Page Range | 12063-12166 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 12129 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board | |
82 FR 12119 - Notice of Intent and Extension of Time To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Road, Alaska | |
82 FR 12121 - Extension of Time for Preparation of an Environmental and Economic Analysis, Gates of the Arctic National Preserve | |
82 FR 12150 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 12128 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India and Sri Lanka | |
82 FR 12111 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 12112 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 12079 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 12100 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
82 FR 12112 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 12111 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 12110 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections | |
82 FR 12084 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 12099 - Filing Dates for the Alabama Senate Special Elections | |
82 FR 12097 - Filing Dates for the Georgia Special Election in the 6th Congressional District | |
82 FR 12142 - Limit of Error Concepts and Principles of Calculation in Nuclear Materials Control | |
82 FR 12129 - Quality Group Classifications and Standards for Water-, Steam-, and Radioactive-Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants | |
82 FR 12102 - Enbridge Inc. and Spectra Energy Corp; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
82 FR 12107 - SpyChatter, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
82 FR 12105 - Vir2us, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
82 FR 12104 - Sentinel Labs, Inc., Also Doing Business as SentinelOne and SentinelOne.com; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
82 FR 12090 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
82 FR 12096 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 12088 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 12093 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 12091 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 12092 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 12094 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 12095 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
82 FR 12084 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 12113 - 30 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: 2017 American Housing Survey | |
82 FR 12113 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Section 811 Project Rental Assistance for Persons With Disabilities | |
82 FR 12114 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Family Options Study: Long-Term Tracking | |
82 FR 12146 - Excepted Service | |
82 FR 12143 - Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: Multi-State Plan Program External Review Case Intake Form, OPM Form 1840 | |
82 FR 12144 - Excepted Service | |
82 FR 12112 - Statement of Delegation of Authority | |
82 FR 12067 - Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances | |
82 FR 12082 - Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 12080 - Census Scientific Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 12161 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Frédéric Bazille and the Birth of Impressionism” Exhibition | |
82 FR 12143 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
82 FR 12101 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
82 FR 12162 - Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls: Notifications to the Congress of Proposed Commercial Export Licenses | |
82 FR 12068 - Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty To Reflect Inflation | |
82 FR 12108 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received | |
82 FR 12122 - Information Collection Activities: Application for Permit To Drill (APD, Revised APD), Supplemental APD Information Sheet, and All Supporting Documentation; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 12148 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
82 FR 12115 - Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group; Public Meeting, Teleconference, and Web-Based Meeting | |
82 FR 12128 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Previously Approved Collection | |
82 FR 12076 - Safety Zone; City of Valdez July 4th Fireworks, Port Valdez; Valdez, AK | |
82 FR 12159 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request | |
82 FR 12067 - Exemptions To Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities Offerings | |
82 FR 12150 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 715 and Rule 721 | |
82 FR 12148 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Port-Related Fees at Rules 7015 and 7016(b) To Eliminate Prorated Billing | |
82 FR 12080 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kentucky Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 12079 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arkansas Advisory Committee To Discuss Civil Rights Topics in the State | |
82 FR 12153 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 518, Complex Orders, To Establish the Complex MIAX Options Price Collar | |
82 FR 12087 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Application | |
82 FR 12086 - Alden Hydro, LLC, Tridam Energy LLC; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
82 FR 12088 - Notice of Availability of the Final Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation | |
82 FR 12116 - Three Affiliated Tribes; Amendments to Alcoholic Beverages Control Law | |
82 FR 12158 - Nevada Disaster #NV-00045 | |
82 FR 12081 - Marine Mammals; File Nos. 16609 and 20646 | |
82 FR 12065 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Texas Towns; Houston Sugar Land, TX; Alice, TX; Bay City, TX; Brenham, TX; Burnet, TX; Falfurrias, TX; Graford, TX; and Hamilton, TX | |
82 FR 12159 - Georgia Disaster Number GA-00092 | |
82 FR 12081 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 12085 - National Assessment Governing Board Quarterly Board Meeting | |
82 FR 12161 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Matisse in the Studio” Exhibition | |
82 FR 12101 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 12130 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
82 FR 12156 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Eighth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. and the Fifth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group, Inc. | |
82 FR 12082 - Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project; Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement; Extension of Public Comment Period | |
82 FR 12070 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
82 FR 12074 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
82 FR 12063 - Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Inc. Airplanes | |
82 FR 12071 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
82 FR 12121 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Cook Inlet Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 244; MMAA 104000 | |
82 FR 12083 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request |
Census Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Learjet Inc. Model 36A airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that an aileron cable failed on an airplane during a tension check and a determination that Model 36A airplanes were not included in AD 2005-13-36, which addresses this issue for other Learjet Inc. airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the center ball of the aileron control cables for a defective swage, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 4, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 9, 2005 (70 FR 38578, July 5, 2005).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Learjet Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone 316-946-2000; fax 316-946-2220; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Donald Ristow, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4120; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Learjet Inc. Model 36A 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 estimate that this AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
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 April 4, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Learjet Inc. Model 36A airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that an aileron cable failed on an airplane during a tension check. We are issuing this AD to prevent severe weakening of the aileron cable, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 100 flight hours or 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the center ball of the aileron control cables for a defective swage, and before further flight, replace any damaged or defective cable with a new cable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002. For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an aileron control cable unless it has been inspected in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.
Although Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002, has procedures for submitting a report showing compliance and for returning any discrepant parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include those requirements.
(1) The Manager, Wichita 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.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Donald Ristow, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4120; fax: 316-946-4107; 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 9, 2005 (70 FR 38578, July 5, 2005).
(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For Learjet Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Learjet Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone 316-946-2000; fax 316-946-2220; email
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
This action modifies Class D and Class E surface area airspace at Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kingsville Kleberg County Airport, Alice, TX; Bay City Municipal Airport, Bay City, TX; Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham, TX; Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field, Burnet, TX; Brooks County Airport, Falfurrias, TX; Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX; and Hamilton Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates at Bay City Municipal Airport, Brenham Municipal Airport, and Brooks County Airport, as well as the name of Sugar Land Regional Airport (formerly Sugar Land Municipal/Hull Field) are being adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action does not remove Class E airspace at Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport, Austin, TX, as was proposed.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX; and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kingsville Kleberg County Airport, Alice, TX; Bay City Municipal Airport, Bay City, TX; Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham, TX; Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field, Burnet, TX; Brooks County Airport, Falfurrias, TX; Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX; and Hamilton Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX.
On August 11, 2016, the FAA published in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One (1) comment was received from an individual from Round Mountain, TX. In synopsis, the individual stated that: RNAV SIAPs
Subsequent to the publication, the FAA found that special instrument approach procedures exist at Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport requiring the Class E airspace area extending upward from
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies:
Class D airspace from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL and Class E surface area airspace within a 5.8-mile radius (increased from a 4.2-mile radius) of Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX, and updates the name of the airport (formerly Sugar Land Municipal/Hull Field) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-mile radius) of Kingsville, Kleberg County Airport, Alice, TX, with an extension northwest of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.3 miles;
Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Bay City Municipal Airport, Bay City, TX, and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7.2-mile radius) of Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham TX, and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from a 6.7-mile radius) of the Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field, Burnet, TX, and removes the extensions to the north and south of the airport;
Within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from a 6.7-mile radius) of Brooks County Airport, Falfurrias, TX, removes the extension to the south of the airport, updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and removes the decommissioned Bay City NDB from the legal description;
Within a 7.0-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX, with extensions to the northeast of the airport from the 7.0-mile radius to 10.9 miles, and to the southwest of the airport from the 7.0-mile radius to 10.9 miles;
And within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Hamilton Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX, with extensions to the north of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles, and to the south of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.3 miles.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at these airports and for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 5.8-mile radius of Sugar Land Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).
Within a 5.8-mile radius of Sugar Land Regional Airport. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Alice International Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 135° bearing from Alice International Airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 9.8 miles southeast of the airport, and within a 7.2-mile radius of the Orange Grove NALF, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 129° radial of the Navy Orange Grove TACAN extending from the 7.2-mile radius of the Orange Grove NALF to 11 miles southeast of the Orange Grove NALF, and within 1.5 miles each side of the 320° radial of the Navy Orange Grove TACAN extending from the 7.2-mile radius of the Orange Grove NALF to 9.7 miles northwest of the Orange Grove NALF, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Kleberg County Airport, and within 4.0 miles each side of the 320° bearing from the Kleberg County Airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.3 miles northwest of the airport, excluding that airspace within the Corpus Christi, TX, Class E airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Bay City Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Brenham Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Brooks County Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.0-mile radius of Possum Kingdom Airport and within 4 miles each side of the 031° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.0-mile radius to 10.9 miles northeast of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 210° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.0-mile radius to 10.9 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Hamilton Municipal Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 009° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles north of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 189° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.3 miles south of the airport.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; technical correction.
This document makes a technical correction to one of the final regulations (SEC Rel. No. 33-10238) published in the
This correction is effective February 28, 2017.
Anthony G. Barone, Special Counsel, or Jenny Riegel, Special Counsel, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3460.
We are making a technical correction to Rule 504
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out above, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78
(b) * * *
(2) The aggregate offering price for an offering of securities under this § 230.504, as defined in § 230.501(c), shall not exceed $5,000,000, less the aggregate offering price for all securities sold within the twelve months before the start of and during the offering of securities under this § 230.504 or in violation of section 5(a) of the Securities Act.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
In accordance with a determination by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that the direct final rule (“Use of Ozone Depleting Substances”) published on October 26, 2016, is excluded from the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action confirms the effective date of February 23, 2017, for the direct final rule.
The effective date of the direct final rule that published on October 26, 2016, at 81 FR 74298, is confirmed to be February 23, 2017.
Daniel Orr, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6246, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-0979,
On October 26, 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) issued a direct final rule amending the regulation on uses of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), including chlorofluorocarbons, to remove the designations for sterile aerosol talc administered intrapleurally by thoracoscopy for human use and metered-dose atropine sulfate aerosol human drugs administered by oral inhalation as “essential uses” under the Clean Air Act. FDA took this action because alternative products that do not use ODSs are now available, and because these products are no longer being marketed in versions that contain ODSs. FDA did not receive any significant adverse comments regarding the direct final rule, which was published with an effective date of February 23, 2017.
A memorandum of January 20, 2017 (82 FR 8346), from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” 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
National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.
Final rule.
In compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the Act) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) is amending its civil monetary penalty rule to reflect an annual adjustment for inflation in order to improve the penalty's effectiveness and maintain its deterrent effect. The Act provides that the new penalty level must apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of the increase, including when the penalties whose associated violation predate the increase.
This final rule is effective February 28, 2017.
Contact Armando J. Acosta, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, National Indian Gaming Commission, at (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066 (not toll-free numbers).
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74). Beginning in 2017, the Act requires agencies to make annual inflationary adjustments to their civil monetary penalties by January 15th of each year, in accordance with yearly OMB guidance.
On December 16, 2016, OMB issued guidance to agencies to calculate the annual adjustment.
Pursuant to this guidance, the Commission has calculated the annual adjustment level of the civil monetary penalty contained in 25 CFR 575.4 (“The Chairman may assess a civil fine, not to exceed $49,467 per violation, against a tribe, management contractor, or individual operating Indian gaming for each notice of violation . . .”). The 2017 adjusted level of the civil monetary penalty is $50,276 ($49,467 × 1.01636).
This final rule is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy or will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not involve entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of recipients.
(4) This regulatory change does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
The Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
This final rule does not impose an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule also does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this final rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involve a compensable “taking.” Thus, a takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this final rule has no 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.
This final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation. It is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
This final rule does not affect any information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This final rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
In developing this final rule, the Commission did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).
This final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
The Commission is required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule that the Commission publishes must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) use lists and tables wherever possible.
In accordance with the Act, agencies are to annually adjust civil monetary penalties without providing an opportunity for notice and comment, and without a delay in its effective date. Therefore, the Commission is not required to complete a notice and comment process prior to promulgation.
Administrative practice and procedure, Gaming, Indian lands, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission amends 25 CFR part 575 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 2705(a), 2706, 2713, 2715; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64, -1B64/P1, -1B64/P2, -1B67, -1B67/P1, -1B67/P2, -1B70, -1B70/P1, -1B70/P2, -1B70/75/P1, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70C/P1, -1B70C/P2, -1B74/75/P1, -1B74/75/P2, -1B76A/P2 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a fracture of the fuel manifold which led to an in-flight shutdown of the engine. This proposed AD would require replacement of the outer left side signal fuel manifold with a part eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 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 General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of an in-flight shutdown of an engine that resulted from the fracture of the fuel manifold. Investigation determined that the cause of the fracture was a defective weld joining the fuel line to the manifold. This condition, if not corrected, could result in fracture of the fuel manifold, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 73-0051 R00, dated November 4, 2016; GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0052 R00, dated October 28, 2016; and GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0053 R00, dated November 15, 2016. These SBs describe, respectively, procedures for the inspection, repair, and replacement of the outer left side signal fuel manifold, part number 2403M46G01, and CAGE code 05813.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require replacement of the outer left side signal fuel manifold with a part eligible for installation.
GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0053 R00, dated November 15, 2016, requires replacement of the affected fuel manifold within 60 days after the issuance of the SB. This proposed AD, based on our risk assessment of the potential for additional fractures of the fuel manifold, proposes that this replacement be done within 12 months.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 109 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 14, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all GEnx-1B64, -1B64/P1, -1B64/P2, -1B67, -1B67/P1, -1B67/P2, -1B70, -1B70/75/P1, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70/P1, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P1, -1B70C/P2, -1B74/75/P1, -1B74/75/P2, -1B76A/P2 engines with outer left side signal fuel manifold, part number (P/N) 2403M46G01, and CAGE code 05813, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7313, Fuel Injector Nozzle.
This AD was prompted by fracture of the fuel manifold which led to an in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent fracture of the fuel manifold, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Inspect the outer left side signal fuel manifold, P/N 2403M46G01 and CAGE code 05813, to determine if the part has additional marking “XB,” “INS,” or “KB” adjacent to part number. If the part is marked with “XB,” “INS,” or “KB,” then no further action is required.
