan Fund Balance/Unused Accumulation.”
• Addition of Line Item D2 entitled “NFLP Loan Fund Default Rate,” requesting information regarding the status of an institution's default rate.
• Addition of Line Item D3 entitled “Last NFLP Student Loan Award,” requesting information regarding the disbursement of NFLP loan funds within the last 2 academic years.
• Line Item E2 Column Header will be renamed “E.2 NFLP Enrollees Information by Degree—New Students Expected to Request NFLP Support.”
• Under Section B of instructions, “other attachments” will be updated to reflect the current list of NFLP Funding Opportunity Announcement attachments.
Addition of Line Item D2, NFLP Loan Fund Default Rate, will allow HRSA to easily assess and consider an existing performance standard for those applicants with existing NFLP loan accounts. Used in combination with an existing NFLP institution's self-reported NFLP loan balance, addition of Line Item D3, Last NFLP Student Loan Award, will allow HRSA to assess the loan fund activity (
This data collection enables an efficient award determination process, and facilitates reporting on the use of funds and analysis of program outcomes.
HRSA 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.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than April 24, 2017.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
HRSA staff use various techniques to evaluate interviewer administered, self-administered, telephone, Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI), Computer Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI), Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (ACASI), and web-based questionnaires.
Professionally recognized procedures are followed in each information collection activity to ensure high quality data. Examples of these procedures could include the following:
• Monitoring by supervisory staff of a certain percent of telephone interviews;
• Conducting cognitive interviewing techniques, including think-aloud techniques and debriefings;
• Data-entry from mail or paper-and-pencil surveys will be computerized through scannable forms or checked through double-key entry;
• Observers will monitor focus groups, and focus group proceedings will be recorded; and
• Data submitted through on-line surveys will be subjected to statistical
Each request under this generic clearance will specify the procedures to be used. Participation will be voluntary, and non-participation will not affect eligibility for, or receipt of, future HRSA health services research activities or grant awards, recruitment, or participation. Specific testing and evaluation procedures will be described when we notify OMB about each new request. Consent procedures will be customized for each information collection activity, but will include assurances of confidentiality and the legislative authority for the activity. If the encounter is to be recorded, the respondent's permission to record will be obtained before beginning the interview.
• Individual in-depth interviews—In-depth interviews will commonly be used to ensure that the meaning of a questionnaire or strategy is understood by the respondent. When in-depth interviewing is used, the interview guide will be provided to OMB for review.
• Focus groups—Focus groups will be used to obtain insights into beliefs and understandings of the target audience early in the development of a questionnaire or tool. When focus groups are used, the focus group discussion guide will be provided to OMB for review.
• Expert/Gatekeeper review of tools—In some instances, tools designed for patients may be reviewed in-depth by medical providers or other gatekeepers to provide feedback on the acceptability and usability of a particular tool. This would usually be in addition to pretesting of the tool by the actual patient or other user.
• Record abstractions—On occasion, the development of a tool or other information collection requires review and interaction with records rather than individuals.
• “Dress rehearsal” of a specific protocol—In some instances, the proposed pretesting will constitute a walkthrough of the intended data collection procedure. In these instances, the request will mirror what is expected to occur for the larger scale data collection.
HRSA 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.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 24, 2017.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
HRSA 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.
Notice of public meetings.
This notice announces the next two meeting dates for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”) which will be held in Washington, DC. All meetings will be open to the public.
The PTAC meetings will occur on the following dates:
Please note that times are subject to change. If the times change, registrants will be notified directly via email.
The March 13-14, 2017 meeting will be held at the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. The April 10-11, 2017 meeting will be held at the Liaison Hotel, 415 New Jersey Ave NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Ann Page, Designated Federal Official, at the Office of Health Policy, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 690-6870.
The public may attend the meetings in-person or participate by phone via audio teleconference. Space is limited and registration is preferred in order to attend in-person or by phone. Registration may be completed online at
The following information is submitted when registering:
Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to registrants shortly after completing the registration process.
Additional material for this meeting can be found on the PTAC Web site. For updates and announcements, please use the link to subscribe to the PTAC email listserv.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government.
Licensing information may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive, Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301-402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive any unpublished information.
The following inventions are available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Technology description follows.
The invention relates to the uses of the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline, its bioactive metabolites, and other LPA1R activators to improve the bioavailability and delivery of therapeutics to the central nervous system. This invention demonstrates that amitriptyline and other agents selectively decrease P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transport activity by ligand activation of lysophosphatidic acid 1 receptor (LPA1R) at the blood-brain barrier. P-gp is an effective target for increasing drug delivery to the brain (CNS) for two major reasons: (1) Its substrates include a large portion of on-the-market drugs, including chemotherapeutics, and (2) its directionality results in a net efflux of drugs from the brain. Additionally, specifically targeting P-gp through LPA1R activation bypasses the clinical challenges resulting from the toxicity of substrate inhibitors of P-gp. This invention describes the inhibition of drug efflux by P-gp transport; thus, co-administration of therapeutics with amitriptyline and other LPA1R activators provides a method for increasing drug delivery to the CNS, and improving overall drug efficacy. Moreover, drug delivery to other barrier tissues will also be enhanced where a similar LPA1R-P-gp activity relationship exists.
• Drug Delivery to the CNS.
• Co-administration of therapeutics.
• Blood-brain-barrier permeability.
• Early stage.
• Cannon
• Mesev,
• More,
• Miller,
• Cartwright,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications/contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications/contract proposals, 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 President's Cancer Panel, March 27, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to March 28, 2017, 1:00 p.m., Kimpton Hotel Palomar, Philadelphia, PA 19103 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the ending date and time from March 28, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. to March 27, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. The agenda has also been amended as follows: “Welcome and Introductions; Session 1: The Pricing and Payment Landscapes—Framing the Issues—1 and 2; Session 2: Cancer Drug Value/Intervention Framework; Public Comment; Session 3: High-Cost/High Value Drugs; Session 4: High-Cost/Modest Value Drugs; Public Comment; Wrap-Up and Next Steps.” The meeting is open to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
60-Day notice and request for comments; revision of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS). This is a proposed extension and revision of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a revision to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before April 24, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0139 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email (
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
EVUS provides for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing DHS to identify nonimmigrant aliens who may be inadmissible before they depart for the United States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler delays upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry. EVUS aids DHS in facilitating legitimate travel while also enhancing public safety and national security.
DHS proposes to add the following optional question to EVUS: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier.” A social media identifier is any name, or “handle,” used by the individual on one or more platforms. The optional social media question on the EVUS enrollment will include a drop down menu of options for selection. This data will be used for vetting purposes, as needed, providing highly trained CBP officers with timely visibility into publicly available information on the platforms associated with the social media identifier(s) voluntarily provided by the applicant, along with other information and tools CBP officers regularly use in the performance of their duties. The officer will review said platforms in a manner consistent with the privacy settings the applicant has chosen to adopt for those platforms. It will also help distinguish between individuals with similar characteristics, such as similar names, and provide an additional means to contact an applicant if needed. Respondents who choose not to answer this question can still submit an EVUS enrollment without a negative interpretation or inference. The question will be clearly marked as optional.
On August 22, 2016, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Frank D. Li, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent), of Tukwila, Washington and Beverly Hills, California. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of four separate Certificates of Registration held by Respondent (three of which are for locations in Washington State and one which is for a location in California), pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a practitioner, on the ground that he does hold authority to dispense controlled substances in these States.
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent holds three registrations in Washington State: (1) No. FL0680947, for the location of 1536 N 115th St., Suite 310, Seattle, which does not expire until March 31, 2017; (2) No. FL1688235, for the location of 801 SW 16th St., Suite 121, Renton, which does not expire until March 31, 2018; and (3) No. FL2601335, for the location of 3624 Colby Ave., Suite B, Everett, which does not expire until March 31, 2017. Show Cause Order, at 2. The Show Cause Order also alleged that Respondent holds registration No. BL7067261, for the location of 8641 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California, and that this registration does not expire until March 31, 2019.
As for the substantive basis of the proposed action, the Show Cause Order alleged that the State of Washington, Department of Health, issued an
On September 20, 2016, Respondent, through his counsel, requested a hearing on the allegations. Resp. Hrng. Req. The matter was then placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and assigned to ALJ Charles Wm. Dorman.
On September 21, 2016, the ALJ issued an order directing the Government to submit evidence supporting the allegation and an accompanying dispositive motion by October 5, 2016. Briefing Schedule For Lack Of State Authority Allegations, at 1. The ALJ also ordered that if the Government filed such a motion, Respondent was to file his reply by October 12, 2016.
On September 22, 2016, the Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition.
On October 12, 2016, Respondent filed his Reply. Respondent's Reply, at 1. While Respondent admitted that his licenses to practice medicine in Washington and California had been suspended, he stated that “he has challenged the Boards' suspension and has every confidence that the current suspensions will be lifted and [that he] will have his medical license restored.”