(2) For parts without additional marking “XB,” “INS,” or “KB” adjacent to the part number, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the outer left side signal fuel manifold with a part eligible for installation.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install an outer left side signal fuel manifold, P/N 2403M46G01, and CAGE code 05813, onto an engine, unless additional marking “XB,” “INS,” or “KB” is adjacent to the part number.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 73-0051 R00, dated November 4, 2016; GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0052 R00, dated October 28, 2016; and GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0053 R00, dated November 15, 2016, can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. These SBs, respectively, describe procedures for inspection, repair, and replacement of the outer left side signal fuel manifold.
(3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by several reports of nose wheel steering failures in service. This proposed AD would require a part verification and replacement of certain steering manifolds. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 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 Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.
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
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-24, dated August 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several cases of nose wheel steering failures have been reported in service. In one case, the aeroplane experienced uncommanded nose wheel steering, resulting in a runway excursion.
Investigations found the presence of moisture inside the electrical stage of the electro-hydraulic servo valve (EHSV) unit, which resulted in low insulation resistance and corrosion. This condition, in combination with a steering selector valve failure, could result in uncommanded nose wheel steering, which could lead to a runway excursion at high speed.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the steering manifold to provide better moisture ingress protection of the EHSV.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015. This service information describes procedures for a one-time verification of the steering manifold part number and replacement of the steering manifold and mod plate. 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 161 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage 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.
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 14, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by several reports of nose wheel steering failures in service. We are issuing this AD to prevent moisture from entering the electrical stage of the electro-hydraulic servo valve (EHSV), which could lead to uncommanded nose wheel steering, and a consequent runway excursion at high speed.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time inspection to determine the part number of the steering manifold, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.
(1) If the airplane has steering manifold part number (P/N) 40750-103, within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, write “SB100-32-018” on the nose landing gear (NLG) mod plate. If the mod plate is missing or full, within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, install a new plate, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.
(2) If the airplane has steering manifold P/N 40750-101, within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, replace it in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015, and write “SB100-32-018” on the NLG mod plate. If the mod plate is missing or full, within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, install a new plate, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, dated September 24, 2014.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a steering manifold, P/N 40750-101, on the nose landing gear assembly of any airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-24, dated August 19, 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 Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a reported inability to extend the external handle of the emergency door from its recess due to a jammed spring mechanism. This proposed AD would require a one-time functional check of each emergency door handle, and corrective actions 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 14, 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 EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 55 05; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; 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 AD 2016-0051, dated March 11, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Failure to extend the external handle of emergency door from its recess was reported. As a consequence, it was impossible to open the rear emergency door from outside. Subsequent investigation determined that jamming of the door spring mechanism led to failure pushing out the emergency door external handle from its position normally aligned with the door skin.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure to open the emergency door from outside in an emergency.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus Defence&Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-52-0001 and AOT-C295-52-0001 to provide inspection instructions [and corrective actions if necessary].
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time functional check of [each of] the affected emergency door external handle[s] and, depending on findings, [detailed visual inspection for damage or unexpected material and] corrective action [repair]. This [EASA] AD also requires reporting the check result.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed the following Airbus Defense and Space service information.
• Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014.
• Airbus Defense and Space AOT-C295-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014.
The service information describes procedures for a one-time functional check of each emergency door handle and corrective actions if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 27 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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 14, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a reported inability to extend the external handle of the emergency door from its recess due to a jammed spring mechanism. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct jamming of the door spring mechanism, which could lead to the inability to push out the emergency door external handle from its position normally aligned with the door skin. This condition could result in the inability to open the emergency door from outside during an emergency.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time functional check of each emergency door handle in accordance with Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT-C295-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; as applicable.
If any discrepancy (non-working emergency door handle) is found during the functional check required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Accomplish a detailed visual inspection for damage and unexpected material in
(2) 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 Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) from the functional test required by paragraph (g) of this AD and the inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to Airbus Defense and Space in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT-CN235-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT-C295-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; as applicable; at the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) If the functional test or inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the functional test or inspection.
(2) If the functional test or inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0051, dated March 11, 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 EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 55 05; email:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone on the navigable waters of Port Valdez, Valdez, Alaska, in the vicinity of the Valdez Spit. The proposed safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the hazards associated with the annual City of Valdez July 4th Fireworks Display event. This rule is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the navigable waters of Port Valdez, in the immediate vicinity of the fireworks launch platforms, before, during, and immediately after the fireworks event. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 30, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0092 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Walner W. Alvarez, Chief of Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Valdez; telephone (907) 835-7223, email
The Coast Guard began issuing temporary final rules in 2011 to establish a safety zone during the Valdez July 4th Fireworks Display The Coast Guard received no comments or concerns from the public when the temporary safety zones were in place. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to permanently establish a safety zone of the exact same size and position as that which were established under the temporary final rules since 2014. The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish limited access areas: 33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of this rule is to enhance the safety for spectators and mariners attending a community event that involves a relatively large fireworks
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone on the navigable waters of Port Valdez, within a 200 yard radius of the location where the fireworks will be launched on the Valdez Spit for the City of Valdez July 4th Fireworks Display. The proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with fireworks displays. The fireworks displays are expected to occur between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. In order to coordinate the safe movement of vessels within the area and to ensure that the area is clear of unauthorized persons and vessels before, during, and immediately after the fireworks launch, this zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Prince William Sound or the designated representative. Vessels will be able to transit the surrounding area and may be authorized to transit through the proposed safety zone with the permission of the COTP or the designated representative. Before activating the zone the Prince William Sound COTP will notify mariners by appropriate means including but not limited to Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
This rule is being proposed to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during the fireworks display event, and to give the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed safety zone location, size, and length of time the zone will be activated.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The Coast Guard's enforcement of the proposed safety zone will be of short duration, approximately two hours. Furthermore, vessels may be authorized to transit through the proposed safety zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port Prince William Sound, Alaska. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a permanent safety zone on the navigable waters of Port Valdez, in the vicinity of the Valdez Spit. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, 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 e-Rulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The term “designated representative” means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U. S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Prince William Sound, to act on his or her behalf.
(2) The term “official patrol vessel” may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP, Prince William Sound.
(d)
(1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23, as well as the following regulations, apply.
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the designated representative during periods of enforcement.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel or other official patrol vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area may request permission from the COTP via VHF Channel 16 or (907) 835-7205 (Prince William Sound Vessel Traffic Center) to request permission to do so.
(5) The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of the safety zone before and during the event.
(6) The COTP may be aided by other Federal, state, borough and local law enforcement officials in the enforcement of this regulation.
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 30, 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),
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.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Arkansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, March 13, 2017, at 12:00 noon CST for the purpose of a discussion on civil rights topics affecting the state.
The meeting will be held on Monday, March 13, 2017, at 12:00 noon. CST.
David Barreras, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-427-9376, conference ID: 2751991. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kentucky (State) Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, March 14, 2017, for continuing committee discussion of potential project topics.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:30 EST.
The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 1-888-438-5524, conference ID: 2287214.
Jeff Hinton, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 1-888-438-5524, conference ID: 2287214. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by March 10, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (C-SAC). The Committee will address policy, research, and technical issues relating to a full range of Census Bureau programs and activities, including communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statistics. The C-SAC will meet in a plenary session from March 30-31, 2017. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committees Web site for the most current meeting agenda at:
March 30-31, 2017. On Thursday, March 30, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m. On Friday, March 31, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Auditorium, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.
Tara Dunlop Jackson, Branch Chief for Advisory Committees, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office,
The members of the C-SAC are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau. The
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on March 31. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to:
If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, March 27, 2017. You may access the online registration from the following link:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.
Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
Topics of discussion include the following items:
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The marine mammal stranding report provides information on strandings so that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can compile and analyze, by region, the species, numbers, conditions, and causes of illnesses and deaths in stranded marine mammals. NMFS requires this information to fulfill its management responsibilities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1421a). NMFS is also responsible for the welfare of marine mammals while in rehabilitation status. The data from the marine mammal rehabilitation disposition report are required for monitoring and tracking of marine mammals held at various NMFS-authorized facilities. This information is submitted primarily by members of the marine mammal stranding networks which are authorized by NMFS. A new human interaction data sheet will provide NMFS with consistent and detailed information on signs of human interaction in stranded marine mammals. This information will assist the Agency in tracking resource conflicts and will provide a solid scientific foundation for conservation and management of marine mammals. With a better understanding of interactions, appropriate measures can be taken to resolve conflicts and, stranding data are the best source of information regarding the occurrence of different types of human interaction.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of applications.
Notice is hereby given that the Zoological Society of San Diego [Douglas Myers, Responsible Party], P.O. Box 120551, San Diego, CA 92112 (File No. 16609), and the Morgridge Institute for Research [James Thomson, Ph.D., Responsible Party], 330 N. Orchard St., Madison, WI 53715 (File No. 20646), have applied in due form for permits to import, export, and receive marine mammal parts for scientific research.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 30, 2017.
The applications and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features”
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 either of these applications 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.
Shasta McClenahan or Jennifer Skidmore; phone: (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
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 of open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined under
The meeting will be held March 20-22, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Boston Harbor, 101 Harborside Drive, Boston, MA 02128; 617-568-6026.
Heidi Lovett, MAFAC Assistant Director; 301-427-8034; email:
As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The complete charter and summaries of prior meetings are located online at
This meeting time and agenda are subject to change.
The meeting is convened to hear presentations and updates and to discuss policies and guidance on the following topics: MAFAC's recommendations to the Administration; international fisheries affairs and trade; mitigation policy; meeting of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force; resilience working group projects; aquaculture program, science enterprise, and regional commissions updates; and the budget outlook for FY2017-2018. MAFAC will discuss various administrative and organizational matters, and meetings of standing subcommittees and working groups will be convened.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heidi Lovett; 301-427-8034 by March 10, 2017.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Extension of public comment period.
On January 13, 2017 NOAA published a notice in the
The comment period for the notice published January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4302) is extended. NOAA will accept public comments on the draft EIR/EIS if they are received on or before March 29, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NOS-2016-0156, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Karen Grimmer at 99 Pacific Ave., BLDG 455a, Monterey, CA 93940, 831-647-4253, or
As discussed in the January 13, 2017 notice (82 FR 4302), a permit application was submitted by California American Water Company (CalAm) to NOAA's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) for construction and operation of its proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP or Project) in order to supplement existing water supplies for CalAm's Monterey District service area. NOAA's proposed action would be whether to approve the installation of a subsurface seawater intake system, the discharge of brine into MBNMS via an existing outfall pipe, and the continued presence of pipelines in MBNMS to transport seawater to a desalination facility.
The joint draft environmental impact report and environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) was prepared in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (CEQ NEPA Regulations). NOAA is seeking public comment on the DEIR/DEIS, which is available at
Due to the length of the document, NOAA and its state partner have received a request to extend the public comment period to allow for additional review time. An extension of the public comment period may also benefit other interested stakeholders. Therefore, NOAA has extended the deadline by 30 days, or until March 29, 2017.
16 U.S.C. 1431
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 30, 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.
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 30, 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 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness OUSD (P&R), Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 1, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Federal Voting Assistance Program, ATTN: Scott Wiedmann, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox 10, Alexandria, Virginia 22350-5000.
The collected information will be used by election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote, receive an absentee ballot or cast a write-in
The applicant is required to update and resubmit the information annually, whenever they change their mailing address or as otherwise required by State law. If the information is not submitted annually or whenever they change their mailing address, the applicant may not receive ballots for elections for Federal office in that calendar year.
National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of open and closed meetings.
This notice sets forth the agenda for the March 2-4, 2017 Quarterly Board Meeting of the National Assessment Governing Board (hereafter referred to as Governing Board). This notice provides information to members of the public who may be interested in attending the meeting or providing written comments on the meeting. Due to unavoidable delays during the Administration transition, this notice is being posted less than 15 days prior to the Board meeting date.
The Quarterly Board Meeting will be held on the following dates:
• March 2, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• March 3, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• March 4, 2017 from 7:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer/Designated Federal Official of the Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 357-6938, fax: (202) 357-6945.
The Governing Board is established to formulate policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Governing Board's responsibilities include the following: Selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment frameworks and specifications, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons, improving the form and use of NAEP, developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and releasing initial NAEP results to the public.
The Governing Board's standing committees will meet to conduct regularly scheduled work based on agenda items planned for this Quarterly Board Meeting and follow-up items as reported in the Governing Board's committee meeting minutes available at
On Thursday, March 2, 2017, the Governing Board will convene a symposium in open session on NAEP Long-Term Trend from 9:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Thereafter, the standing committees will meet. ADC will meet in closed session from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to review secure digital-based tasks for the grade 12 NAEP Science assessment and secure task sketches for the NAEP Mathematics assessment at grades 4 and 8, as well as secure Long-Term Trend Reading and Mathematics items. This meeting must be conducted in closed session because the test items are secure and have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of the secure test items would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
COSDAM will meet in open session from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. R&D will meet in open session from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. The Executive Committee will meet in open session on March 2, 2017 from 4:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. and in closed session from 5:15 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. During the closed session, the Executive Committee will receive and discuss cost estimates and implications for implementing the Long-Term Trend assessment. This meeting must be conducted in closed session because public disclosure of this information would likely have an adverse financial effect on the NAEP program by providing confidential cost details and proprietary contract costs of current NAEP contractors to the public. Discussion of this information would be likely to significantly impede
On Friday, March 3, the full Governing Board will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. The Governing Board will review and approve the March 2-4, 2017 Board meeting agenda and meeting minutes from the November 2016 Quarterly Board Meeting. Thereafter, the Chairman, Terry Mazany will administer the oath of office to a new Board member, following which he will introduce the Governing Board's new Deputy Executive Director and provide remarks.
This session will be followed by a report from the Executive Director of the Governing Board, William Bushaw, followed by an update on National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) work by Peggy Carr, Acting Commissioner of NCES.
The Governing Board will recess for committee meetings at 9:45 a.m. The committee meetings are scheduled to take place from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. to conduct regularly scheduled work. ADC will meet in a joint open session with COSDAM from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Thereafter the two committees will meet separately in open session from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. R&D will meet in open session from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Following the committee meetings on Friday, March 3, the Governing Board will meet in open session from 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. for a panel discussion on the topic of High School Graduates on the Path to Middle Skills Jobs. Following a short break scheduled from 1:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., the Governing Board will meet in open session from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
From 2:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m., the Governing Board will engage in follow up discussions on the Long-Term Trend Symposium. From 2:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., the Board will have a discussion on the Response to the Achievement Levels Evaluation.
Thereafter, the Governing Board will take a fifteen-minute break and reconvene in open session from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. to receive a briefing from Executive Director of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Chris Minnich, and from the CCSSO/Governing Board Policy Task Force Chair Shelly Loving-Ryder.
The March 3, 2017 meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
On March 4, the Nominations Committee will meet in closed session from 7:30 a.m. to 8:10 a.m. The committee will discuss the final slate of nominations for Governing Board vacancies for terms beginning on October 1, 2017. The Nominations Committee's discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
The Nominations Committee will meet in open session on March 4 from 8:10 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. to take action on the final candidates recommended for open positions to be submitted to the Secretary of Education. On March 4, the Governing Board will meet in closed session from 8:30 a.m. to 8:50 a.m. to receive a briefing from the Nominations Committee on the recommended final slate of candidates for Board vacancies for terms beginning October 1, 2017. For the reasons noted above, these discussions are also protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code. Thereafter, from 8:50 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., the Board will meet in open session to take action on the final slate of candidates for submission to the Secretary of Education.
The Governing Board will meet in open session from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. to discuss the Governing Board's Strategic Vision, and the Chairman's charge to the committees.
The Governing Board will then take a fifteen minute break and reconvene in open session from 9:45 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. to receive an update on committee reports and take action on the R&D recommended Guidelines for Releasing, Reporting and Disseminating Results.
The Governing Board will take another 15 minute break from 10:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and then reconvene in closed session to receive a briefing on the 2016 NAEP Arts Assessment Report. This meeting is being conducted in closed session because the NAEP Arts Assessment data has not been released to the public. Public disclosure of the secure data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of § 552b of Title 5 of the United States Code.
The March 4, 2017 meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 11:45 a.m.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Pub. L. 107-279, Title III—National Assessment of Educational Progress § 301.
By letter filed September 1, 2015, Brendan Finnegan, Owner, Tridam Energy LLC, informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for
Tridam Energy, LLC is now the exemptee of the Waterloom Falls Project No. 7920, the Otis Falls Project No. 7921, and the Chamberlain Falls Project No. 7922. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Brendan Finnegan, Owner, Tridam Energy LLC, 251 Heath Street, Apt #105, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, Phone: 781-223-6637, Email:
Take notice that on February 6, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC. (Transco) 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77056-6106, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking authorization to construct and operate the St. James Supply Project (Project) in St. James Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Charlotte Hutson, Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251-1396, or call (713) 215-4060, or by email:
Specifically, Transco states that the Project will enable it to provide 161,500 dekatherms per day natural gas of incremental firm transportation capacity from Transco's existing Station 65 zone 3 pool in St. Helena Parish, Louisiana southward along the Southeast Louisiana Lateral and through the St. James Supply Lateral to the Yuhuang Chemical Plant. The facilities to be installed by Transco in the Project include: (1) The 0.72 mile, 20-inch-diameter St. James Supply Lateral and the associated Old River Road metering and regulation (M&R) station at the interconnection with the Yuhuang Chemical Plant in St. James Parish, Louisiana; (2) piping and valve installation required to tie in the Old River Road M&R station with the existing Southeast Louisiana Lateral “B” and Southeast Louisiana Lateral “C” at approximately milepost (MP) 72.37; (3) piping and valve modifications at existing Compressor Station (CS) 63 in St. James Parish, Louisiana to allow gas to flow south along the Southeast Louisiana Lateral; (4) piping and valve modifications at existing CS 65 in St. Helena Parish, Louisiana to allow for bi-directional flow of gas; and (5) the proposed Cajun Road M&R station, located on Transco's mainline at the interconnection with Texas Eastern Transmission Company at approximately MP 581.33 in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 14, 2017.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission) Office of Energy Projects has finalized its revised
The
Applicable sections of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations are referenced or summarized throughout the
In response to the draft
The
All of the information related to the proposed updates to the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520),
In 2013, the Commission adopted rules related to accessible emergency information and apparatus requirements for emergency information and video description.
Finally, in 2015, the Commission adopted rules to require the following: (1) Apparatus manufacturers must provide a mechanism that is simple and easy to use for activating the secondary audio stream to access audible emergency information; and (2) starting no later than July 10, 2017, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) must pass through the secondary audio stream containing audible emergency information when it is provided on linear programming accessed on second screen devices (
These rules are codified at 47 CFR 79.2, 79.105, and 79.106.
(a) Complaints alleging violations of the emergency information rules.
Section 79.2(c) of the Commission's rules provides that a complaint alleging a violation of § 79.2 of its rules, may be transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau by any reasonable means, such as the Commission's online informal complaint filing system, letter, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), Internet email, audio-cassette recording, Braille, or some other method that would best accommodate the complainant's disability. After the Commission receives the complaint, the Commission notifies the VPD or VPP of the complaint, and the VPD or VPP has 30 days to reply.
(b) Complaints alleging violations of the apparatus emergency information and video description requirements.
Complaints alleging violations of the rules containing apparatus emergency information and video description requirements, 47 CFR 79.105-79.106, may be transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau by any reasonable means, such as the Commission's online informal complaint filing system, letter in writing or Braille, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), email, or some other method that would best accommodate the complainant's disability. Given that the population intended to benefit from the rules adopted will be blind or visually impaired, if a complainant calls the Commission for assistance in preparing a complaint, Commission staff will document the complaint in writing for the consumer. The Commission will forward such complaints, as appropriate, to the named manufacturer or provider for its response, as well as
(c) Requests for Commission determination of technical feasibility of emergency information and video description apparatus requirements.
The requirements pertaining to apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming apply only to the extent they are “technically feasible.” Parties may raise technical infeasibility as a defense when faced with a complaint alleging a violation of the apparatus requirements or they may file a request for a ruling under section 1.41 of the Commission's rules as to technical infeasibility before manufacturing or importing the product.
(d) Requests for Commission determination of achievability of emergency information and video description apparatus requirements.
The requirements pertaining to certain apparatus designed to receive, play back, or record video programming apply only to the extent they are achievable. Manufacturers of apparatus that use a picture screen of less than 13 inches in size and of recording devices may petition the Commission, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.41, for a full or partial exemption from the video description and emergency information requirements before manufacturing or importing the apparatus. Alternatively, manufacturers may assert that a particular apparatus is fully or partially exempt as a response to a complaint, which the Commission may dismiss upon a finding that the requirements of this section are not achievable. A petition for exemption or a response to a complaint must be supported with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the requirements is not achievable (meaning with reasonable effort or expense), and the Commission will consider four specific factors when making such a determination.
(e) Petitions for purpose-based waivers of emergency information and video description apparatus requirements.
The Commission may waive emergency information and video description apparatus requirements for any apparatus or class of apparatus that is (a) primarily designed for activities other than receiving or playing back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound, or (b) designed for multiple purposes, capable of receiving or playing video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound but whose essential utility is derived from other purposes. The Commission will address any requests for a purpose-based waiver on a case-by-case basis, and waivers will be available prospectively for manufacturers seeking certainty prior to the sale of a device.
(f) Submission and review of consumer eligibility information pertaining to DIRECTV, LLC's (DIRECTV's) waiver for provision of aural emergency information during The Weather Channel's programming.
The Commission granted DIRECTV a waiver with respect to the set-top box models on which it is not able to implement audio functionality for emergency information, but conditioned such relief by requiring DIRECTV to provide, upon request and at no additional cost to customers who are blind or visually impaired, a set-top box model that is capable of providing aural emergency information. DIRECTV may require customers who are blind or visually impaired to submit reasonable documentation of disability to DIRECTV as a condition to providing the box at no additional cost.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.673 states each commercial television broadcast station licensee must provide information identifying programming specifically designed to educate and inform children to publishers of program guides. Such information must include an indication of the age group for which the program is intended.
These requirements are intended to provide greater clarity about broadcasters' obligations under the Children's Television Act (CTA) of 1990 to air programming “specifically designed” to serve the educational and informational needs of children and to improve public access to information about the availability of these programs. These requirements provide better
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission will use the information contained in FCC/WCB-1 to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that is required as part of the Lifeline Program (“Lifeline”). As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission published FCC/WCB-1 “Lifeline Program” in the
Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.
On April 27, 2016, the Commission released an order reforming its low-income universal service support mechanisms. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Report and Order, (
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The requirements contained in Section 76.1205 are intended to ensure that consumers are able to install CableCARDs in the devices they purchase because we have determined this is essential to a functioning retail market.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or May 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission staff uses the information to advise the Commission about the efficacy of its rules and policies adopted to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The data are necessary to evaluate the status of local telecommunications competition and broadband deployment. The Commission uses the data to prepare reports that help inform consumers and policy makers at the federal and state level on the deployment and adoption of broadband services, as well as on developments related to competition in the voice telephone services market. The Commission also uses the data to support its analyses in a variety of rulemaking proceedings under the Communications Act, including those related to fulfilling its universal service mandate.
The Commission releases to the public the broadband deployment and mobile voice deployment data that it began collecting in 2014 as a result of the Order. This information is used by consumers, federal and state government agencies, analysts, and others to determine broadband service availability by provider, technology, and speed.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Georgia has scheduled a Special General Election on April 18, 2017, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 6th Congressional District vacated by Representative Tom Price. Under Georgia law, a majority winner in a special election is declared elected. Should no candidate achieve a majority vote, a Special Runoff Election will be held on June 20, 2017, between the top two vote-getters.
Political committees participating in the Georgia special elections are required to file pre- and post-election reports. Filing deadlines for these reports are affected by whether one or two elections are held.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Georgia Special General and Special Runoff Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on April 6, 2017; a 12-day Pre-Runoff Report on June 8, 2017; and a Post-Runoff Report on July 21, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
If only one election is held, all principal campaign committees of candidates in the Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on April 6, 2017; and a 30-day Post-General Report on May 18, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees not filing monthly in 2017 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Georgia Special General Election and/or Special Runoff Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Georgia Special General or Special Runoff Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the Georgia Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,900 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).
On behalf of the Commission,
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Alabama has scheduled special elections to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Senator Jeff Sessions. There are three possible special elections, but only two may be necessary.
•
•
•
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates
If only two elections are held, all principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the Alabama Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a Pre-Primary Report on May 24, 2018; a Pre-General Report on October 25, 2018; and a Post-General Report on December 6, 2018. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
If three elections are held, all principal campaign committees of candidates
All principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the Alabama Special Primary, Special Runoff and Special General Elections shall file a Pre-Primary Report on May 24, 2018; a Pre-Runoff Report on July 5, 2018; a Pre-General Report on October 25, 2018; and a Post-General Report on December 6, 2018. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees filing on a quarterly basis in 2018 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Alabama Special Primary, Special Runoff or Special General Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Alabama Special Primary, Special Runoff or Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the Alabama Special Elections may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of the lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold during the special election reporting periods (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).
The lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold for calendar year 2017 is $17,900. This threshold amount may increase in 2018 based upon the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA). Once the adjusted threshold amount becomes available, the Commission will publish it in the
On behalf of the Commission.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 14, 2017.
1.
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 23, 2017.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Eric Cochran (202-326-3454), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 16, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 20, 2017. Write “In the Matter of Enbridge Inc. and Spectra Energy Corp File No. 161-0215” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Enbridge Inc. and Spectra Energy Corp File No. 161-0215” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) with Enbridge Inc. (“Enbridge”) and Spectra Energy Corp (“Spectra”). The Consent Agreement is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects that likely would result from Enbridge's proposed merger with Spectra (the “Merger”).
The Merger, if consummated, will result in Respondent Enbridge having ownership interests in the two closest and likely lowest-cost pipelines that provide or can provide natural gas pipeline transportation from many Deepwater Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing and exploration blocks (“blocks”) in certain natural gas producing areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Enbridge, through a wholly owned subsidiary, owns and operates the Walker Ridge Pipeline. Spectra has an indirect, minority ownership interest in the Discovery Pipeline. The Complaint alleges that, resulting from the Merger, Enbridge will have access to competitively sensitive information of its competitor, the Discovery Pipeline, and gain voting rights over the Discovery Pipeline's significant capital expenditures, including expansions needed to connect to new wells. Without adequate safeguards, Enbridge could misuse that information and its voting rights, leading to anticompetitive conduct that would make the Discovery Pipeline a less effective competitor or would facilitate coordination in the industry. To remedy these concerns, under the terms of the Proposed Decision and Order (“Order”) contained in the Consent Agreement, Enbridge is required to erect firewalls to limit its access to non-public information relating to the Discovery Pipeline. In addition, all board members appointed by Enbridge or Spectra to the boards of directors overseeing the Discovery Pipeline must recuse themselves from any vote pertaining to the Discovery Pipeline, with limited exceptions.
The Commission has placed the Consent Agreement on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make the Order final.
Enbridge is an energy delivery company that operates primarily in the United States and Canada. Its primary business is in pipeline transportation of crude oil; however, it also has significant natural gas gathering, processing, transportation, and storage assets. Enbridge owns several interconnected natural gas pipelines that export natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico to processing plants in Louisiana.
Spectra is one of the largest North American pipeline and midstream companies. Spectra predominately focuses on natural gas, providing natural gas gathering, storage, and transportation in the southeastern and northeastern United States and in southeastern Canada. Through a joint venture with Phillips 66 (“Phillips”), Spectra owns an indirect minority interest in the Discovery Pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas from Deepwater areas in the Gulf of Mexico to processing plants in Louisiana.