Respondent also argued that the authority contained in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is discretionary with respect to a practitioner's registration and that “[t]here are numerous factors that the [Agency] should consider prior to summarily revoking [his] [r]egistration.” Resp's Reply, at 3 (citing
On October 20, 2016, the ALJ granted the Government's motion and recommended that Respondent's registrations be revoked. Order Granting Summary Disposition And Recommended Rulings, Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law, And Decision, at 5. The ALJ noted various authorities holding that a practitioner must possess state authority in order to maintain a DEA registration.
Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's Recommended Decision. Thereafter, the record was forwarded to my Office for Final Agency Action. Having considered the record and the Recommended Decision, I adopt the ALJ's Recommended Decision. I make the following factual findings.
Respondent holds four separate certificates of registration, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II-V as a practitioner:
1. Certificate of Registration FL0680947, at the registered address of 1536 N 115th St., Suite 310, Seattle, Washington, which does not expire until March 31, 2017.
2. Certificate of Registration FL1688235, at the registered address of 801 SW 16th St., Suite 121, Renton, Washington, which does not expire until March 31, 2018.
3. Certificate of Registration FL2601335, at the registered address of 3624 Colby Ave., Suite B, Everett, Washington, which does not expire until March 31, 2017.
4. Certificate of Registration BL7067261, at the registered address of 8641 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California, which does not expire until March 31, 2019.
On July 14, 2016, the State of Washington, Department of Health, MQAC, issued an
On August 5, 2016 the Medical Board of California issued a Notice of Out of State Suspension Order to Respondent, summarily suspending his California medical license on the basis of the suspension ordered by the MQAC. Govt. Mot. Appendix F, at 1. According to the online records of the MBC, Respondent's California Physician's and Surgeon's license remains suspended as of the date of this Decision and Order.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
In his reply to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, Respondent argued that the authority contained in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is discretionary with respect to a practitioner's registration and that “[t]here are numerous factors that the [Agency] should consider prior to summarily revoking [his] [r]egistration.” Resp's Reply, at 3 (citing
In
The court of appeals rejected Hooper's contentions. While acknowledging that “[s]ection 824(a) does state that the [Agency] may `suspend or revoke' a registration,” the court noted that “the statute provides for this sanction [suspension] in five different circumstances, only one of which is loss of a State license.”
As for Respondent's contention that
Finally, Respondent contends that revocation is not warranted “given the many serious shortcomings that have been identified in the Boards' actions.” Resp. Reply, at 4. DEA, however, has no authority to adjudicate the validity of the decisions of state boards, which are deemed to be presumptively lawful for the purpose of the Controlled Substances Act.
Here, there is no dispute that by virtue of the suspensions ordered by the MQAC and MBC, Respondent is currently without authority to dispense controlled substances in the States of Washington and California. Because he no longer satisfies the statutory requirement of holding authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the States in which he is registered, he is not a practitioner within the meaning of the Act and it is of no consequence that he has yet to be afforded a hearing by the MQAC (or MBC) to challenge the suspensions.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before March 23, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before March 23, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers importers, and exporters of, controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 27, 2016, Hospira, 1776 North Centennial Drive, McPherson, Kansas 67460-1247 applied to be registered as an importer of remifentanil (9739), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import remifentanil for use in dosage form manufacturing.
On February 10, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged two proposed consent decrees with the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United States' complaint names NL Industries, Inc., ACF Industries, LLC, American Premier Underwriters, Inc., DII Industries LLC, Exide Technologies, and Gould Electronics Inc. as defendants. The complaint requests recovery of costs that the United States incurred responding to releases of hazardous substances at the NL Depew Superfund Site in Depew, Erie County, New York. NL Industries, Inc. signed the first consent decree, and the remaining defendants signed the second consent decree. The defendants agree to pay the following amounts of the United States' response costs: NL Industries, Inc. will pay $3.677 million, ACF Industries, LLC will pay $80,000, American Premier Underwriters, Inc. will pay $140,000, DII Industries LLC will pay $720,000, Exide Technologies will pay $15,000, and Gould Electronics Inc. will pay $230,000. In return, the United States agrees not to sue the defendants under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA with respect to the NL Depew Superfund Site, subject to certain reservations.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decrees. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decrees may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $5.00 for the decree with NL, $6.50 for the decree with the remaining defendants, or $11.50 for both decrees (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth Program National Evaluation,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 23, 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-OS, 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 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Performance Partnership Pilots (P-3) for Disconnected Youth Program National Evaluation information collection. More specifically, this ICR seeks clearance for four (4) data collection activities conducted as part of the evaluation's implementation and systems analyses: (1) Site visit interviews; (2) focus group discussions with P3 youth participants; (3) a survey of partner managers; and (4) a survey of partner service providers.
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Default Investment Alternatives under Participant Directed Individual Account Plans,” 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 23, 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
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 information collection requirements specified in regulations 29 CFR 2520.104b-1 and 2550.404c-5. More specifically, Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) section 404(c), 29 U.S.C. 1104(c), provides that a participant or beneficiary who can hold an individual account under his or her pension plan and who can exercise control over account assets, as determined in DOL regulations, will not be treated as a plan fiduciary. Moreover, no other plan fiduciary will be liable for any loss, or due to any breach, resulting from the participant's or beneficiary's exercise of control over the individual account assets. The Pension Protection Act, Public Law 109-280, amended the ERISA by adding section 404(c)(5)(A), 29 U.S.C. 1104(c)(5)(A), which provides that a participant in an individual account plan who fails to make investment elections regarding his or her account assets will nevertheless be treated as having exercised control over those assets, so long as the plan provides appropriate notice and invests the assets in accordance with DOL regulations. The DOL, accordingly, promulgated a regulation to offer guidance on the types of investment vehicles that a plan may choose as its qualified default investment alternative (QDIA). The regulation also outlines two information collection requirements. First, it implements the statutory requirement that a plan provide an annual notice to each participant and beneficiary whose account assets could be invested in a QDIA. Second, the regulation requires a plan to pass any pertinent materials it receives from a QDIA to any participant or beneficiary with assets invested in the QDIA, as well to provide certain information on request. These information collections inform participants and beneficiaries who do not make investment elections of the consequences of the failure to elect investments, the ways in which account assets will be invested through the QDIA, and of the continuing opportunity to make other investment elections, including options available under the plan. ERISA section 404(c)(5)(A) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Pre-Implementation Planning Checklist Report for State Unemployment Insurance Information Technology Modernization Projects,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 23, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Pre-Implementation Planning Checklist Report for State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Information Technology (IT) Modernization Projects information collection. A State will use the checklist prior to using a new UI benefits or tax system. The checklist can be used to verify that all necessary system functions are available and/or that alternative workarounds are developed prior to the production launch of the UI IT system to help avoid major disruption of services to UI customers and to prevent delays in making UI benefit payments when due. This comprehensive checklist denotes critical functional areas that states should verify prior to launching a new UI IT system including, but not limited to, technical IT functions and UI business processes that interface with the new system. Social Security Act section 303(a)(6) authorizes this information collection.
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Occupational Requirements Survey,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 23, 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-BLS 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 sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for a revision to the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS), which is a nationwide survey the BLS is conducting at the request of the Social Security Administration. The ORS began in 2015 with a scheduled end date in mid-2018. The currently approved portions of this data collection will continue as scheduled. This information collection is a revision request due to the inclusion of a one-time job observation test that will cover selected ORS cognitive, physical, and environmental elements. The goal of the job observation test is to compare data obtained from observation of a selected occupation at an establishment with data obtained previously for the same occupation by interviewing a representative of that establishment. The BLS Authorizing Statute and the Economy Act 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.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 23, 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-OFCCP, 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 sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor, Form CC-4, information collection that an individual prepares to allege illegal discrimination by a Federal contractor or subcontractor under any OFCCP administered program. This ICR has been classified as a revision, because it
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 23, 2017.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance) Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s)
1.
2.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 14, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 14, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On December 14, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.25, entitled “Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions” by adding Interpretation and Policy .07 (a)-(c) related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order and stock-option order transactions.
The Exchange and other options exchanges previously adopted new, harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
Since the adopting of the initial harmonized rule, the exchanges that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders discussed the adoption of a rule—described below—that they collectively believe will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result from the execution of complex orders and stock-option orders.
The proposed rule applies much of the initial harmonized rule to complex orders and stock-option orders. The proposed rule, however, deviates from the initial harmonized rule to account for unique qualities of complex orders and stock-option orders. Specifically, the proposed rule reflects the fact that complex orders can execute against other complex orders or can execute against individual simple orders in the leg markets. When a complex order executes against the leg markets, there may be different counterparties on each leg of the complex order, and not every leg will necessarily be executed at an erroneous price. With regards to stock-option orders, the proposed rule reflects the fact that stock-option orders contain a stock component that is executed on a stock trading venue, and the Exchange may not be able to ensure that the stock trading venue will adjust or nullify the stock execution in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error. In order to account for the unique characteristics of complex orders and stock-option orders,
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(a) governs the review of complex orders that are executed against individual legs (as opposed to a complex order that executes against another complex order).