Respondent Enbridge and affiliated companies under its control entered into a merger agreement with Spectra, dated September 5, 2016, pursuant to which Sand Merger Sub, Inc., a newly created direct wholly owned subsidiary of Enbridge, will merge with and into Spectra, with Spectra surviving the Merger. The combined entity will be the largest energy infrastructure company in North America, with a geographically diverse asset portfolio used in the gathering, processing, storage, and transportation of natural gas and the pipeline transportation of crude oil.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Merger, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition for the transportation of natural gas from wells in certain natural gas producing areas in the Gulf of Mexico, to processing plants or interconnects with other natural gas pipelines.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the relevant product market within which to analyze the Merger is natural gas pipeline transportation. Natural gas producers contract with natural gas pipelines to connect to and transport natural gas from wells to processing plants or interconnects with other natural gas pipelines. Even if pipeline transportation rates increased slightly, shippers would continue to use pipelines as no economic or practical alternative to natural gas pipeline transportation exists.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the relevant geographic markets within which to analyze the Merger are no broader than the Green Canyon, Walker Ridge, and Keathley Canyon offshore natural gas producing areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana (collectively and individually referred to as “Gulf Producing Areas”). Other transportation methods for natural gas in the Gulf Producing Area are significantly more costly, less reliable, and potentially more hazardous than the parties' pipelines.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that Enbridge and Spectra own interests in the two pipelines closest to wells drilled in certain blocks in the Gulf Producing Areas, including blocks that lie between the pipelines. Enbridge, through a wholly owned subsidiary, owns and operates the Walker Ridge Pipeline. Spectra holds an indirect minority ownership interest in the Discovery Pipeline, via its 50-50 joint venture with Phillips (DCP Midstream, LLC (“DCP”), which in turn has an effective 36.1 percent limited partner interest in DCP Midstream Partners, LP (“DPM”)). DPM owns a 40 percent interest in the Discovery Pipeline; Williams Partners L.P. owns the majority interest (60 percent) in the Discovery Pipeline and is its operator.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the length of pipeline needed to connect an existing pipeline to a well is a major factor in determining the overall cost for the pipeline to connect to the well. Thus, more distant pipelines likely face higher costs to connect to wells, resulting in higher natural gas pipeline transportation prices for natural gas producers. Where the Walker Ridge Pipeline and the Discovery Pipeline are a producer's nearest options—as they are for many blocks in the Gulf Producing Areas—they each likely could expand to connect to the producer's well for the lowest costs. As such, the Walker Ridge Pipeline and the Discovery Pipeline are the two pipelines most likely to compete successfully for projects in certain blocks in the Gulf Producing Areas.
While Spectra does not outright own the Discovery Pipeline or hold a majority interest in it (or operate it), through its indirect, minority ownership interest in DPM, Spectra has access to competitively sensitive information of the Discovery Pipeline and significant voting rights. This relationship creates two primary competitive concerns after the Merger. First, Enbridge-appointed directors will vote on the Discovery Pipeline's significant capital expenditures, which likely will include future expansions needed to connect to wells. Enbridge will have the incentive
Second, Enbridge will have access to the Discovery Pipeline's competitively sensitive information. When its Walker Ridge Pipeline competes with the Discovery Pipeline, Enbridge may use this competitively sensitive information to raise transportation costs for natural gas producers. The exchange of information also may increase the likelihood of tacit or explicit coordination between the Walker Ridge Pipeline and the Discovery Pipeline.
Entry into the relevant markets would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects arising from the Merger. Barriers to entry are significant. Building pipeline underwater is an expensive and lengthy process, often taking several years from the initial proposal to the end of construction.
The proposed Order resolves the anticompetitive concerns described above by requiring that (1) Enbridge erect firewalls to limit its access to non-public information relating to the Discovery Pipeline, and (2) all representatives appointed by Enbridge or Spectra to the DCP or DPM boards of directors recuse themselves from any vote pertaining to the Discovery Pipeline, with two limited exceptions. First, Enbridge's representatives may vote on initiatives to expand the Discovery Pipeline beyond natural gas pipeline services in the Gulf of Mexico. This provision ensures that Enbridge does not have to participate in business ventures unrelated to the Discovery Pipeline's current business. Second, Enbridge's representatives may participate in votes to change DPM's ownership interest in the Discovery Pipeline. The use of firewalls and recusal provisions is appropriate because the competitive concerns arise from a discrete overlap that constitutes a relatively small portion of DCP's and DPM's overall physical footprints and business portfolios.
The proposed Order allows the Commission to appoint a monitor. The Commission has appointed Robert Ogle, who currently is associated with Claro Group LLC. Mr. Ogle will help ensure the effectiveness of the firewall provisions and ongoing compliance with the Order. The Commission routinely appoints monitors for orders involving firewall provisions. Mr. Ogle will serve for a 5-year term, but the Commission may extend or modify the term as appropriate. The Order will have a term of 20 years.
The Commission does not intend this analysis to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Monique Einhorn, Attorney, (202) 326-2575, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 22, 2017), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 24, 2017. Write “In the Matter of Sentinel Labs, Inc., a corporation doing business as SentinelOne and SentinelOne.com, File No. 162 3250” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Sentinel Labs, Inc., a corporation doing business as SentinelOne and SentinelOne.com, File No. 162 3250” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Sentinel Labs, Inc. dba SentinelOne and SentinelOne.com (“SentinelOne”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns alleged false representations that SentinelOne made to consumers concerning its participation in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) Cross Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) system. The APEC CBPR system is a voluntary, enforceable mechanism that certifies a company's compliance with the principles in the CBPR and facilitates privacy-respecting transfers of data amongst APEC member economies. The APEC CBPR system is based on nine data privacy principles: Preventing harm, notice, collection limitation, use choice, integrity, security safeguards, access and correction, and accountability. Companies that seek to participate in the APEC CBPR system must undergo a review by an APEC-recognized Accountability Agent, which certifies companies that meet the standards.
Companies under the FTC's jurisdiction are eligible to apply for APEC CBPR certification. The names of certified companies are posted on a public-facing Web site,
SentinelOne provides endpoint protection software to enterprise customers. According to the Commission's complaint, SentinelOne has set forth on its Web site,
The Commission's complaint alleges that SentinelOne falsely represented that it was a participant in the APEC CBPR system and a TRUSTe privacy program when, in fact, it never sought or obtained either certification.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits SentinelOne from making misrepresentations about its participation in any privacy or security program sponsored by a government or any self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the APEC CBPR and the TRUSTe privacy programs.
Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires acknowledgment of the order and dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part III ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status and mandates that SentinelOne submit an initial compliance report to the FTC. Part IV requires SentinelOne to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order. Part V mandates that SentinelOne make available to the FTC information or subsequent compliance reports, as requested. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent
Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Monique Einhorn, Attorney, (202) 326-2575, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 22, 2017), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 24, 2017. Write “In the Matter of Vir2us, Inc., a corporation, File No. 162 3248” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Vir2us, Inc., a corporation, File No. 162 3248” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Vir2us, Inc. (“Vir2us”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns alleged false representations that Vir2us made to consumers concerning its participation in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) Cross Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) system. The APEC CBPR system is a voluntary, enforceable mechanism that certifies a company's compliance with the principles in the CBPR and facilitates privacy-respecting transfers of data amongst APEC member economies. The APEC CBPR system is based on nine data privacy principles: Preventing harm, notice, collection limitation, use choice, integrity, security safeguards, access and correction, and accountability. Companies that seek to participate in the APEC CBPR system
Companies under the FTC's jurisdiction are eligible to apply for APEC CBPR certification. The names of certified companies are posted on a public-facing Web site,
Vir2us markets cybersecurity software solutions. According to the Commission's complaint, Vir2us has set forth in its privacy policy, at
The Commission's complaint alleges that Vir2us falsely represented that it was a participant in the APEC CBPR system when, in fact, it never sought or obtained certification.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits Vir2us from making misrepresentations about its participation in any privacy or security program sponsored by a government or any self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the APEC CBPR system.
Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires acknowledgment of the order and dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part III ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status and mandates that Vir2us submit an initial compliance report to the FTC. Part IV requires Vir2us to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order. Part V mandates that Vir2us make available to the FTC information or subsequent compliance reports, as requested. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Monique Einhorn, Attorney, (202) 326-2575, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 22, 2017), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 24, 2017. Write “In the Matter of SpyChatter, Inc., a corporation, File No. 162 3251” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of SpyChatter, Inc., a corporation, File No. 162 3251” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to SpyChatter, Inc. (“SpyChatter”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns alleged false representations that SpyChatter made to consumers concerning its participation in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) Cross Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) system. The APEC CBPR system is a voluntary, enforceable mechanism that certifies a company's compliance with the principles in the CBPR and facilitates privacy-respecting transfers of data amongst APEC member economies. The APEC CBPR system is based on nine data privacy principles: Preventing harm, notice, collection limitation, use choice, integrity, security safeguards, access and correction, and accountability. Companies that seek to participate in the APEC CBPR system must undergo a review by an APEC-recognized Accountability Agent, which certifies companies that meet the standards.
Companies under the FTC's jurisdiction are eligible to apply for APEC CBPR certification. The names of certified companies are posted on a public-facing Web site,
SpyChatter is an app that is designed to enable private messaging. According to the Commission's complaint, SpyChatter has set forth on its Web site,
The Commission's complaint alleges that SpyChatter falsely represented that it was a participant in the APEC CBPR system when, in fact, it never sought or obtained certification.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits SpyChatter from making misrepresentations about its participation in any privacy or security program sponsored by a government or any self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the APEC CBPR system.
Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires acknowledgment of the order and dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part III ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status and mandates that SpyChatter submit an initial compliance report to the FTC. Part IV requires SpyChatter to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order. Part V mandates that SpyChatter make available to the FTC information or subsequent compliance reports, as requested. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers
The program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
1. Susan North, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0001V.
2. Jaime Sanchez, El Monte, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0002V.
3. Marsha Mercier, Jacksonville, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0003V
4. James Cantwell on behalf of M. C., Deceased, Austin, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0004V.
5. Deborah Gilburn, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0005V.
6. Jacqueline Hendrickson and Ken Koprowski on behalf of C. J. H., Crystal River, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0006V.
7. Danielle Goddard on behalf of A. G., Queen Creek, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0007V.
8. Cathy Hesson on behalf of The Estate of Bernadette Sokol, Deceased, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0008V.
9. Roger Lamarre, Cranston, Rhode Island, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0010V.
10. Edith Marrero-Fuog, Parrish, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0011V.
11. Gregory Hooper, Ogdensburg, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0012V.
12. Thomas Prestia, Easton, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0013V.
13. Anthony Capasso, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0014V.
14. Robert Kirk Collier, Jr., Roseburg, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0016V.
15. Rita Rollins and Steve Rollins on behalf of M. R., Lavonia, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0017V.
16. Tanya Tucker, Clearwater, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0020V.
17. Daniel Monahan, Norwalk, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0021V.
18. Teresa Voors on behalf of W. V., Deceased, Farmington Hills, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0024V.
19. Sean Taylor, Bristol, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0025V.
20. Phineas Adam Turner on behalf of E. L. T., Grand Prairie, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0027V.
21. Ellen Snyder, Abington, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0028V.
22. Vanetta Parshall, East Rochester, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0029V.
23. Jacqueline Hill, Saginaw, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0030V.
24. Cynthia Dean, Ottawa, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0031V.
25. Brenda Vance, Milford, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0033V.
26. Alice Sorensen, Brooklyn, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0034V.
27. Tammy Gilbert, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0035V.
28. Dawn E. Amankwaa and Benjamin S. Andrews on behalf of B. M. A., Liverpool, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0036V.
29. Janice Ennen, Collinsville, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0039V.
30. Lashawn Johnson, Jacksonville, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0040V.
31. Donna Black, Stayton, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0042V.
32. Donna Kastl, Kansas City, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0043V.
33. Jacqueline Nicole Brasche on behalf of C. B., Taylorville, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0044V.
34. Alan B. Shepherd, London, Kentucky, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0045V.
35. Leanne Lewis, Cary, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0046V.
36. Angela Turner, Normangee, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0047V.
37. Julie Lynch, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0050V.
38. Coy Claude Fredell, Kings Mountain, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0051V.
39. Timothy Maxie on behalf of Connie Maxie, Deceased, Chillicothe, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0053V.
40. Kristy Boone on behalf of Kaylee Anne Boone, Deceased, Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0054V.
41. Ryan Horton and Karin Jonch-Clausen on behalf of L.E.H., Deceased, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0055V.
42. Donna Nault, Fort Scott, Kansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0056V.
43. Dale MacLaughlin, Clayton, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0057V.
44. Teresa Voors on behalf of W.V., Farmington Hills, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0058V.
45. Lisa Johnson, Charlotte, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0059V.
46. Arthur Binkowitz, West Palm Beach, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0061V.
47. Teresa Turko, Schertz, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0062V.
48. Patricia Heckman, Onalaska, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0063V.
49. Anthony Rizzo, Middletown, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0066V.
50. Mary Mallory, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0068V.
51. Jennifer Curtis, Rancho Cucamonga, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0069V.
52. Rita Pingel, Perryville, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0070V.
53. Amanda Samuels, Wellesley, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0071V.
54. Deborah Kent, Hart, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0073V.
55. Mark A. Soprano, Cortland, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0074V.
56. Richard R. Bernard, Orlando, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0076V.
57. Alfreda Aberto and Wilber Lopez on behalf of J.L.A., Sacramento, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0077V.
58. Stanley K. Paul, Susanville, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0078V.
59. Luke Caredio and Jamielee Caredio on behalf of D.C., San Mateo, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0079V.
60. Glendella May, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0081V.
61. Michael Lauer, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0082V.
62. Yvonnda D. Fykerud, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0084V.
63. Lauren Shaw, Jacksonville, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0085V.
64. Janice Kilpatrick, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0089V.
65. Raymond Flacke, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0090V.
66. Deborah Easterbrook, Mankato, Minnesota, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0091V.
67. Sheryl Longin, Los Angeles, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0093V.
68. Dolores Thompson, St. Petersburg, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0098V.
69. Elizabeth A. Harris, North Kansas City, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0099V.
70. Eugenio Paulo De Souza, Ringoes, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0100V.
71. Cheryl Garvin, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0101V.
72. Maria Peters, O'Fallon, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0102V.
73. Devora Stamm, Lakewood, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0103V.
74. Willis J. DeNuto on behalf of Andrea DeNuto, Deceased, Lyndhurst, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0104V.
75. Tracy Gambrill and Kevin Gambrill on behalf of R. G., Little Rock, Arkansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0105V.
76. Marcia Miller, Mankato, Minnesota, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0106V.
77. Willie D. Webb, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0107V.
78. Jeffrey Caputo, Lima, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0108V.
79. Frances Ruzicka, Piermont, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0109V.
80. Mary M. Schoeller, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0111V.
81. Jean Lallensack, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0112V.
82. Tiffany Cooper, Ludowici, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0114V.
83. Gloria Harman, Lake Worth, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0116V.
84. Harriet Paul, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0117V.
85. Jennifer Blankenship, Lincoln, Nebraska, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0118V.
86. Angela Chambers, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0120V.
87. Cindy Vinck, Evanston, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0121V.
88. Chelsea Bossenbroek, Westmont, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0122V.
89. Jennifer L. Good, Champaign, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0124V.
90. Elizabeth Harrison, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0126V.
91. Bonita Rosner, Kenosha, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0127V.
92. Gloria Aulston, Baltimore, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0128V.
93. William Branson, Hudson, Wyoming, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0131V.
94. Steve Helms, Vinton, Iowa, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0132V.
95. Joanna Oakley, Lawrenceville, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0133V.
96. Kellie Duncan, Kenosha, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0134V.
97. Gary Naylor, Palmdale, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0135V.
98. Lois Oliver, Burlington, Kentucky, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0136V.
99. Tanya Mckoy, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0138V.
100. Judith Celic, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0139V.
101. Irving Kodimer, Woodland Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0140V.
102. Michael Howells, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0142V.
103. Valeria Hernandez on behalf of S. H., Whittier, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0143V.
104. Kyle James Wetterling, Newton, Iowa, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0144V.
105. Debra Vizzi, Novi, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0145V.
106. Shanna Kristine Brown, Birmingham, Alabama, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0146V.
107. Mark Bracken and Jacki Bracken on behalf of J. B., Gilbert, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0147V.
108. Jeffrey Heaney, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0148V.
109. Rodney McDonald, Brooklyn, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0149V.
110. John Hopper, Joplin, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0150V.
111. Laurence Lewis, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0151V.
112. Dennis Schaeffer, Hanover, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 17-0152V.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) will hold a meeting that will be open to the public. Information about SACHRP and the full meeting agenda will be posted on the SACHRP Web site at:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, March 16, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
Fishers Lane Conference Center, Terrace Level, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Julia Gorey, J.D., Executive Director, SACHRP; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 240-453-8141; fax: 240-453-6909; email address:
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.
The Subpart A Subcommittee (SAS) was established by SACHRP in October 2006 and is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP regarding the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment.
The Subcommittee on Harmonization (SOH) was established by SACHRP at its July 2009 meeting and charged with identifying and prioritizing areas in which regulations and/or guidelines for human subjects research adopted by various agencies or offices within HHS would benefit from harmonization, consistency, clarity, simplification and/or coordination. The SACHRP meeting will open to the public at 8:30 a.m., on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, followed by opening remarks from Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director of OHRP and Executive Secretary of SACHRP, and Dr. Stephen Rosenfeld, SACHRP Chair. Dr. Menikoff will then lead a discussion focusing on selected sections of the new Common Rule, which was published January 19, 2017, with an effective date of January 19, 2018 (see
The SOH will present their recommendations for considerations of the new Common Rule's compliance dates and transition provisions, as well as for the interpretation and implementation of the new broad consent provision. The SAS will discuss their report on the interpretation of the new exemption involving benign behavioral interventions.
The Wednesday meeting will adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m.
The Thursday, March 16, meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. with recommendations from the SOH on the FDA Draft Guidance “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices,” issued July 27, 2016. SOH will also present recommendations on the return of incidental findings to research subjects. The SAS will present recommendations surrounding the new Common Rule's expedited review requirements.
The meeting will adjourn at 4:30 p.m. March 16, 2017. Time for public comment sessions will be allotted both days. Note that public comment must be relevant to issues being addressed by the SACHRP.
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify one of the designated SACHRP points of contact at the address/phone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. On-site registration is required for participation in the live public comment session. Individuals who would like to submit written statements as public comment should email or fax their comments to SACHRP at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), the authorities vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Section 2054 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255), as amended, to consult with relevant agencies and stakeholders and to receive recommendations with respect to enhancements to the clinical trial registry data bank under section 402(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)), including with respect to usability, functionality, and search capability.
These authorities may be redelegated. Exercise of this authority shall be in accordance with established policies, procedures, guidelines, and regulations as prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority to submit reports to Congress, and promulgate regulations.
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
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Comments Due Date: March 30, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of additional public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Anna Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing
HUD will submit the proposed information collection package to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
Like the previous surveys, the 2017 AHS will collect “core” data on subjects, such as the amount and types of changes in the housing inventory, the physical condition of the housing inventory, the characteristics of the occupants, housing costs for owners and renters, the persons eligible for and beneficiaries of assisted housing, remodeling and repair frequency, reasons for moving, the number and characteristics of vacancies, and characteristics of resident's neighborhood.
In addition to the “core” data, HUD plans to collect “topical” data on disaster and emergency preparedness, how people commute to work and commuting costs, the causes and effects of evictions, and recent delinquent payments and notices for mortgage, rent, or utility bills.
The AHS national longitudinal sample consists of approximately 90,800 housing units, and includes oversample from the 15 largest metropolitan areas, approximately 5,200 HUD-assisted housing units, and approximately 6,000 “bridge sample” housing units. The bridge sample will allow for estimation of longitudinal changes between 2013, 2015, when the AHS introduced a new sample, and 2017. The bridge sample will also facilitate analyses of the impact of survey design changes on 2017 AHS estimates. In addition to the national longitudinal sample, HUD plans to conduct 10 metropolitan area samples, each with approximately 3,000 housing units (for a total of approximately 30,000 metropolitan area housing units).
To help reduce respondent burden on households in the longitudinal sample, the 2017 AHS will make use of dependent interviewing techniques, which will decrease the number of questions asked.
Policy analysts, program managers, budget analysts, and Congressional staff use AHS data to advise executive and legislative branches about housing conditions and the suitability of public policy initiatives. Academic researchers and private organizations also use AHS data in efforts of specific interest and concern to their respective communities.
HUD needs the AHS data for two important uses.
1. With the data, policy analysts can monitor the interaction among housing needs, demand and supply, as well as changes in housing conditions and costs, to aid in the development of housing policies and the design of housing programs appropriate for different target groups, such as first-time home buyers and the elderly.
2. With the data, HUD can evaluate, monitor, and design HUD programs to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
This notice solicits comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG). The TAMWG is a Federal advisory committee that affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.
Joseph C. Polos, by mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; by telephone at 707-822-7201; or by email at
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group will hold a meeting on March 20-21, 2017. The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the TMC. The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in
Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Joseph Polos up to 7 days after the meeting.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Joseph Polos (see
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes an amendment to the Three Affiliated Tribes' Alcoholic Beverages Control Law (Law). The amended Law supersedes the existing Three Affiliated Tribes Alcoholic Beverages Control Law, first enacted by the Three Affiliated Tribes in 1986, with an amendment last published in the
This Law shall become effective March 30, 2017.
Mr. Todd Gravelle, Supervisory Tribal Operations Specialist, Great Plains Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 115 Fourth Avenue South East, Suite 400, Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401 Telephone: (605) 226-7376, Fax: (605) 226-7379.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
The Three Affiliated Tribes' Alcoholic Beverages Control Law, as amended, shall read as follows:
In this Ordinance, (1) “Alcohol” shall mean neutral spirits distilled at or above 190° proof, whether or not such product is subsequently reduced, for nonindustrial use.
(2) “Alcoholic beverages” shall mean any liquid suitable for drinking by human beings, which contains one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume.
(3) “Beer” shall mean any malt beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume.
(4) “Distilled spirits” shall mean any alcoholic beverage that is not beer, wine, sparkling wine or alcohol.
(5) “Licensed premises” means the premises on which beer, liquor, or alcoholic beverages are normally sold or dispensed and shall be delineated by
(6) “Liquor” shall mean any alcoholic beverage except beer.
(7) “On-Sale” shall mean the sale of any alcoholic beverage for consumption only upon the premises where sold.
(8) “Off-Sale” shall mean the sale of any alcoholic beverage for consumption off the premises where sold.
(9) “Sale” shall mean the transfer of bottled or canned alcoholic beverage for currency exchange of title to such alcoholic beverages.
(10) “Sparkling wine” shall mean wine made effervescent with carbon dioxide.
(11) “Transport” shall mean the introduction of alcoholic beverages onto the Fort Berthold Reservation by any means of conveyance for the purpose of sale, or distribution, to any licensed retailer.
(12) “Tribal Council” shall mean the governing body of the Three Affiliated Tribes.
(13) “Wine” shall mean the alcoholic beverage obtained by fermentation of agricultural products containing natural or added sugar or such beverage fortified with brandy and containing not more than twenty-four percent alcohol by volume.
(14) The terms, “the provisions of this Ordinance” as provided in this Ordinance, or similar terms, shall include all rules and regulations established by the Tribal Legal Department, and approved by Council, to aid in the administration or enforcement of this Ordinance.
This Ordinance shall be cited as the “Three Affiliated Tribes Alcoholic Beverages Control Law” and, pursuant to the constitutional and inherent sovereignty of the Three Affiliated Tribes, along with the authority delegated to the Tribe by the Congress of the United States to regulate the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the territory of the Tribe, shall be exercised for the purpose of protecting the welfare, health, peace, morals and safety of all people residing on the Fort Berthold Reservation. All the provisions of this Ordinance shall be liberally construed to accomplish the above declared purpose. It is the Three Affiliated Tribes' declared intent in enacting this Ordinance to prohibit all traffic in alcoholic beverages on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation except to the extent allowed and permitted under the express terms of this Ordinance.
Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to apply to the following articles, when they are unfit for beverages purposes:
(1) Denatured alcohol produced and used pursuant to acts of Congress, and the regulations thereunder;
(2) Patent, propriety, medical, pharmaceutical, antiseptic, and toilet preparations;
(3) Flavoring extracts, syrups, and food products; nor to the manufacture or sale of said articles containing alcohol. This title shall not apply to wines delivered to priests, rabbis, and ministers for sacramental use.
It shall be unlawful to manufacture for sale, sell, offer, or keep for sale, or transport alcoholic beverages on the Fort Berthold Reservation except upon the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions specified in this Ordinance.
No person shall engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages at retail without first securing an appropriate license from the Three Affiliated Tribes as provided herein.
No retail license shall be issued to any person unless the applicant shall file a sworn application, accompanied by the required fee, showing the following qualifications:
(1) The applicant, other than corporate, must be a legal resident of the United States and a resident of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and be a person of good moral character.
(2) If the applicant is a corporation then the manager of the licensed premises and its officers, directors and stockholders must be legal residents of the United States and persons of good moral character. Corporate applicants must also be properly registered with the Three Affiliated Tribes as entitled to do business on the Fort Berthold Reservation.
(3) The applicant or manager must not have been convicted of an offense determined by the Three Affiliated Tribes to have a direct bearing upon an applicant's or manager's ability to serve the reservation public as a licensed alcoholic beverage retailer.
(4) The Three Affiliated Tribes may also require the applicant to set forth such other information in this application as is necessary to enable them to determine if a license should be granted.
The fee for an annual on and off sale liquor license shall be set by tribal resolution at not less than two hundred dollars nor more than two thousand and one hundred dollars. The fee for an annual on and off sale beer license shall be set by tribal resolution at not less than fifty dollars nor more than six hundred dollars.
The Three Affiliated Tribes may by special permit authorize an on sale, off sale, or on or off sale alcoholic beverage licensee to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages at special events on licensed premises as may be designated by the permit. A fee for the special permit may be set by tribal resolution at not more than twenty-five dollars. The permit shall not be valid for a period greater than three consecutive days.
A person may not dispense or permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on a licensed premises between the hours of two a.m. and twelve noon on Sundays, between the hours of two a.m. and eight a.m. on all other days of the week, or on Christmas Day or after six p.m. on Christmas Eve. In addition a person may not provide off-sale after one a.m. on Thanksgiving Day.
No licensee shall dispense alcoholic beverages to a person under twenty-one years of age or permit such person to remain on the licensed premises while alcoholic beverages are being sold or displayed. Any person under twenty-one years of age may remain in a restaurant where alcoholic beverages are being sold if the restaurant is separated from the room in which alcoholic beverages are opened or mixed, if gross sales of food are at least equal to gross sales of alcoholic beverages which are consumed in the dining area or if (1) employed by the restaurant as a food waiter, food waitress, busboy, or busgirl under the direct supervision of a person twenty-one or more years of age, and not engaged in the sale, dispensing, delivery, or consumption of alcoholic beverages, or (2) if the person is a law enforcement officer entering the premises in the performance of official duty. Any premises where alcoholic beverages are sold may employ persons from eighteen to twenty-one years of age to work in the capacity of musicians
No person shall engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages at wholesale without first securing an appropriate license from the Three Affiliated Tribes as provided herein. Such a license shall allow sale only to licensed retailers.
No such license shall be issued unless the applicant shall file a sworn application, accompanied by the required fee, showing the following qualifications:
(1) Applicant other than corporate must be a legal resident of the United States and a person of good moral character. If the applicant is a corporation, the manager of the licensed premises must be a citizen of the United States and a person of good moral character, and the officers, directors and stockholders must be legal residents of the United States and persons of good moral character. Corporate applicants must also be registered with the Three Affiliated Tribes as entitled to do business on the Fort Berthold Reservation.
(2) The Tribal Business Council may require the applicant to set forth such other information as is necessary to enable it to determine if a license should be granted.
The fee for an annual wholesale license shall be set by tribal resolution at not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand and one hundred dollars.
No person shall engage in the transport for sale, or distribution of alcoholic beverages on the Fort Berthold Reservation without first securing an appropriate license from the Three Affiliated Tribes as provided herein. Such a license shall allow the delivery, or distribution, of alcoholic beverages only to licensed retailers.
No such license shall be issued unless the applicant shall file a sworn application, accompanied by the required fee showing the following qualifications:
(1) An Applicant other than corperate must be a legal resident of the United States and a person of good moral character. If the applicant is a corporation, the manager of the licensed premises must be a citizen of the United States and a person of good moral character, and the officers, directors and stockholders must be legal residents of the United States and persons of good moral character. Corporate applicants must also be registered with the Three Affiliated Tribes as entitled to do business on the Fort Berthold Reservation.
(2) The Tribal Council may require the applicant to set forth such other information as is necessary to enable it to determine if a license should be granted.
The fee for an annual transport license shall be set by tribal resolution at not less than two hundred dollars and no more than one thousand and one hundred dollars.