If a complex order executes against individual legs and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error under this Rule 6.25, then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, any Customer order subject to this paragraph (a) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.
At least one of the legs of the complex order must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the initial harmonized rule in order for the complex order to receive obvious or catastrophic error relief. Thus, when the Exchange is notified (within the timeframes set forth in paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2)) of a complex order that is a possible obvious error or catastrophic error, the Exchange will first review the individual legs of the complex order to determine if one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error.
Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error requires the Exchange to follow the initial harmonized rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the initial harmonized rule, the Exchange compares the execution price of each individual leg to the Theoretical Price
Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the initial harmonized rule mandates that if it is determined that an obvious error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (c)(4)(A).
Pursuant to proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), if a complex order executes against individual legs and at least one of the leg(s) qualifies as an Obvious Error or a Catastrophic Error, then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the initial harmonized rule, respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, because incoming complex orders may execute against resting simple orders in the leg market and adjusting the execution price of the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order, proposed Rule 6.25.07(a) also provides protection for Customer orders, stating that where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction will be nullified.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(b) governs the review of complex orders that are executed against other complex orders. Proposed Rule 6.25.07(b) provides:
If a complex order executes against another complex order and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively, so long as either: (i) The width of the National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. For purposes of Rule 6.25, the National Spread Market for a complex order strategy is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer of the individual legs of the strategy.
Unlike proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), the Exchange also proposes to compare the
For purposes of complex orders that meet the requirements of proposed Rule 6.25.07(b), the Exchange proposes to apply the initial harmonized rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying only paragraph (c)(4)(A) as is the case under proposed Rule 6.25.07(a)) and catastrophic errors in accordance with paragraph (d)(3). Therefore, for purposes of complex orders under proposed Rule 6.25.07(b), if one of the legs is determined to be an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1), all Customer transactions will be nullified, unless a Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) submits 200 or more Customer transactions for review in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(C).
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(c) governs stock-option orders. Proposed Rule 6.25.07(c) provides:
If the option leg of a stock-option order qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the option leg that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, the option leg of any Customer order subject to this paragraph (c) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the stock-option order, and the Exchange will attempt to nullify the stock leg. Whenever a stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order or whenever the stock leg cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or in accordance with paragraph (c)(3).
Similar to proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(a), an option leg (or legs) of a stock-option order must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the initial harmonized rule in order for the stock-option order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error. Also, similar to proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), if an option leg (or legs) does qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error, the option leg (or legs) will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. Again, as with proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will nullify the option leg and attempt to nullify the stock leg if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide guidance that whenever the stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order, the option will be nullified upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or by an Official acting on their own motion in accordance with paragraph (c)(3). The Exchange states that there are situations in which buyer and seller agree to trade a stock-option order, but the stock leg cannot be executed. Thus, the Exchange proposes to provide that whenever the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or on an Official's own motion.
In order to ensure that other options exchanges are able to adopt rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate the effectiveness of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposes to delay the effectiveness of this proposal to April 17, 2017.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposal to amend Rule 6.25 will help assure greater objectivity, transparency, and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions and, in particular, those involving complex order or stock-option order transactions. The Commission notes that the proposal is designed to achieve more consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges than under the initial harmonized rules, while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors, and protecting the public
In its order approving the initial harmonized rule of BATS Exchange, Inc., the Commission noted that the options exchanges intended to work together to further develop additional objectivity with respect to their processes for the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
The Commission notes that the proposed rule change will become operative on April 17, 2017. This delayed implementation is to ensure that other options exchanges that permit transactions in complex orders or stock-option orders will have sufficient time to put in place similar rules consistent with this proposed rule change and to coordinate the date of implementation of such harmonized rules.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. The requested order would permit certain registered open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment companies, business development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Act, and unit investment trusts (collectively, “Underlying Funds”) that are within and outside the same group of investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.
Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Brinker Capital, Inc., a Delaware Corporation registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 14, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Jason B. Moore, Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, 1055 Westlakes Drive, Berwyn, PA 19312; and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Jennifer O. Palmer, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-5786, or Nadya Roytblat, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) a Fund
2. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that is not in the same “group of investment companies” as the Fund of Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CHX proposes to amend the Rules of the Exchange (“CHX Rules”) to adopt the CHX Liquidity Enhancing Access Delay. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the CHX Rules to adopt the CHX Liquidity Enhancing Access Delay (“LEAD”). In sum, LEAD will require all new incoming orders, cancel and cancel/replace messages to be subject to a 350-microsecond intentional access delay; provided, however, that (1) new incoming orders
As used herein, “latency arbitrage” means the practice of exploiting
In 2016, the Exchange experienced a material decline in CHX volume and liquidity in the SPDR S&P 500 trust exchange-traded fund (“SPY”),
As demonstrated by the SPY latency arbitrage activity, latency arbitrage imposes a tax on liquidity provision
LEAD is designed to offset the structural bias that unfairly favors latency arbitrageurs by giving liquidity providers who have committed to heightened quoting and trading requirements (
The LEAD MM is a new class of CHX Market Maker that will be subject to the proposed Minimum Performance Standards, as described in detail below, which will not be applied to non-LEAD MMs. The purpose of the Minimum Performance Standards is to ensure that LEAD MMs will be required to meet heightened quoting and trading requirements in return for undelayed access to the CHX book for the purposes of submitting liquidity providing orders and cancelling its resting orders. Also, LEAD MMs will be required to establish at least one LEAD MM Trading Account, as described below, through which all LEAD market making activities must originate.
Specifically, LEAD will require the following messages in all securities
• All new incoming messages that did not originate from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account, as described below, will be intentionally delayed; provided, however, that the portion of any new incoming Routable Order
• New incoming orders, as well as the replace portion of cancel/replace messages, that originate from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account that would immediately execute against existing resting orders on the CHX book will be intentionally delayed.
• Cancel and cancel/replace messages for orders that originate from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account that have been delayed, but not yet processed by the Matching System, will be intentionally delayed.
As such, the following messages would not be intentionally delayed pursuant to LEAD:
• New incoming orders that originate from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account that would immediately be ranked on the CHX book without executing against existing resting orders on the CHX book will not be intentionally delayed.
• A cancel message for a resting order that originates from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account will not be intentionally delayed.
• A cancel/replace message related to a resting order that originates from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account will not be intentionally delayed; provided, however, that if any part of the replace portion would immediately execute against an existing resting order on the CHX book, the replace portion will be intentionally delayed.
• The portion of a Routable Order that is to be routed away will not be intentionally delayed, regardless of who submitted the Routable Order.
Also, LEAD will not delay any outbound messages or market data.
The Exchange notes that adopting a symmetric delay and order types that would permit the Exchange to reprice resting orders based on undelayed market data, such as the IEX Delay and pegged order types, would not address latency arbitrage at CHX with respect to limit orders because the liquidity provision strategies utilized by CHX liquidity providers, which provide valuable liquidity to the market overall,
Moreover, the Exchange submits that LEAD is consistent with the objectives of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. As described in detail below,
Proposed Article 16, Rule 4(f) provides rules regarding the proposed LEAD MM Program. Specifically, proposed paragraph (f)(1) provides defined terms for the purposes of paragraph (f). Thereunder, proposed paragraph (f)(1)(A) provides that “LEAD” means the Liquidity Enhancing Access Delay, as described under proposed Article 20, Rule 8(h); proposed paragraph (f)(1)(B) provides that “LEAD MM” means a Market Maker assigned to a particular security that has committed to maintaining Minimum Performance Standards, described under proposed paragraph (f)(2), in the security; proposed paragraph (f)(1)(C) provides that “LEAD MM Security” means a security assigned to a LEAD MM; and proposed paragraph (f)(1)(D) provides that “Qualified Executions” means all executed shares at CHX, during all trading sessions,
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) provides that “Minimum Performance Standards” means the Quotation Requirements and Obligations described under current paragraph (d),
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(A) provides that the Designated Percentages described under current Article 16, Rule 4(d)(2)(B) shall be halved.
In addition, LEAD MMs will be required to meet the following
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(C) provides that a LEAD MM's Qualified Executions in each of its LEAD MM Securities must comprise on an equally-weighted daily average at least 2% of all Qualified Executions in the same security over the course of a calendar month.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(D) provides that at least 80% of the LEAD MM's Qualified Executions in each of its LEAD MM Securities must result from its resting orders that originated from the corresponding LEAD MM Trading Account over the course of a calendar month.
The Exchange submits that the proposed Minimum Performance Standards are commensurate with the benefit afforded to LEAD MMs. Given that the only benefit afforded to LEAD MMs is the ability to cancel and cancel/replace its resting orders without delay, the Exchange believes that it would be inappropriate to adopt even higher quoting and trading requirements, such as those for Designated Marker Makers (“DMMs”) on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), who, in return for such higher quoting and trading requirements, receive certain financial and execution parity benefits not proposed herein.