(1) There is hereby imposed a tax of seven percent (7%) on the gross receipts of all sales at retail of alcoholic beverages within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
(2) Licensed alcoholic beverage retailers shall be liable for the collection and remittance of the tax on the retail sale price of alcoholic beverages. Licensed alcoholic beverage retailers shall keep accurate records of all sales of alcoholic beverages and shall file monthly returns with the Three Affiliated Tribes' Tax Commission, on such forms as the Tax Commission may require, showing the quantity and the price of alcoholic beverages sold at retail, along with the amount of the tax due and other information which the department may reasonably require. Said monthly return shall be transmitted to the Tax Commission no later than 30 days after the month covered by the return. The tax due for that month shall be remitted together with the monthly return.
(3) Licensed alcoholic beverage retailers shall keep, in current and available form on the licensed premises, records of all purchases, sales, and quantities on hand and such other information as the Tax Commission may reasonably require. The Tax Commission may require from any licensee any reports he shall prescribe, and he may require the production of any book, record, document, invoice, and voucher kept, maintained, received, or issued by any such licensee in connection with his business, which in the judgment of the Tax Commission may be necessary to administer and discharge his duties, to secure the maximum of revenue to be paid, and to carry out the provisions of law. If default is made, or if any such licensee fails or refuses to furnish any other reports or information referred to upon request therefor, the Tax Commission may enter the premises of such licensee where the records are kept and make such examination as is necessary to compile the required report. The cost of such examination shall be paid by the licensee whose reports are in default.
Any person who transports, sells or ships alcoholic beverages for sale or distribution within this Reservation shall forward to the Tax Commission such a report as the Tax Commission shall require, giving the name and address of the licensee or person making the purchase, the quantity and kind of alcoholic beverages sold, the manner of delivery and such other information as the Tax Commission requires.
The provisions of the Tribal Tax Code of the Three Affiliated Tribes pertaining to all aspects of the administration and enforcement of Tribal taxes shall govern the administration and enforcement of the tax on retail sales of alcoholic beverages imposed herein.
Anyone violating this ordinance shall be subject to civil penalties and/or suspension or revocation of their tribal license according to a schedule of penalties established by the Tribal Legal Department and approved for publication by the Tribal Business Council.
Anyone having information that a person has violated any provisions of this ordinance may file with the Tribal Legal Department an affidavit specifically setting forth such violation. Upon receipt of such affidavit, the Legal Department shall set the matter for hearing not later than the next regular meeting of the Tribal Council. A copy of the affidavit and notice of hearing shall be mailed to the affected person by registered mail not less than five days before such hearing. A record of such
If after such hearing the Tribal Council finds the violation set forth in the affidavit has been proved by the evidence, an order shall be served on the licensee revoking or suspending his license for a period of time and imposing such other civil penalties as are consistent with a policy established by the Tribal Legal Department and approved by the Tribal Business Council. Such action may be appealed to the Tribal Court which shall have jurisdiction to either vacate, remand or modify the Tribal Council's action, except that the order revoking or suspending the license, or imposing other penalties shall be effective while the appeal is pending.
The Tribal Business Council may impose such other civil penalties, according to a policy established by the Tribal Legal Department and approved by the Tribal Business Council, for any violation of this Ordinance including the failure to apply for or to possess the appropriate tribal license. Such tribal action imposing such penalties on any person may be appealed to Tribal Court, which shall have jurisdiction to either vacate, remand or modify the Tribal Council's action except that the imposition of the penalties shall be effective while the appeal is pending.
The Tribal Chairman, or his designee, at a hearing under this Ordinance shall have the power to administer oaths and subpoena and examine witnesses.
The Tribal Court, in any matter heard on appeal under this ordinance, shall give substantial weight to the findings of fact made by the Tribal Business Council.
The jurisdiction of the Tribal Council and Tribal Court under this Chapter shall be exclusive. Except as authorized in this Chapter with respect to the Tribal Court's jurisdiction to hear appeals under sections 3 and 4, nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity from suit.
Every licensee under this Ordinance, as a condition of the grant of a tribal license, consents to the inspection of his premises, including all buildings, safes, cabinets, lockers and storerooms thereon. Such inspection shall be available upon the demand of the Tribal Tax Commission. These inspections shall be conducted by a duly appointed designee of the Tribal Tax Commission, or tribal or federal police. All books and records dealing with the sale or ownership of alcoholic beverages shall be open for inspection purposes by the duly authorized tribal authorities.
Every spouse, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person who is injured by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of intoxication, shall have a right of action in Tribal Court against any person who caused such intoxication by disposing, selling, bartering, or giving away alcoholic beverages for all damages sustained and in the event death ensues the survivors of the decedent may prosecute such an action in their own name.
(1) Every application for a license under this Ordinance, unless exempted by the Tribal Business Council, must be accompanied by a bond, which shall become operative and effective upon the issuance of a license unless the licensee already has a continuing bond in force. The bond shall be in the amount of $10,000.00 and must be in a form approved by the Tribal Business Council and it shall be conditioned that the licensee will faithfully obey and abide by all the provisions of this Ordinance and all existing laws relating to the conduct of its business and will promptly pay to the Three Affiliated Tribes when due all license fees payable by him under the provisions of this Ordinance and also any costs and penalties assessed against him in any determination that he violated the terms of this Ordinance.
(2) All bonds required by this Ordinance shall be with a corporate surety as surety, or shall be by cash deposit. If said bond is placed by cash, it shall be kept in a separate escrow account with a bank.
If any section of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is held to be invalid or inapplicable for any cause whatsoever, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect as though no part thereof had been declared invalid.
The Tribal Business Council finds that this Ordinance complies with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 1161.
All prior ordinances and resolutions or provisions thereof that are inconsistent with any provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent and extension of time.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, as amended (ANILCA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Yukon Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Federal authorizations to construct and operate an approximately 211-mile long industrial access road in the southern Brooks Range foothills of Alaska, originating at the Dalton Highway in the vicinity of Prospect Creek and terminating at the Ambler Mining District, which would not be open for public access. By this notice, the BLM is announcing the beginning of the EIS scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues, and is extending the periods to complete the Draft and Final EIS, in accordance with ANILCA section 1104(e).
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS, and extends completion dates for the Draft and Final EIS. Comments on relevant issues that will influence the scope of the EIS for the proposed Ambler Road project may be submitted in writing until May 30, 2017. The BLM will provide opportunities for public participation during scoping meetings with appropriate public notice. The date(s) and location(s) of scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers, and the BLM ePlanning Web site at:
In order to be considered for the Draft EIS, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 90-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public scoping meeting, whichever is later. The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation upon publication of the Draft EIS, including public meetings and a public comment period. If required, ANILCA section 810 subsistence hearings will be held concurrently with the Draft EIS public involvement meetings. Federal, State or local agencies, or tribes who are interested in serving as a cooperating agency for the development of the EIS are asked to submit such requests to the BLM.
The dates for completion of the Draft EIS and Final EIS are extended to March 29, 2019, and December 30, 2019, respectively.
You may submit comments on issues related to the proposed project by any of the following methods:
• email:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the BLM Alaska Public Room, Fairbanks District Office, 222 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709; and at the BLM Alaska Public Information Center, Alaska State Office, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99513.
Tim LaMarr; Central Yukon Field Office Manager, 907-474-2356,
On November 24, 2015, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) submitted a consolidated application pursuant to ANILCA sections 201(4)(c) and 1104(c) with the BLM, National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The application requests the issuance of right-of-way grants, permits for constructing bridges over navigable waters and for filling waters of the United States, and related authorizations associated with the proposed construction and operation of an approximately 211-mile long all-season industrial access road. The proposed controlled access road is named the Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project.
After submission of supplemental information on June 30, 2016, the application was determined to be complete. The proposed access road, if approved, would be in conformance with the BLM's 1991 Utility Corridor Resource Management Plan and the 2008 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Resource Management Plan. Accordingly, no plan amendment would be required. In accordance with 43 CFR 36.5(d)(1), the filing date of the application was revised to June 30, 2016. BLM is the lead Federal agency in the development of an EIS for the proposed project. The list of cooperating agencies in the development of the EIS currently includes the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the State of Alaska.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.4, the EIS is being prepared for the purpose of authorizing a BLM right-of-way grant and related authorizations to AIDEA for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed road, as well as required permits from the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The proposed road would extend from the Dalton Highway in the vicinity of Prospect Creek to the Ambler Mining District in the Kobuk Valley of Northwest Alaska, which is located approximately 180 miles north of Fairbanks in the southern Brooks Range foothills of Alaska. The road would begin on BLM-managed lands within the Dalton Highway Utility Corridor would continue for approximately 18 miles. The road would then extend across State land and lands privately owned by Alaska Native corporations, and isolated BLM-managed parcels. The proposed road would cross roughly 24 miles of BLM-managed lands in total. In addition, approximately 26 miles of the proposed road would cross the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve, a conservation system unit (CSU) established by ANILCA section 201(4). This section of ANILCA specifically directs the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the road through the Preserve but does not address other public lands.
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and to guide the process for developing the EIS. At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary issues for evaluation in the EIS:
The BLM will identify, analyze, and require mitigation, as appropriate, to address the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources from the approval of this project. Mitigation may include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time, and compensatory mitigation, and may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape-scale.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Public Law 89-665, as amended by Public Law 96-515, and as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM intends to coordinate the development of the EIS with the National Park Service, which, in accordance with ANILCA section 201(4)(d), is developing a separate environmental and economic analysis solely for the purpose of determining the most desirable route for that portion of the proposed road right-of-way that would cross Gates of the Arctic National Preserve.
The BLM will consult with affected Federally Recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis, and with affected Alaska Native corporations, in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Native concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given appropriate consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed project, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be asked by the BLM to participate in the development of the EIS as cooperating agencies.
Pursuant to ANILCA section 1104(e), a Draft EIS must be completed within nine months of the application filing date, and the Final EIS must be completed within one year of the application filing date, unless these periods are extended for good cause by the lead Federal agency. Due to the size and complexity of the proposed project, multiple land managers along the approximately 211-mile route, and the BLM's commitment to work with several relatively isolated rural communities potentially affected by the proposed project, an extension of the timeline is necessary to meet the intent and purpose of NEPA and provide appropriate public involvement. Accordingly, the date for completion of the Draft EIS is extended to March 29, 2019, and the date for completion of the Final EIS is extended to December 30, 2019.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of extension of time.
The time for completion of the draft and final environmental and economic analysis is being extended.
The date for completion of the draft environmental and economic analysis (EEA) is extended to March 29, 2019, and completion of the final EEA is extended to December 30, 2019.
Superintendent, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, 4175 Geist Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709.
Greg Dudgeon, Superintendent, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, 4175 Geist Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709. Telephone: 907-457-5752. Email:
An application for a right-of-way (ROW) across the Western (Kobuk River) unit of Gates of the Arctic National Preserve has been submitted by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to the National Park Service, pursuant to section 201(4) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. 410hh(4). That section requires the preparation of an environmental and economic analysis (EEA), and that the final EEA be completed within one year and the draft EEA be completed within nine months of the receipt of an application for such ROW. That analysis, however, is subject to the procedures set out in 16 U.S.C. 3164(e) and implemented by 43 CFR 36.6, which allow for extension of this time for completion of the draft and final EEA if additional time is determined to be necessary.
An application for a ROW was submitted by the AIDEA on November 25, 2015. The application was determined to be sufficient after submission of supplemental information on June 30, 2016, which was deemed the filing date of the application in accordance with 43 CFR 36.5(d)(1). The draft EEA is currently due nine months from that filing date, on March 30, 2017. The final EEA is currently due one year from that date, on June 30, 2017.
Although the segment of the proposed road within the National Preserve would be only 17 to 25 miles, the entire length of the proposed road would be 221 miles. For the road to be constructed, authorizations are also needed from other federal agencies. These include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (wetlands permit) and the Bureau of Land Management (right of way). An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for those authorizations, and is expected to take several years to complete. In order to properly coordinate the permitting actions among the several agencies, and to minimize the chance of conflicting route determinations for the road, it is necessary to have the timing of the EEA be in general harmony with that of the EIS. For that reason, additional time is needed for the completion of the EEA.
Accordingly, the date for completion of the draft EEA is extended to March 29, 2019, and the date for completion of the final EEA is extended to December 30, 2019.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Cook Inlet Planning Area Lease Sale 244.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announces the availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS) for the proposed Cook Inlet Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 244 (Cook Inlet Sale 244). This Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR 556.304(c).
With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, provides affected States the
Affected states may comment on the size, timing, and location of proposed Cook Inlet Sale 244 within 60 days following their receipt of the Proposed NOS. The Final NOS will be published in the
The Proposed NOS for Cook Inlet Sale 244 and a Proposed NOS Package containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Alaska OCS Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Ste. 500, Anchorage, Alaska 99508. Telephone: (907) 334-5200. The Proposed NOS and Proposed NOS Package also are available on BOEM's Web site at
30-day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations at 30 CFR part 250,
You must submit comments by March 30, 2017.
Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email (
• Electronically go to
• Email
Nicole Mason, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1607, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to
In addition to the general rulemaking authority of the OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334, section 301(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 30 U.S.C. 1751(a), grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out FOGRMA's provisions. While the majority of FOGRMA is directed to royalty collection and enforcement, some provisions apply to offshore operations. For example, section 108 of FOGRMA, 30 U.S.C. 1718, grants the Secretary broad authority to inspect lease sites for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance with the mineral leasing laws. Section 109(c)(2) and (d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 1719(c)(2) and (d)(1), impose substantial civil penalties for failure to permit lawful inspections and for knowing or willful preparation or submission of false, inaccurate, or misleading reports, records, or other information. Because the Secretary has delegated some of the authority under FOGRMA to BSEE, 30 U.S.C. 1751 is included as additional authority for these requirements.
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's implementing policy, BSEE is required to charge fees for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those which accrue to the public at large. Applications for permits to drill are subject to cost recovery, and BSEE regulations specify a service fee for this request.