Proposed paragraph (f)(3) provides rules regarding the process by which Market Makers would be assigned securities as a LEAD MM. Specifically, proposed paragraph (f)(3)(A) provides that only a Market Maker may apply to be assigned one or more securities as a LEAD MM. Market Makers must receive written approval from the Exchange to be assigned securities as a LEAD MM. LEAD MMs shall be selected by the Exchange based on factors including, but not limited to, experience with making markets in securities, adequacy of capital, willingness to promote the Exchange as a marketplace, issuer preference, operational capacity, support personnel and history of adherence to Exchange rules and securities laws. Current Article 16, Rules 2(c)-(e) regarding withdrawal from assigned securities shall also apply to LEAD MMs and LEAD MM Securities.
Proposed paragraph (f)(3)(B) outlines requirements regarding LEAD MM Trading Accounts and provides that before beginning LEAD market making activities in a security, a LEAD MM shall complete the following, subject to Exchange approval. Thereunder, proposed subparagraph (B)(i) provides that the LEAD MM must establish at least one separately designated LEAD MM Trading Account through which all and only LEAD market making activities in LEAD MM Securities shall originate.
Subparagraph (B)(ii) provides that the LEAD MM must register each of its LEAD MM Securities to precisely one LEAD MM Trading Account (“Valid LEAD MM Trading Account”); provided, however, that a LEAD MM Trading Account may be registered with one or more LEAD MM Securities. All messages related to a single LEAD MM Security must originate from the Valid LEAD MM Trading Account on a given day and in the event a LEAD MM wishes to change the Valid LEAD MM Trading Account for a given LEAD MM Security, the LEAD MM shall so notify the Exchange in writing by no later than 9 a.m. on the trading day immediately preceding the effective date of the change; provided, however, that the Exchange may, at its discretion, delay or deny the change. In addition, no change of a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account for a given LEAD MM Security may be effected intraday.
Proposed paragraph (f)(3)(B) facilitates the ability of the Exchange to monitor compliance with the proposed Minimum Performance Standards by requiring a LEAD MM to submit all LEAD market making activities in a particular security through a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account. Moreover, in the event a LEAD MM would like to change the Valid LEAD MM Trading Account for a given LEAD MM Security, the proposed rule outlines the precise procedures to effect the change, which promotes clarity regarding the process.
Proposed paragraph (f)(3)(C) provides that the Exchange may, at its discretion, approve more than one LEAD MM to be assigned to any LEAD MM Security and limit the number of LEAD MMs assigned to any security.
Proposed paragraph (f)(3)(D) provides that the Exchange will review each LEAD MM's quoting and trading activity on a monthly basis to determine whether the LEAD MM has met the Minimum Performance Standards. Also, a LEAD MM's failure to meet the Minimum Performance Standards on any given month will result in the Exchange (i) suspending or terminating a LEAD MM's registration as a Market Maker pursuant to current Article 16, Rule 1(d) or (ii) suspending or terminating assignment to a LEAD MM Security pursuant to proposed subparagraph (A) above. In addition, nothing in proposed subparagraph (D) will limit any other power of the Exchange to discipline a LEAD MM pursuant to CHX Rules.
Proposed Article 20, Rule 8(h) provides rules regarding the operation of LEAD. Specifically, proposed paragraph (h) begins by stating that after initial receipt
Proposed paragraph (h)(1) provides that “Delayable Message” means all new incoming order, cancel and cancel/replace messages, except as follows:
(A) Any new incoming order or unrouted balance, as described under proposed subparagraph (D) below, that originates from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account, as described under proposed Article 16, Rule 4(f)(3)(B)(ii), that would, by its terms, immediately be ranked on CHX book without executing against any existing resting orders on the CHX book shall not be a Delayable Message.
(B) A cancel message related to a resting order that originates from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account shall not be a Delayable Message.
(C) A cancel/replace message related to a resting order that originates from a Valid LEAD MM Trading Account shall not be a Delayable Message; provided, however, that if any part of the replace portion would immediately execute against existing resting orders on the CHX book, the replace portion shall be a Delayable Message.
(D) The portion of a new incoming Routable Order that is to be routed away, pursuant to current Article 19, Rule 3(a), shall not be diverted into the LEAD; provided, however, that the entire unrouted balance of the Routable Order shall be diverted into the LEAD, subject to proposed subparagraph (A).
Mechanically, upon initial receipt of a new incoming message, the Matching System would assign the message a unique sequence number, as it does currently, which, in addition to establishing processing and execution priority, will serve as the starting point for the Fixed LEAD Period, as described below. The Matching System would then initially evaluate the message to determine whether it is a Delayable Message.
Proposed paragraph (h) continues by providing that if a message is delayable, the message will be diverted into the LEAD queue and will remain delayed until it is released for processing. A delayed message shall become releasable 350 microseconds after initial receipt by the Exchange (“Fixed LEAD Period”),
The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding amendments to current Article 20, Rule 8(d) and (f) to contemplate LEAD. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add the clause “subject to paragraph (h) below” at the end of current paragraph (d)(1) so that amended paragraph (d)(1) provides as follows:
Except for certain orders which shall be executed as described in Rule 8(e), below, an incoming order shall be matched against one or more resting orders in the Matching System, in the order in which the resting orders are ranked on the CHX book, pursuant to Rule 8(b) above, at the Working Price of each resting order, as defined under Article 1, Rule 1(pp), for the full amount of shares available at that price, or for the size of the incoming order, if smaller; subject to paragraph (h) below.
Examples 1-2 below illustrate the operation of LEAD.
In light of the possible bifurcation of a Routable Order into an immediately routed portion and a delayed unrouted portion
Specifically, Immediate Feedback would permit the Exchange to decrease the number of shares available at an away market by an amount equal to the size of the immediately routed portion of the Routable Order. In the extremely unlikely event that the Exchange receives an execution report from an away market indicating that the routed portion of a Routable Order had partially-executed prior to the unrouted balance being released from the LEAD queue, the Exchange would first add the cancelled remainder to the unrouted balance in the LEAD queue and then continue to utilize Immediate Feedback to augment the relevant away quotes when processing the unrouted balance upon release from the LEAD queue, unless the feedback had expired.
Immediate Feedback would expire as soon as: (i) One second passes or (ii) the Exchange receives new quote information from the away market. Given that Immediate Feedback will only be applied on an order-by-order basis, Immediate Feedback would also expire upon full execution, cancellation or ranking of the Routable Order on the CHX book. Also, in light of the relatively short Fixed LEAD Period, it is unlikely that Router Feedback would expire prior to the unrouted balance being released from the LEAD queue and processed by the Matching System.
Examples 2-3 illustrate the operation of the amended routing protocol in the context of LEAD.
Current Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F) describes the MTP modifier, which prevents matches between orders that originate from the same MTP Trading Group or MTP sublevel thereunder.
MTP Cancel Incoming (“N”): An incoming limit or market order marked “N” will not execute against opposite side resting interest originating from the same MTP Trading Group or MTP sublevel, if applicable. Only the incoming order will be cancelled pursuant to MTP.
MTP Cancel Resting (“O”): An incoming limit or market order marked “O” will not execute against opposite side resting interest originating from the same MTP Trading Group or MTP sublevel, if applicable. Only the resting order will be cancelled pursuant to MTP.
MTP Cancel Both (“B”): An incoming limit or market order marked “B” will not execute against opposite side resting interest originating from the same MTP Trading Group or MTP sublevel, if applicable. The entire size of both orders will be cancelled pursuant to MTP.
Given that LEAD may result in newer orders (
(a)
(b)
Example 4 below illustrates the operation of the amended MTP in the context of LEAD.
The following Examples are illustrative of LEAD and related amendments to existing functionality, but do not exhaustively depict every possible scenario that may arise under LEAD. Moreover, the Examples do not necessarily depict the actual technical processes of prioritizing messages and executing orders.
Assume
Under this Example 1:
•
•
•
• While
○ At 10:00:00.000365, the Matching System would compare the releasable time of
○ At 10:00:00.000415, the Matching System would then compare the releasable time of
○ At 10:00:00.000465, the Matching System would then compare the releasable time of
•
•
•
•
Under this Example 2:
•
•
•
•
•
• At 10:00:00.001250,
• At 10:00:00.01350,
• Due to system processing delays,
○ The unrouted balance of
○ The unrouted balance of
•
•
•
•
• At 10:00:00.001950,
• At 10:00:00.002100,
Under this Example 3, the Immediate Feedback derived from the immediately routed portion of
Similarly, the Immediate Feedback derived from the immediately routed portion of
Under this Example 4, pursuant to the current MTP rules, MTP would be triggered and the
In the event the proposed rule change is approved by the SEC, the proposed rule change shall be operative pursuant to notice by the Exchange to its Participants. Prior to the operative date, the Exchange will ensure that policies and procedures are in place to allow Exchange operations personnel to effectively monitor the operation of LEAD and compliance by LEAD MMs with the proposed Minimum Performance Standards.
The purpose of the CHX ETF Analysis is to demonstrate that latency arbitrage activity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
During the After Period, the Exchange observed unusual messaging patterns in SPY whereby executions of large inbound IOC
As shown under
While the Exchange did not observe any discernable change on the NBBO spread in SPY during the After Period, the Exchange did observe a negative impact on the frequency at which CHX was at the NBBO in SPY and the frequency at which CHX displayed the largest quote at the NBBO in SPY during the After Period, while Control Securities experienced either smaller declines or no declines at all.
Specifically, the % of Time CHX Was At The NBB decreased from 23.8% in the Entry Month to 8.2% in July 2016;
Moreover, the % of Time CHX Was At The NBB And Was The Largest Bid At That Price decreased from 20% in the Entry Month to 2.3% in July 2016;
These calculation sets clearly show that SPY latency arbitrage activity resulted in less aggressively priced CHX displayed liquidity in SPY and smaller CHX displayed size at the NBBO, during the After Period. SPY latency arbitrage activity also negatively impacted the percentage of the time that CHX was at the NBBO and the percentage of the time CHX displayed the largest quote at the NBBO.
As shown under
Thus,
Although the Time-weighted Average NMS Size At The NBBO in SPY increased by 22.83% during the After Period, the increase in SPY did not follow much greater increases in the Time-weighted Average NBBO Size in the Control Group, which increased by 128.82% during the After Period.
Based on its observations of unusual messaging patterns in SPY, feedback from Participants and the analysis summarized above, the Exchange believes that the unusual messaging activity in SPY that was first observed in the Entry Month is attributed to SPY latency arbitrage activity. The market data shows that in response to the SPY latency arbitrage activity, CHX liquidity providers displayed smaller orders in SPY at less aggressive prices during the After Period relative to the Before Period and Entry Month. Moreover, in light of CHX's significant contribution to overall volume and liquidity in SPY during the Before Period and the Entry Month, diminished displayed liquidity at CHX has materially impaired displayed liquidity in SPY market wide.
The calculations sets below were prepared with microsecond-level trade and quote record. Trade records include the date, microsecond-level timestamp, exchange, security symbol, price, and quantity of all trades reported to the consolidated tape. Quote records include the date, microsecond-level timestamp, exchange, security symbol, bid price, bid quantity, ask price, and ask quantity of all quotes reported to the consolidated tape. Only protected quotations are reported to the consolidated tape.
The Analysis Period for the calculations begins on August 1, 2015 and ends on July 31, 2016. Symbols SPY and three other Control Securities (
In the calculations below:
•
•
•
• A bid was
• At any microsecond, the
•
• At any microsecond, the
•
For the calculations in the table below:
The purpose of this analysis is to show that implementation of LEAD would not materially impact the ability of a random market participant not engaged in a latency arbitrage strategy, such as retail investors, to take displayed liquidity at CHX. This analysis assumes that LEAD would not materially change order sending behavior of Participants.
For the period of May 2016 through July 2016,
• There were a total of 18,316 orders at least partially executed.
• During the same period, the Exchange received 1,278 cancel messages to cancel resting orders after the resting order had been fully executed (“too-late-to-cancel” or “TLTC”).
• Of the 1,278 TLTCs, 412 TLTCs (32.24%) were received sooner than or exactly 350 microseconds after the execution (“TLTC
• Of the 412 TLTC
• Of the 866 TLTC
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by enhancing displayed liquidity and price discovery by minimizing the effectiveness of latency arbitrage strategies that negatively impact market quality. As shown under the CHX ETF Analysis,
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed LEAD MM designation would protect investors and the public interest by requiring LEAD MMs to meet the proposed Minimum Performance Standards in return for being afforded the benefits of LEAD. Moreover, the Exchange submits that the proposal to leverage existing Market Maker rules regarding the procedures for deregistering Market Makers and involuntary withdrawals from assigned securities will provide the Exchange with sufficient authority to compel and enforce compliance by LEAD MMs with the proposed Minimum Performance Standards.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rules regarding assignment of LEAD MM Securities would protect investors and the public interest by implementing a comprehensive process whereby the Exchange will be able to select LEAD MMs that have demonstrated the ability and capacity to enhance displayed liquidity on the Exchange and to comply with federal rules and regulations, as well as CHX Rules. When considering these procedures with the proposed Minimum Performance Standards and enforcement mechanism, the Exchange believes that the effectiveness of LEAD in enhancing displayed liquidity and price discovery will be optimized.
Moreover, for similar reasons, the Exchange submits that the proposed rules for LEAD are not designed to permit unfair discrimination. Specifically, the Exchange believes that any discrimination between LEAD MMs and non-LEAD MMs is permissible under the Act because (1) LEAD is designed to enhance displayed liquidity and price discovery by rectifying a current structural bias against displayed liquidity,
Regardless of whether a delay is symmetric (
The Exchange also believes that the LEAD is narrowly-tailored to address latency arbitrage as applied to limit orders. In finding that the rules pertaining to the IEX Delay did not permit unfair discrimination, and would not impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition, the Commission recognized that displayed limit orders or non-pegged non-displayed limit orders, the types of liquidity LEAD is designed to protect, would not benefit from the symmetric IEX Delay
The Exchange further submits that LEAD would not confer any unfair advantage to LEAD MMs or introduce incremental risk of manipulative activity. While LEAD is long enough to neutralize microsecond speed advantages exploited by latency arbitrageurs, it is too short to provide any actionable incremental advantage to LEAD MMs in reacting to information not already it their possession. LEAD is also too short to introduce any incremental risk of manipulative practices, which is supported by the fact that the Commission has recognized that a 350-microsecond delay would not materially increase the likelihood of certain manipulative practices such as “spoofing” or “marking-the-close” due to the practical difficulties of executing such strategies within such a short time frame.
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved functionality that permissibly discriminates among members for the purpose enhancing displayed liquidity. Specifically, the Commission has previously approved the following mechanisms:
•
•
•
The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to the MTP order modifier would remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, in that they are designed to avoid certain unintended consequences of LEAD on the MTP functionality. Specifically, since an order would be assigned a sequence number prior to being evaluated pursuant to LEAD,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Regulation NMS. Specifically, the Exchange believes that LEAD is consistent with Rule 600(b)(3),
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the “immedia[cy]” requirement of Rule 600(b)(3) as LEAD is a
The Exchange believes that LEAD is so short as to not frustrate the purposes of the Rule 611
The Exchange also believes that LEAD is consistent with Rule 602(b)(2).
The Exchange further believes that LEAD is consistent with the requirements of Rule 611.
Similarly, a portion of a Routable Order may be immediately routed away to execute against away protected quotations with the unrouted remainder being delayed before be ranked on the CHX book at a price that crosses such away protected quotations. This could result if the resting order on the CHX book that resulted in the unrouted remainder being delayed was cancelled before the unrouted remainder were released from LEAD. Under this scenario, given that LEAD is
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. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that any burden on competition is necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because LEAD is functionality that seeks to enhance liquidity and optimize price discovery by deemphasizing speed as a key to trading success in order to further serve the interests of investors and thereby removes impediments and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market.
The Exchange further notes that market participants will continue to be able to obtain CHX book data via the Securities Information Processors or through the Exchange's proprietary book feed, the CHX Book Feed,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal rule change to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) by establishing an Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”).
While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative February 6, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish an ORF in the amount of $0.0010 per contract side. The per-contract ORF will be assessed by MIAX PEARL to each MIAX PEARL Member for all options transactions executed, cleared, or ultimately cleared by the Member which are cleared by OCC in the “customer” range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The ORF will be collected indirectly from Members through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of MIAX PEARL.
In the case where a non-Member executes a transaction and a Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Member who clears the transaction. In the case where a Member executes a transaction and another Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Member who clears the transaction. Further, the ORF will be assessed on transactions that are not executed by a Member, but are ultimately cleared by a Member. The Exchange notes that, in the limited circumstance in which a Member executes or clears a transaction and then “gives-up” or “CMTAs” the trade to a non-member of MIAX PEARL (which non-member becomes the ultimate clearing firm for the transaction), MIAX PEARL will collect the ORF from such non-member involving [sic] that transaction. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the Exchange will not assess the ORF when the transaction is not executed on the Exchange and neither the executing clearing firm nor the ultimate clearing firm (
As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information necessary to identify the executing member for that transaction. There are countless executing market participants, and each day such participants can and often do drop their connection to one market center and establish themselves as participants on another. For these reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and thus assess fees such as an ORF on, executing participants on away markets on a given trading day.
Clearing members, however, are distinguished from executing participants because they remain identified to the Exchange regardless of the identity of the initiating executing participant, their location, and the market center on which they execute transactions. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to collect the ORF from clearing members.