This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to BSEE. The regulations at 30 CFR part 250 stipulates the various requirements that must be submitted with forms BSEE-0123, Application for Permit to Drill (APD), Revised APD, and BSEE-0123S, Supplemental APD Information Sheet. The forms and the numerous submittals included with them are the subject of this collection. There are no changes being made to the forms with this ICR submission. This request also covers any related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide
Most responses are mandatory, while some are required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. BSEE will protect any confidential commercial or proprietary information according to section 26 of OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1352); the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552); and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), and according to 30 CFR 250.197,
BSEE uses the information from forms BSEE-0123 and BSEE-0123s to ensure safe drilling operations and to protect the human, marine, and coastal environment. Among other things, BSEE specifically uses the information to ensure: The drilling unit is fit for the intended purpose; the lessee or operator will not encounter geologic conditions that present a hazard to operations; equipment is maintained in a state of readiness and meets safety standards; each drilling crew is properly trained and able to promptly perform well-control activities at any time during well operations; compliance with safety standards; and the current regulations will provide for safe and proper field or reservoir development, resource evaluation, conservation, protection of correlative rights, safety, and environmental protection. We also review well records to ascertain whether drilling operations have encountered hydrocarbons or H2S and to ensure that H2S detection equipment, personnel protective equipment, and training of the crew are adequate for safe operations in zones known to contain H2S and zones where the presence of H2S is unknown.
Also, we use the information to determine the conditions of a drilling site to avoid hazards inherent in drilling operations. Specifically, we use the information to evaluate the adequacy of a lessee's or operator's plan and equipment for drilling, sidetracking, or deepening operations. This includes the adequacy of the proposed casing design, casing setting depths, drilling fluid (mud) programs, cementing programs, and BOP systems to ascertain that the proposed operations will be conducted in an operationally safe manner that provides adequate protection for the environment. The BSEE also reviews the information to ensure conformance with specific provisions of the lease. In addition, except for proprietary data, BSEE is required by the OCS Lands Act to make available to the public certain information submitted on Forms BSEE-0123 and -0123S. The information on the forms is as follows:
[
To comply with the public consultation process, on September 22, 2016, we published a
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective January 8, 2016, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Titan Tire Corporation of Des Moines, Iowa (“Titan”) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“USW”). The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India and Sri Lanka were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and that imports of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India were not dumped within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on February 23, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4669 (February 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Justice Management Division has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 30, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lubna Shirazi, Office of Information Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
The National Science Board (NSB), pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1864(e) (2)), hereby gives notice that the NSB has updated its delegation of authority to the NSF Director to make awards. The current delegation of authority is presented in the following resolution, adopted by the NSB at its meeting on February 22, 2017.
(1) The Director of the National Science Foundation may make no award involving an anticipated average annual amount of the greater of either 1 percent or more of the awarding Directorate's or Office's prior year current plan
(2) The Director may make no award from the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account without the prior approval of the Board.
(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2) or by special resolution of the Board, the Board delegates to the Director authority to make any award within the authority of NSF.
(4) When the Board approves an award, the Director may subsequently amend the award to change the expiration date of the award and/or to commit additional sums, not to exceed the lesser of 10 million dollars or 20 percent of the amount specified in the Board resolution. In the case of procurements, when the Board approves or authorizes the Director to make an award and no amount is specified in the Board resolution, the Director may subsequently amend the award to change the expiration date of the award and/or to commit additional sums not to exceed the lesser of 10 million dollars or 20 percent of the contract ceiling award amount.
(5) The Director will continue to consult with the National Science Board on programs which represent a significant, long-term investment, particularly those which will be funded as an ongoing NSF-wide activity or which involve substantive policy, interagency, or international issues.
(6) This delegation supersedes and replaces the delegation of award-approval authority adopted by the Board in February 2011 (
Ann Bushmiller,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 5 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.26, “Quality Group Classifications and Standards for Water-, Steam-, and Radioactive-Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants.” This guidance has been revised to update references to related NRC's guidance, to incorporate lessons learned from recent NRC reviews and regulatory activities, and to align the format and content of the guide with the current program guidance for RGs which was developed since Revision 4 of RG 1.26 was issued.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0091 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document, using the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Tuan Le, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-2297, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 5 of RG 1.26 was issued with a temporary identification as Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1314. This guidance has been revised to update references to related NRC guidance, to incorporate lessons learned from recent NRC reviews and regulatory activities, and to align the format and content of the guide with the current program guidance for regulatory guides (RGs) which was developed since Revision 4 of RG 1.26 was issued.
The DG-1314, was published in the
This regulatory guide is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Revision 5 of RG 1.26 describes a quality classification system related to specified national standards that may be used to determine quality standards acceptable to the NRC staff for satisfying General Design Criterion (GDC) 1, “Quality Standards and Records,” as set forth in appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to part 50 title 10 of the
This RG may be applied to applications for operating licenses, combined licenses, early site permits, and certified design rules docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final regulatory guide, as well as future applications submitted after the issuance of the regulatory guide. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in the Backfit Rule or be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants or potential applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by the Backfit Rule or the relevant issue finality provisions in part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from January 31, 2017 to February 13, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on February 14, 2017.
Comments must be filed March 30, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed May 1, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0058, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0058, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by May 1, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits Table 5.9-1 and Table 5.7-1 from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 UFSARs [Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports], and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. The TS changes do not represent any physical change to plant systems, structures, or components, or to procedures established for plant operation. As such, the initial conditions associated with accidents previously evaluated and plant systems credited for mitigating the consequences of accidents previously evaluated remain unchanged.
Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed license amendments would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits tables from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 UFSARs, and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. No physical change to plant systems, structures, or components, or the manner in which they are operated and maintained will result from the proposed license amendments.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits tables from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 UFSARs, and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. As such, the proposed changes do not involve changes to any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings nor do they adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The accident in question for this submittal is the FHA [fuel-handling accident]. The analysis for the FHA was recently reviewed and approved by the NRC for a license amendment request regarding use of alternative source term. The proposed amendment to TS 3.9.3 does not impact the assumed release pathway for the accident and has no effect on the probability of the occurrence of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter any plant equipment or operating practices in such a manner that the probability of an accident previously evaluated is increased. The consequences of [an] FHA inside the containment building with open penetration flow paths is bounded by the current FHA analyses and administrative controls, so the probability of an accident is not affected by the status of the penetration flow paths.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Allowing penetration flow paths to be open is not an initiator for any accident. The change impacts the containment requirements during refueling operations. The only accident which could result in significant releases of radioactivity during refueling is the FHA. The proposed change does not affect the design of containment, or alter plant operating practices such that it creates the possibility of a new or different
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated is not created.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
TS 3.9.3 closure requirements for containment penetrations ensure that the consequences of a postulated FHA inside containment during irradiated fuel handling activities are minimized. The LCO establishes containment closure requirements, which limit the potential escape paths for fission products by ensuring that there is at least one barrier to the release of radioactive material. The proposed change to allow any containment penetration flow path to be open during refueling operations under administrative controls does not significantly affect the expected dose consequences of [an] FHA because the limiting FHA does not credit containment building closure or filtration. The administrative controls provide assurance that closure of the applicable penetration flow paths will be accomplished and that the offsite dose consequences will be minimized in the event of [an] FHA inside the containment building.
Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the fire protection analysis results are not adversely affected. The proposed changes do not involve any accident, initiating event or component failure; thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed change does not adversely affect compliance with the maximum allowable reactor coolant system operational leakage rates specified in the Technical Specifications, and radiological material release source terms are not affected; thus, the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related system, structure, or component. The nonsafety-related instrumentation provides information for nonsafety-related display and does not control any safety-related feature. Thus, the proposed changes do not introduce a new failure mode. The proposed changes to the nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The upgrade in the qualification of the sensing lines and associated instrument isolation valves does not affect the function of the safety-related systems to which they are connected. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the fire protection analysis results are not adversely affected. The proposed changes do not involve any accident, initiating event or component failure; thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related system, structure, or component. The nonsafety-related instrumentation provides information for nonsafety-related display and does not control any safety-related feature. Thus, the proposed changes do not introduce a new failure mode. The proposed changes to the nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The upgrade in the qualification of the sensing lines and associated instrument isolation valves does not affect the function of the safety-related systems to which they are connected. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3 states that the allowance may only be used when there is a reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed. Since the proposed change does not significantly affect system Operability, the proposed change will have no significant effect on the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when a SR has not been previously performed if there is a reasonable expectation that the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3 while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS [Control Room Emergency Filtration System] equipped with
This system is not an accident initiator and therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and will continue to assure that these systems perform their design function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS system equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period at a frequency specified in the SFCP with a requirement to operate the system for 15 continuous minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system components are capable of performing their intended safety functions. The change does not create new failure modes or mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS systems equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period at a frequency specified in the SFCP with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a licensee-controlled document. Requirements to perform testing in accordance with applicable ASTM standards are retained in the TS as are requirements to perform surveillances of both new and stored diesel fuel oil. Future changes to the licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, tests and experiments,” to ensure that such changes do not result in more than a minimal increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the “clear and bright” test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to recognize more rigorous testing of water and sediment content. Relocating the specific ASTM standard references from the TS to a licensee-controlled document and allowing a water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil will not affect nor degrade the ability of the emergency diesel generators (DGs) to perform their specified safety function. Fuel oil quality will continue to meet ASTM requirements.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a licensee-controlled document. In addition, the “clear and bright” test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to allow a water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a licensee-controlled document. Instituting the proposed changes will continue to ensure the use of applicable ASTM standards to evaluate the quality of both new and stored fuel oil designated for use in the emergency DGs. Changes to the licensee-controlled document are performed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and ensures that diesel fuel oil testing is conducted such that there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety. The “clear and bright” test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to allow a water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not require physical changes to plant systems, structures, or components. The ABGTS is an accident mitigating feature. As such, ABGTS is not associated with a potential accident-initiating mechanism.
Therefore, the changes do not affect accident or transient initiation or consequences.
The proposed new condition for the ABGTS TS would permit a 24 hour period to restore an inoperable pressure boundary to operable status. The consequences of implementing the 24 hour completion time are reasonable based upon the low probability of a design basis accident occurring during this time period, and the availability of a functional ABGTS train to provide a filtered release to the environment (albeit with the potential for unfiltered leakage).
For cases where the ABSCE boundary is opened intermittently under administrative controls, appropriate compensatory measures would be required by the proposed TS to ensure the ABSCE boundary can be rapidly restored and the dose analysis assumptions can be supported. Based on the administrative controls required to rapidly restore an opened ABSCE boundary, the accident consequences do not cause an increase in dose above the applicable General Design Criteria, Standard Review Plan, or 10 CFR 100 limits. The plant operators will
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would not require any new or different accidents to be postulated and subsequently evaluated, since no changes are being made to the plant that would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. This license amendment request does not impact any plant systems that are potential accident initiators; nor does it have any significantly adverse impact on any accident mitigating systems.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design, including instrument setpoints, nor does it change the assumptions contained in the safety analyses. Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following accident conditions. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of these barriers will not be significantly degraded by the proposed changes. The proposed changes would allow the ABSCE boundary to be degraded for a limited period of time (24 hours). However, the probability of a design basis event occurring during this time is low. Additionally, a functional ABGTS train will be available to provide a filtered release to the environment (albeit with the potential for unfiltered leakage). When the ABSCE boundary is open on an intermittent basis, as permitted by the changes proposed in this amendment request, administrative controls would be in place to ensure that the integrity of the pressure boundaries could be rapidly restored and the dose analysis assumptions can be supported. Therefore, it is expected that the plant and the operators would maintain the ability to mitigate design basis events and none of the fission product barriers would be affected by this change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The requested action is a one-time extension to the performance interval of a limited number of TS surveillance requirements. The performance of these surveillances, or the extension of these surveillances, is not a precursor to an accident. Performing these surveillances or failing to perform these surveillances does not affect the probability of an accident. Therefore, the proposed delay in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
A delay in performing these surveillances does not result in a system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of this one-time extension request, the short period of additional time that the systems and components will be in service before the next performance of the surveillance will not affect the ability of those systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this action and the consequences remain consistent with previously evaluated accidents. On this basis, the proposed delay in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the one-time SR extensions being requested.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the performance interval of a limited number of TS surveillance requirements. Extending these surveillance requirements does not involve a modification of any TS limiting conditions for operation. Extending these SRs does not involve a change to any limit on accident consequences specified in the license or regulations. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in how accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in a methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in any operating procedure or process.
The instrumentation and components involved in this request have exhibited reliable operation based on current test results. The current testing includes power ascension testing and surveillance testing that either partially or fully exercised the components. Some components have been evaluated for extended testing intervals greater than 18 months but are set at WBN to an 18-month frequency.
Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems and components will be in service before the surveillances are next performed, as well as the operating experience that these surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is reasonable to conclude that the margins of safety associated with these SRs will not be affected by the requested extension.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 8, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 3, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, 2017.
The supplemental letters dated April 4, June 28, and November 30, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a safety evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 10, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 6, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated January 13, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide: withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing Regulatory Guide (RG) 5.18, “Limit of Error Concepts and Principles of Calculation in Nuclear Materials Control.” This RG is being withdrawn because the term “limit of error” is no longer used in the material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements in NRC's regulations, and therefore the RG 5.18 guidance is no longer needed. The MC&A requirements now include the term “standard error” in place of the term “limit of error.” The “standard error” term is used in evaluating the significance of an inventory difference (ID). The NRC has issued guidance separately for the term “standard error.”
The effective date of the withdrawal of RG 5.18 is February 28, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0059 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document, using the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Glenn Tuttle, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-7230, email:
The NRC staff issued RG 5.18 in January 1974 to provide guidance on meeting the material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements in part 70 of title 10 the
Guidance for calculating the “standard error” of the ID is found in NUREG-1065, “Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan Required for Low-Enriched Uranium Facilities” (ADAMS Accession No. ML031340288), NUREG-1280, “Standard Format and Content Acceptance Criteria for the Material Control and Accounting (MC&A) Reform Amendment” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13253A308), and NUREG/CR-5734, “Recommendations to the NRC on Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan Required for Low-Enriched Uranium Enrichment Facilities” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15120A354).
In addition, RG 5.18 endorsed the American National Standards Institute Standard N15.16-1974, “Limit of Error Concepts and Principles of Calculation in Nuclear Materials Control,” to provide guidance on the “limit of error” concept. However, this standard has been withdrawn from active status with no replacement.