As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Member's activities supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member executes a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer options business, including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to Member compliance with options sales practice rules have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to monitor MIAX PEARL regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-Members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations. Also, the Exchange and the other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated options audit trail (“COATS”)
In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”),
The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's activity, including the activity of those members on MIAX PEARL.
The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs Trading Activity Fee
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August. In addition to submitting a proposed rule change to the Commission as required by the Act to increase or decrease the ORF, the Exchange will notify participants via a Regulatory Circular of any anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that by providing guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the Exchange would make it easier for participants to ensure their systems are configured to properly account for the ORF.
MIAX PEARL believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to Members in that it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to those Members that are directly based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor, on at least a semi-annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the initial level of the fee is reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to limit changes to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable because it will give participants certainty on the timing of changes, if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF charges among their customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with additional advance notice of changes to that fee.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is not intended to have any impact on competition. Rather, it is designed to enable the Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's cost related to its regulatory activities. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. Unilateral action by MIAX PEARL in establishing fees for services provided to its Members and others using its facilities will not have an impact on competition. As a new entrant in the already highly competitive environment for equity options trading, MIAX PEARL does not have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act. MIAX PEARL's proposed ORF, as described herein, are comparable to fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar services. The proposal to limit the changes to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is not intended to address a competitive issue but rather to provide Members with better notice of any change that the Exchange may make to the ORF.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to: (i) Increase the standard rate to remove liquidity to $0.0030 per share; (ii) increase the rate for orders that yield fee codes EA or ER; (iii) add a definition for the term “Step-Up Add TCV; and (iii) add a new Step-Up Tier under footnote 1.
Currently, fee codes 6,
An Internalized Trade is a trade where the two orders inadvertently match against each other and share the same Market Participant Identifier (“MPID”). Fee code EA is appended to side of an Internalized Trade that adds liquidity, while fee code ER is appended to the side of an Internalized Trade that removes liquidity. Orders that yield fee codes EA or ER are charged a fee of $0.00045 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.15% of the dollar value of the trade in securities priced below $1.00. The Exchange now proposes to increase the fee for orders that yield fee codes EA or ER in securities priced at or above $1.00 to $0.00050 per share.
The Exchange proposes to add a definition for the term “Step-Up Add TCV and add a new Step-Up Tier under footnote 1.
First, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Step-Up Add TCV” as “ADAV
Second, the Exchange proposes to add a new tier under footnote 1 of the fee schedule to be known as “Step-Up Tier 1” [sic]. By way of background, the Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that it will provide to Members using the Exchange's tiered pricing structure. Under such pricing structure, a Member will receive a rebate of anywhere between $0.0025 and $0.0033 per share executed, depending on the volume tier for which such Member qualifies under footnote 1 of the fee schedule. Under the proposed Step-Up Tier, a Member would receive a rebate of $0.0032 per share for orders that add liquidity where that Member adds an ADV
The Exchange proposes to implement the above changes to its fee schedule on February 1, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the standard fee charged for orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange is reasonable and equitable because it will allow the Exchange to utilize the additional revenue to offset providing volume based enhanced rebates for removing liquidity as proposed herein. In addition, the Exchange notes that the proposed standard removal rate is consistent with Rule 610(c)(1) of Regulation NMS
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fees charged for Internalized Orders is reasonable and equitable because the charge for Members inadvertently matching with themselves will continue to be no more favorable than the Exchange's maker/taker spread enabling the Exchange to continue to discourage potential wash sales.
The Exchange believes that its proposed definition of Step-Up Add TCV and the new Step-Up Tier provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly-competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. The proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
In particular, the Exchange believes the definition of Step-Up Add TCV is equitable and reasonable as it is identical to the same defined term on BZX.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed Step-Up Tier is a reasonable means to encourage Members to increase their liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the proposed Step-Up Tier represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because the thresholds necessary to achieve the tier encourages Members to add increased liquidity to the EDGX Book
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its fee schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange has designed the proposed amendments to its fee schedule in order to enhance its ability to compete with other exchanges. Rather, the proposal as a whole is a competitive proposal that is seeking further the growth of the Exchange. The Exchange has structured the proposed fees and rebates to attract certain additional volume in both Customer and certain Non-Customer orders, however, the Exchange believes that its pricing for all capacities is competitive with that offered by other options exchanges. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed tiers contribute to, rather than burden competition, as such changes are broadly intended to incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, which will increase the liquidity and market quality on the Exchange, which will then further enhance the Exchange's ability to compete with other exchanges. Likewise, the proposed changes to the standard removal rates and rates for Internalized Trades should not have any burden on competition on competition [sic] as they are in line with that
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”). The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the sub-advisers.
Brinker Capital Destinations Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Brinker Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Brinker” or the “Adviser,” and, collectively with the Trust, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed December 1, 2016, and amended on February 1, 2017 and February 10, 2017.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 14, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Jason B. Moore, Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, 1055 Westlakes Drive, Berwyn, PA 19312; and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Jennifer O. Palmer, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-5786, or Nadya Roytblat, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the
2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to hire certain Sub-Advisers pursuant to Sub-Advisory Agreements and materially amend existing Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the Application. Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards, appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series shareholders and notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard because, as further explained in the Application, the Advisory Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval, while the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially similar to that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Subadvised Series. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-Advisers that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Series.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the iShares iBonds Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (each a “Fund” or, collectively, the “Funds”) of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust (the “Trust” or the “Issuer”) under Bats Rule 14.11(i) (“Managed Fund Shares”). The shares of the Funds are referred to herein as the “Shares.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under Bats Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
BlackRock Fund Advisors is the investment adviser (“BFA” or “Adviser”) to the Funds.
Bats Rule 14.11(i)(7) provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to maximize tax-free current income and terminate on or around December 2024. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.
To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances, in U.S.-dollar denominated investment-grade fixed-rate Municipal Securities, as defined below. The Fund will invest in both callable and non-callable municipal bonds. Investment-grade securities are rated a minimum of BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and/or Fitch, or Baa3 or higher by Moody's, or if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be of equivalent quality.
Municipal securities (“Municipal Securities”) are fixed and variable rate securities issued in the U.S. by U.S. states and territories, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities, and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies and authorities and will include only the following instruments: General obligation bonds,
In the last year of operation, as the bonds held by the Fund mature, the proceeds will not be reinvested in bonds but instead will be held in cash and cash equivalents, including, without limitation, shares of affiliated money market funds, AMT-free tax-exempt municipal notes, VRDOs, tender option bonds and municipal commercial paper. In or around December 2024, the Fund will wind up and terminate, and its net assets will be distributed to then current shareholders.
The Fund will hold a minimum of 40 different Municipal Securities diversified among issuers in at least 8 different states with no more than 30% of the Fund's assets comprised of Municipal Bonds that provide exposure to any single state. The Fund will hold a minimum of 75 different Municipal Securities when at least four creation units are outstanding. The Fund will hold a minimum of 100 different Municipal Securities diversified among issuers in at least 20 different states when at least eight creation units are outstanding. No single Municipal Security held by the Fund will exceed 4% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single issuer of Municipal Securities will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio. The Fund will hold Municipal Securities of at least 20 non-affiliated issuers. The Fund will hold Municipal Securities of at least 30 non-affiliated issuers when at least four creation units are outstanding.
In the absence of normal circumstances, the Fund may temporarily depart from its normal investment process, provided that such departure is, in the opinion of the Adviser, consistent with the Fund's investment objective and in the best interest of the Fund. For example, the Fund may hold a higher than normal proportion of its assets in cash in response to adverse market, economic or political conditions.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The Fund may also, to a limited extent (under normal circumstances, less than 20% of the Fund's net assets), engage in transactions in futures contracts, options, or swaps in order to facilitate trading or to reduce transaction costs.
The Fund may also enter into repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements for Municipal Securities (collectively, “Repurchase Agreements”). Repurchase Agreements involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment and have the characteristics of borrowing as part of the Fund's principal holdings.
The Fund may also invest in short-term instruments (“Short-Term Instruments”),
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), as deemed illiquid by the Adviser
The Fund may also invest up to 20% of its net assets in Municipal Securities that pay interest that is subject to the AMT.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to maximize tax-free current income and terminate on or around December 2025. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.
To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances, in U.S.-dollar denominated investment-grade fixed-rate Municipal Securities, as defined below. The Fund will invest in both callable and non-callable municipal bonds. Investment-grade securities are rated a minimum of BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and/or Fitch, or Baa3 or higher by Moody's, or if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be of equivalent quality.
Municipal securities (“Municipal Securities”) are fixed and variable rate securities issued in the U.S. by U.S. states and territories, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities, and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies and authorities and will include only the following instruments: General obligation bonds,
In the last year of operation, as the bonds held by the Fund mature, the proceeds will not be reinvested in bonds but instead will be held in cash and cash equivalents, including, without limitation, shares of affiliated money market funds, AMT-free tax-exempt municipal notes, VRDOs, tender option bonds and municipal commercial paper. In or around December 2025, the Fund will wind up and terminate, and its net assets will be distributed to then current shareholders.
The Fund will hold a minimum of 40 different Municipal Securities diversified among issuers in at least 8 different states with no more than 30% of the Fund's assets comprised of Municipal Bonds that provide exposure to any single state. The Fund will hold a minimum of 75 different Municipal Securities when at least four creation units are outstanding. The Fund will hold a minimum of 100 different Municipal Securities diversified among issuers in at least 20 different states when at least eight creation units are outstanding. No single Municipal Security held by the Fund will exceed 4% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single issuer of Municipal Securities will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio. The Fund will hold Municipal Securities of at least 20 non-affiliated issuers. The Fund will hold Municipal Securities of at least 30 non-affiliated issuers when at least four creation units are outstanding.
In the absence of normal circumstances, the Fund may temporarily depart from its normal investment process, provided that such departure is, in the opinion of the Adviser, consistent with the Fund's investment objective and in the best interest of the Fund. For example, the Fund may hold a higher than normal proportion of its assets in cash in response to adverse market, economic or political conditions.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The Fund may also, to a limited extent (under normal circumstances, less than 20% of the Fund's net assets), engage in transactions in futures contracts, options, or swaps in order to facilitate trading or to reduce transaction costs.
The Fund may also enter into repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements for Municipal Securities (collectively, “Repurchase Agreements”). Repurchase Agreements involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment and have the characteristics of borrowing as part of the Fund's principal holdings.
The Fund may also invest in short-term instruments (“Short-Term Instruments”),
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), as deemed illiquid by the Adviser
The Fund may also invest up to 20% of its net assets in Municipal Securities that pay interest that is subject to the AMT.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to maximize tax-free current income and terminate on or around December 2026. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.
To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances, in U.S.-dollar denominated investment-grade fixed-rate Municipal Securities, as defined below. The Fund will invest in both callable and non-callable municipal bonds. Investment-grade securities are rated a minimum of BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and/or Fitch, or Baa3 or higher by Moody's, or if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be of equivalent quality.
Municipal securities (“Municipal Securities”) are fixed and variable rate securities issued in the U.S. by U.S. states and territories, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities, and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies and authorities and will include only the following instruments: General obligation bonds,
In the last year of operation, as the bonds held by the Fund mature, the proceeds will not be reinvested in bonds but instead will be held in cash and cash equivalents, including, without limitation, shares of affiliated money market funds, AMT-free tax-exempt municipal notes, VRDOs, tender option bonds and municipal commercial paper. In or around December 2026, the Fund will wind up and terminate, and its net assets will be distributed to then current shareholders.
The Fund will hold a minimum of 40 different Municipal Securities diversified among issuers in at least 8 different states with no more than 30% of the Fund's assets comprised of Municipal Bonds that provide exposure to any single state. The Fund will hold a minimum of 75 different Municipal Securities when at least four creation units are outstanding. The Fund will hold a minimum of 100 different Municipal Securities diversified among issuers in at least 20 different states when at least eight creation units are outstanding. No single Municipal Security held by the Fund will exceed 4% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single issuer of Municipal Securities will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio. The Fund will hold Municipal Securities of at least 20 non-affiliated issuers. The Fund will hold Municipal Securities of at least 30 non-affiliated issuers when at least four creation units are outstanding.
In the absence of normal circumstances, the Fund may temporarily depart from its normal investment process, provided that such departure is, in the opinion of the Adviser, consistent with the Fund's investment objective and in the best interest of the Fund. For example, the Fund may hold a higher than normal proportion of its assets in cash in response to adverse market, economic or political conditions.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The Fund may also, to a limited extent (under normal circumstances, less than 20% of the Fund's net assets), engage in transactions in futures contracts, options, or swaps in order to facilitate trading or to reduce transaction costs.
The Fund may also enter into repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements for Municipal Securities (collectively, “Repurchase Agreements”). Repurchase Agreements involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment and have the characteristics of borrowing as part of the Fund's principal holdings.
The Fund may also invest in short-term instruments (“Short-Term Instruments”),
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in
The Fund may also invest up to 20% of its net assets in Municipal Securities that pay interest that is subject to the AMT.
According to the Registration Statement, the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Funds will be calculated each business day as of the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), generally 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (the “NAV Calculation Time”), on each day that the NYSE is open for trading, based on prices at the NAV Calculation Time. NAV per Share is calculated by dividing each Fund's net assets by the number of Shares outstanding.
According to the Registration Statement, unless otherwise described below, the Funds will value Municipal Securities using prices provided directly from one or more broker-dealers, market makers, or independent third-party pricing services which may use matrix pricing and valuation models, as well as recent market transactions for the same or similar assets, to derive values.
Exchange traded investment companies will be valued at market closing price or, if no closing price is available, at the last traded price on the primary exchange on which they are traded. Price information for such securities will be taken from the exchange where the security is primarily traded. Investment companies not listed on an exchange are valued at their net asset value.
Futures and options contracts will be valued at their last sale price or settle price as of the close of the applicable exchange.
Repurchase Agreements will generally be valued at par. In certain circumstances, Short-Term Instruments may be valued on the basis of amortized cost.
According to the Registration Statement, generally, trading in money market instruments, and certain Municipal Securities is substantially completed each day at various times prior to the close of business on the Exchange. Additionally, trading in certain derivatives is substantially completed each day at various times prior to the close of business on the Exchange. The values of such securities and derivatives used in computing the NAV of the Funds are determined at such times.
According to the Registration Statement, when market quotations are not readily available or are believed by BFA to be unreliable, the Funds' investments are valued at fair value. Fair value determinations are made by BFA in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the Trust's board of trustees and in accordance with the 1940 Act. BFA may conclude that a market quotation is not readily available or is unreliable if a security or other asset or liability is thinly traded, or where there is a significant event
According to the Registration Statement, fair value represents a good faith approximation of the value of an asset or liability. The fair value of an asset or liability held by a Fund is the amount that the Fund might reasonably expect to receive from the current sale of that asset or the cost to extinguish that liability in an arm's-length transaction. Valuing a Fund's investments using fair value pricing will result in prices that may differ from current valuations and that may not be the prices at which those investments could have been sold during the period in which the particular fair values were used.
Each Fund will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at the NAV per Share only in large blocks of a specified number of Shares or multiples thereof (“Creation Units”) in transactions with authorized participants who have entered into agreements with the Distributor. Each Fund currently anticipates that a Creation Unit will consist of 50,000 Shares, though this number may change from time to time, including prior to listing of the Funds. The exact number of Shares that will constitute a Creation Unit will be disclosed in the respective Registration Statement of each Fund. Once created, Shares of each Fund trade on the secondary market in amounts less than a Creation Unit.
The consideration for purchase of Creation Units of a Fund generally will consist of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (including any portion of such securities for which cash may be substituted) (
The portfolio of securities required for purchase of a Creation Unit may not be identical to the portfolio of securities a Fund will deliver upon redemption of Shares. The Deposit Securities and Fund Securities (as defined below), as the case may be, in connection with a purchase or redemption of a Creation Unit, generally will correspond
The Cash Component will be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the “Deposit Amount,” which will be an amount equal to the market value of the Deposit Securities, and serve to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the Deposit Amount. Each Fund
The identity and number or par value of the Deposit Securities may change pursuant to changes in the composition of a Fund's portfolio as rebalancing adjustments and corporate action events occur from time to time. The composition of the Deposit Securities may also change in response to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the holdings of a Fund.
Each Fund reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of a “cash in lieu” amount to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security that may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or that may not be eligible for transfer through the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or the clearing process through the NSCC.
Except as noted below, all creation orders must be placed for one or more Creation Units and must be received by the Distributor in proper form no later than 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, in each case on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of the Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. Orders requesting substitution of a “cash in lieu” amount generally must be received by the Distributor no later than 2:00 p.m., Eastern Time on the Settlement Date. The “Settlement Date” is generally the third business day after the transmittal date. On days when the Exchange or the bond markets close earlier than normal, a Fund may require orders to create or to redeem Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day.
Fund Deposits must be delivered through the Federal Reserve System (for cash and government securities), through DTC (for corporate and municipal securities), or through a central depository account, such as with Euroclear or DTC, maintained by State Street or a sub-custodian (a “Central Depository Account”) by an authorized participant. Any portion of a Fund Deposit that may not be delivered through the Federal Reserve System or DTC must be delivered through a Central Depository Account. The Fund Deposit transfer must be ordered by the authorized participant in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite number of Deposit Securities to the account of the Fund by no later than 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the Settlement Date.
A standard creation transaction fee will be imposed to offset the transfer and other transaction costs associated with the issuance of Creation Units.
Shares of a Fund may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor and only on a business day. BFA will make available through the NSCC, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange on each business day, the designated portfolio of securities (including any portion of such securities for which cash may be substituted) that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day (“Fund Securities”). Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities that are applicable to creations of Creation Units.
Unless cash redemptions are available or specified for a Fund, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally will consist of a specified amount of cash, Fund Securities, plus additional cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after the receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the specified amount of cash and Fund Securities, less a redemption transaction fee. Each Fund generally redeems Creation Units partially for cash.
A standard redemption transaction fee will be imposed to offset transfer and other transaction costs that may be incurred by the Fund.
Redemption requests for Creation Units of a Fund must be submitted to the Distributor by or through an authorized participant no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on any business day, in order to receive that day's NAV. The authorized participant must transmit the request for redemption in the form required by the Fund to the Distributor in accordance with procedures set forth in the authorized participant agreement.
Additional information regarding the Shares and each Fund, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees and expenses, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions, taxes and reports to be distributed to beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the Registration Statement or on the Web site for the Funds (
The Funds' Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include a form of the prospectus for each Fund that may be downloaded. The Web site will include additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, for each Fund: (1) The prior business day's NAV and the market closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”),
In addition, for each Fund, an estimated value, defined in Bats Rule 14.11(i)(3)(C) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value will be based upon the current value for the components of the Disclosed Portfolio and will be updated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours.
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of each Fund on a daily basis and provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Intraday, executable price quotations on assets held by each Fund are available from major broker-dealer firms and for exchange-traded assets, including investment companies, such intraday information is available directly from the applicable listing exchange. All such intraday price information is available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters and International Data Corporation, which can be accessed by authorized participants and other investors. Pricing information for Repurchase Agreements and securities not listed on an exchange or national securities market will be available from major broker-dealer firms and/or subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters and International Data Corporation.
Information regarding market price and volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available on the facilities of the CTA. Price information relating to all other securities held by the Funds will be available from major market data vendors. Quotations and last sale information for the underlying exchange traded investment companies will be available through CTA.
The Shares will be subject to Bats Rule 14.11(i), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, each Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
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 each Fund. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Bats Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments composing the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B)(iv), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in the Shares of a Fund may be halted.
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. Bats [sic] will allow trading in the Shares from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in Bats Rule 11.11(a), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Managed Fund Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00, for which the minimum price variation for order entry is $0.0001.
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying shares in exchange traded equity securities via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), from other exchanges that are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
As it relates to exchange traded investment companies, the Funds will only invest in investment companies that trade on markets that are a member of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Exchange prohibits the distribution of material non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Bats Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Funds. Members purchasing Shares from the Funds for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
In addition, the Information Circular will reference that each Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Funds and the applicable NAV Calculation Time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Funds will be publicly available on the Funds' Web site. In addition, the Information Circular will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses described in each Fund's Registration Statement.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Bats Rule 14.11(i). The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Bats Rule 14.11(i)(7) provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, but is affiliated with multiple broker-dealers and has implemented “fire walls” with respect to such broker-dealers regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to a Fund's portfolio. In addition, Adviser personnel who make decisions regarding a Fund's portfolio are subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the Fund's portfolio. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying shares in exchange traded equity securities via the ISG, from other exchanges that are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to TRACE. Each Fund's investments will be well-diversified in that each Fund will hold a minimum of 40 different Municipal Securities diversified among issuers in at least 8 different states with no more than 30% of the Fund's assets comprised of Municipal Bonds that provide exposure to any single state; each Fund will hold a minimum of 75 different Municipal Securities when at least four creation units are outstanding for that Fund; each Fund will hold a minimum of 100 different Municipal Securities diversified among issuers in at least 20 different states when at least eight creation units are outstanding for that Fund; no single Municipal Security held by a Fund will exceed 4% of the weight of that Fund's portfolio and no single issuer of Municipal Securities will account for more than 10% of the weight of a Fund's portfolio; each Fund will hold Municipal Securities of at least 20 non-affiliated issuers; and each Fund will hold Municipal Securities of at least 30 non-affiliated issuers when at least four creation units are outstanding.
According to the Registration Statement, each Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Funds and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares during Regular Trading Hours, each Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Pricing information will include additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, for the Fund: (1) The prior business day's NAV and the market closing price or mid-point of the
Intraday, executable price quotations on assets held by the Funds are available from major broker-dealer firms and for exchange-traded assets, including investment companies, such intraday information is available directly from the applicable listing exchange. All such intraday price information is available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters and International Data Corporation, which can be accessed by authorized participants and other investors.
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 an additional type of actively-managed exchange traded product 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 relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG, from other exchanges that are members of ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to TRACE. As noted above, investors will also have ready access to information regarding each Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 24.9(e). The text of the proposed rule change is provided below (additions are
(a)-(d) No change.
(e) Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program
(1) Weekly Expirations. The Exchange may open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration). Weekly Expirations shall be subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that Weekly Expirations shall be P.M.-settled and new series in Weekly Expirations may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly Expiration.
The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each Weekly Expiration (i.e., a Monday expiration, Wednesday expiration, or Friday expiration, as applicable) in a given class is the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted in Rule 24.9 (a)(2) for standard options on the same broad-based index. [Other than expirations that are third Friday-of-the-month or that coincide with an EOM expiration,] Weekly Expirations [shall]
(2) End of Month (“EOM”) Expirations. The Exchange may open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on last trading day of the month. EOMs shall be subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that EOMs shall be P.M.-settled and new series in EOMs may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring EOM.
The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for EOMs in a given class is the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted in Rule 24.9 (a)(2) for standard options on the same broad-based index. EOM expirations [shall]
(3) Duration of Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program. The Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program shall be through May 3, 2017.
(4) Weekly Expirations and EOM Trading Hours on the Last Trading Day. On the last trading day, transactions in expiring Weekly Expirations and EOMs may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 8:30 a.m. (Chicago time) and 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time).
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On September 14, 2010, the Commission approved a CBOE proposal to establish a pilot program under which the Exchange is permitted to list P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes to expire on (a) any Friday of the month, other than the third Friday-of-the-month (“EOWs”), and (b) the last trading day of the month (“EOM”).
Currently, other than expirations that are third Friday-of-the-month or that coincide with an EOM expiration, Weekly Expirations (
The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each Weekly Expiration (
The Exchange has received repeated customer interest to list Weekly Expirations and EOMs that expire in the mid-term (as opposed to long-term expirations contemplated by Long-Term Index Option Series (“LEAPS”)
Currently, the Exchange is able to add additional expirations (up to 12 expirations as noted above) in one or more of the Weekly Expirations; however, customer demand for SPXW listings exceeds the Exchange's current listing practices of maintaining four MONs, six WEDs, and seven EOWs in SPXW and often beyond 12 expirations. More importantly, the customer demand is for expirations near a certain future economically impactful event (
Although this proposal gives the Exchange the ability to list expirations non-consecutively, the proposal is narrowly tailored as it only applies to the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program (
Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposal will not affect the total expirations for MONs, WEDs, EOWs, or EOMs. The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each Weekly Expiration (
The Exchange also notes that the proposal will not affect the maximum duration (
The annual Pilot report provided to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) will include any Weekly Expirations and EOMs, regardless of whether the expirations are listed consecutively or non-consecutively.
In sum, the proposal will allow market participants to better plan for future economic events; will allow market participants to tailor their investment or hedging needs more effectively; will allow the Exchange to list expirations in a way that limits potential burdens on liquidity providers quoting in the affected classes; does not increase the allowable number of total expirations for Nonstandard Expirations; and is narrowly tailored to apply only to the Nonstandard Expiration Pilot Program (in which only three classes currently participate).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot has been successful to date and that allowing non-consecutive expirations will simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risks against market movements stemming from future economic events, which in general, helps to protect investors and the public interest. Similarly, the Exchange believes non-consecutive expirations will create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the ability to more closely tailor their investment objectives. The Exchange also believe that the proposal will allow the Exchange to list expirations in a way that limits potential burdens on liquidity providers quoting in the affected classes, which helps remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
CBOE 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. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket competition as all market participants will be treated in the same manner. Any perceived burden on Market-Makers is unfounded as the proposal does not increase the total number of expirations that can be listed under the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program. In fact, the proposal may alleviate potential burdens on Market-Makers quoting in the affected classes as listing non-consecutively allows the Exchange to avoid listing expirations that are in less demand. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition because the proposed rule change relates solely to the listing of series pursuant to a CBOE pilot program, and market participants on other exchanges are welcome to become Trading Permit Holders and trade at CBOE if they determine that this proposed rule change has made CBOE more attractive or favorable. Finally, although the majority of the Exchange's broad-based index options are exclusively-listed at CBOE, all options exchanges are free to compete by listing and trading their own broad-based index options with Weekly Expirations and EOM expirations.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and one extension of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, Email address:
(SSA), Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-966-2830, Email address:
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than April 24, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than March 23, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance package by writing to
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 |