The NRC is withdrawing RG 5.18 because it is no longer needed. Withdrawal of an RG means that the guide no longer provides useful information or has been superseded by other guidance, technological innovations, congressional actions, or other events. The withdrawal of RG 5.18 does not alter any prior or existing NRC licensing approval or the acceptability of licensee commitments to RG 5.18. Although RG 5.18 is withdrawn, current licensees may continue to use it, and withdrawal does not affect any existing licenses or agreements. However, 5.18 should not be used in future requests or applications for NRC licensing actions.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peace Corps.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before May 1, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
Estimated burden (hours) of the collection of information:
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revision of a currently approved collection, the Multi-State Plan Program External Review Intake Form, OPM Form 1840. Approval of the revised Multi-State Plan
Comments due by May 1, 2017.
Send or deliver comments to: Donna Lease Batdorf, Multi-State Plan Program National Healthcare Operations, Healthcare and Insurance, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3468, Washington, DC 20415.
FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT: For copies of this proposal, contact C.C. “Corky” Conyers, Ph.D., C.I.O. P.R.A./Forms Officer at (202) 606-0125, or via email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The previous collection (OMB No. 3206-0263) was published in the
1. Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility;
2. Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
3. Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of the appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from August 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Service and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No schedule A authorities to report during August 2016.
No schedule B authorities to report during August 2016.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during August 2016.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during August 2016.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from November 1, 2016 to November 30, 2016.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Service and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No schedule A authorities to report during November 2016.
No schedule B authorities to report during November 2016.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during November 2016.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during November 2016.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
The Presidio Trust.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with § 103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2017, at the Officers' Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco, California. The Presidio Trust was created by Congress in 1996 to manage approximately eighty percent of the former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in San Francisco, California, as a national site.
The purposes of this meeting are to take action on the minutes of previous Board meetings; to provide the Chairperson's report; to receive reports from Board members; to provide the Chief Executive Officer's report; to discuss the Presidio Trust's proposed goals for the next five years and to gather public input on those priorities and ways to achieve them; to receive a recommendation from the Presidio Institute Advisory Council on the use of Fort Scott; and to receive public comment.
Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact Mollie Matull at 415.561.5300 prior to March 16, 2017.
The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2017.
The meeting will be held at the Officers' Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco.
Nancy Koch, General Counsel, the Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129-0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's port-related fees at Rules 7015 and 7016(b) to eliminate prorated billing.
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
Currently, connectivity on Nasdaq's equity market under Rules 7015 and 7016(b) is prorated based on the day that it is activated, with the Nasdaq Member
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that elimination of prorated fees under Rules 7015 and 7016(b) is reasonable because it will reduce complexity and costs associated with the billing process, and will harmonize it with the process applied to Options Participants. As noted above, Members are currently able to choose when they want a new connectivity subscription to become effective and thus make the determination of when they wish to become fee liable. Members will continue to choose when they become fee liable under the proposed change, but now the Exchange will assess the full month's fee regardless of when the port is subscribed. Thus, Members must weigh whether subscription to a service covered by the rules for less than a full month is worth the full monthly fee.
The Exchange believes that elimination of prorated fees under Rules 7015 and 7016(b) is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all new subscribers to the port-related services under Rules 7015 and 7016(b), who are free to choose the date on which their subscription becomes active and thus fee liable. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed change is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because it will harmonize the billing process with that of NOM. Thus, the Exchange will apply the same process to both its Options Participants and Equities Members.
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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, although eliminating prorated fees for subscriptions under the rules may result in an increase in fees for new subscriptions to the extent a Member determines to subscribe to a service under Rules 7015 or 7016(b) on a day other than the first day of a given month, the Exchange notes that it is doing so to both simplify the process and harmonize it with the process applied to the Exchange's Options Participants. Moreover, Members may choose the day on which such services become effective and may therefore choose the first day of a month, which would result in no fee increase. Last, the proposed change does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-017 and should be submitted on or before March 21, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11 a.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Acting Chairman Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 715 (Types of Orders) and Rule 721 (Crossing Orders) to codify its Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) with Stock Order functionality.
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 codify functionality currently offered to members—
Currently, although the Exchange has rules on QCC Orders, those rules do not specify how the stock component of such transactions is to be executed. In particular, those rules do not describe how this process may be facilitated by the Exchange electronically communicating the stock component to a designated broker-dealer for execution on the behalf of the member. The proposed rule change will increase the transparency of this process to the benefit of members and other market participants that execute QCC Orders on the Exchange, including those that use the QCC with Stock Order functionality described in this filing.
A QCC Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade,
Since QCC Orders represent one component of a qualified contingent trade, each QCC Order must be paired with a stock transaction. When a member enters a QCC Order, the member is responsible for executing the associated stock component of the qualified contingent trade within a reasonable period of time after the QCC Order is executed. The Exchange conducts surveillance of members to ensure that members execute the stock component of a qualified contingent trade at or near the same time as the options component. While the Exchange does not specify how the member should go about executing the stock component of the trade, this process is often manual and is therefore a compliance risk for members if they do not execute the stock component within a reasonable time period.
Thus, the Exchange also offers QCC with Stock Orders that communicate the stock component of a qualified contingent trade to a broker-dealer for execution in connection with the execution of a QCC Order on the Exchange. This functionality reduces the compliance burden on members by providing an automated means of executing the stock component of a qualified contingent trade, and also provides benefits for the Exchange's surveillance by providing an audit trail for the execution of the stock component. QCC with Stock Orders can be entered by members through the Exchange's front-end order and execution management system (“PrecISE”), or through the member's Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) connection to the Exchange.
QCC with Stock Orders are available to members on a voluntary basis. Members that enter QCC with Stock Orders must enter into a brokerage agreement with one or more broker-dealers designated by the Exchange.
Members can enter QCC with Stock Orders with separate prices for the stock and options components, or with a net price for both.
When a member enters a QCC with Stock Order, a QCC Order is entered on the Exchange.
Furthermore, it is possible that the member will receive an execution for the QCC Order but not the stock component communicated to the broker-dealer. Once the stock component is communicated to the member's designated broker-dealer for execution, the broker-dealer is responsible for determining whether the stock component may be executed in accordance with all of the rules applicable to execution of such orders. Members that execute the options component of a qualified contingent trade entered as a QCC with Stock Order remain responsible for the execution of the stock component if they do not receive an execution from their designated broker-dealer.
Member submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts and 100,000 shares of stock with a net price of $101.50.
QCC Order is entered on the Exchange and executed at a price of $1.50.
Stock component is routed to member's designed broker-dealer at a price of $100.
The stock component is executed successfully, or the member remains responsible for executing the stock component elsewhere.
Member submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts at $1.99 and 100,000 shares of stock at $100.
QCC Order is entered on the Exchange and executed at a price of $1.99.
Stock component is routed to the member's designed broker-dealer at a price of $100.
The stock component is executed successfully, or the member remains responsible for executing the stock component elsewhere.
Member submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts at $1.01 and 100,000 shares of stock at $100.
QCC Order is entered on the Exchange at a price of $1.01 and is cancelled due to being at the same price as a Priority Customer order on the Exchange.
Because the QCC Order is not successfully executed the entire QCC with Stock Order is cancelled.
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(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it will increase transparency for members and other market participants with respect to how the Exchange facilitates the execution of the stock component of qualified contingent trades. The QCC with Stock Order is an optional piece of functionality offered to members to communicate the stock component of a qualified contingent trade to a designated broker-dealer for execution. Members that do not wish to use QCC with Stock functionality can enter QCC Orders on the Exchange and separately execute the stock component of their trades on another venue. Members can also build their own technology to electronically communicate the stock component of a qualified contingent trade to a broker-dealer for execution. QCC with Stock Orders reduce members' compliance burden because it allows for the automatic submission of the stock component of a qualified contingent trade in connection with the execution of the options component(s) as a QCC Order on the Exchange. It also provides benefits to the Exchange by establishing an audit trail for the execution of the stock component of such trades within a reasonable period of time after the execution of the QCC Order. Members remain responsible for ensuring the execution of the stock component of a qualified contingent trade. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that members have found the QCC with Stock Order functionality useful for ensuring compliance with the requirement that they execute the stock component of a qualified contingent trade within a reasonable period of time after executing the option component(s) on the Exchange as a QCC Order. The Exchange therefore believes that QCC with Stock Orders are designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend MIAX Options Rule 518, Complex Orders, to reflect a new price protection feature, the Complex MIAX Options Price Collar.
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.
In October 2016, the Exchange adopted rules governing the trading in, and detailing the functionality of the MIAX Options System
The MPC would prevent complex orders from automatically executing at potentially erroneous prices by establishing a price range outside of which a complex order will not be
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 518(c)(2)(ii) concerning prices at which complex orders are executed on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 518(c)(2)(ii) by adding to existing rule text that states that complex orders and quotes and are subject to the MPC price protection feature described in proposed Interpretations and Policies .05(f) of Rule 518.
Proposed Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05, Price and Other Protections, lists several features that protect and help Members manage their risk in the trading of complex orders on MIAX Options. Proposed new Interpretations and Policies .05(f) describes the MPC protection feature and its functionality.
The MPC price protection feature is an Exchange-wide price protection mechanism, meaning that it will apply to all options listed on the Exchange for which complex orders are traded.
The MPC Setting is $0.05 through the opposite cNBBO at the time of receipt.
A market order to buy 10 Strategies is received.
In order to account for changes in market conditions, volatility, outside events and other issues that affect the marketplace, the Exchange is proposing to make the MPC Setting configurable, subject to a minimum and maximum value that is expressed as a dollar amount. Proposed Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05(f)(2) would provide that the minimum MPC Setting is $0.00 and the maximum MPC Setting is $1.00, as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular. The MPC Setting will apply equally to all options listed on the Exchange in which complex orders are available, and will be the same dollar amount for both buy and sell transactions. The Exchange is proposing to adopt the MPC Setting as a specific dollar amount to be added to the cNBBO offer in the case of buy orders, and subtracted from the cNBBO bid in the case of sell orders.
The MPC price protection feature is similar to price protections that are currently operative on other exchanges,
Proposed Rule 518.05(f)(3) states that the MPC Price is established (i) upon receipt of the complex order or eQuote during free trading,
If the MPC Price is priced less aggressively than the limit price of the complex order or eQuote (
In addition to the proposed amendments relating to the MPC, proposed amended Rule 518(c)(4) is intended to address the situation in which a complex order is priced more aggressively than the icMBBO in the managed interest process. Specifically, should the Implied Complex MIAX Best Bid or Offer (“icMBBO”)
The cancellation in this circumstance would apply only if the MPC Price is priced less aggressively than the limit price because the System will not place complex orders on the Strategy Book at a price that is through the MPC Price. Once the MPC Price would be exceeded, any unexecuted portion is cancelled back to the submitting participant so the submitting participant can decide how they would like to proceed with the order once it has reached its MPC Price and contracts remain to be executed. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the Exchange will not display a complex order at a price at which it would never be executed (
If the MPC Price is priced more aggressively than the limit price of the complex order or eQuote, (
The MPC Setting is $0.05 through the opposite cNBBO at the time of receipt.
A market order to buy 10 Strategies is received. The Strategy is not eligible for legging.
The Exchange is also proposing to include the MPC Price as part of the evaluation process undertaken by the System upon receipt of a complex order. In order to account for such an evaluation by the System, the Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 518(c)(5)(i), Evaluation Upon Receipt During Trading, to state that, in addition to the other factors the System evaluates upon receipt of a complex order, the System will also evaluate and determine the complex order's MPC Price.
The Exchange believes that the proposed MPC Price and MPC Setting will enhance the ability of MIAX participants to mitigate the potential risk of executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, and thus better manage their risk tolerance levels.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60 days following the operative date of the proposed rule. The implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Regulatory Circular.
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed MIAX Options Price Collar is consistent with the Act because it is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by avoiding execution of complex orders at prices that are significantly away from the cNBBO at the time the MPC Price is initially established pursuant to proposed Rule 518.05(f)(3). The Exchange believes that the cNBBO provides reasonable guidance with respect to the current value of a complex order.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed MPC price protection parameters and mechanisms for orders and quotes protect investors and the public interest in that they are reasonably designed to provide MIAX Options participants with additional tools to assist them in managing their risk exposure. Specifically, the proposed MPC Price and MPC Setting should help MIAX Options participants
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Exchange Rule 518(c)(4) is designed to protect investors and the public interest because those amendments ensure that the MPC provides price protection in the managed interest process in the situation where a complex limit order is priced more aggressively than the icMBBO, in the same manner as a complex market order.
Additionally, the proposed MPC Price and MPC Setting are designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and by helping MIAX Options participants avoid executions at extreme and erroneous prices that may result from, for example, technology issues with the MIAX Options participant's electronic trading system. To this extent, the MPC Price and MPC Setting may help act as a backstop to the MIAX Options participant's own controls and provide an additional layer of protection.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Complex MIAX Options Price Collar is available to all participants trading complex orders, and should provide MIAX Options participants with additional price protection from extreme and erroneous executions. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
Additionally, respecting intra-market competition, the proposed MIAX Options Price Collar enhances competition because it is similar to price protections on other exchanges,
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend (a) the Eighth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (the “ICE Holdings Certificate”) to add a reference to the name under which it filed its original certificate of incorporation, and (b) the Fifth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group, Inc. (the “Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate”) to update obsolete references. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to (a) the ICE Holdings Certificate to add a reference to the name under which it filed its original certificate of incorporation, and (b) the Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate to update obsolete references.
The Exchange's parent, NYSE Group, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NYSE Holdings LLC, which is in turn 100% owned by Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ICE Holdings”). Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”), a public company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, owns 100% of ICE Holdings.
The original certificate of incorporation of ICE Holdings was filed in 2000, under the name “IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.” In 2014, ICE Holdings changed its name from “IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.” to “Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc.” At the same time, ICE Holding's parent, ICE, changed its name from “IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc.” to “Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.”
In response to a comment received from the State of Delaware Department of State, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (1) of the ICE Holdings Certificate to add a reference to the fact that the original certificate of incorporation was filed under the name “IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.” The revised paragraph would read as follows (proposed new text italic):
(1) The present name of the Corporation is Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. The original Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed on June 16, 2000
The Securities and Exchange Commission approved the Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate on January 30, 2017.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate to update obsolete references to the Fourth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group (“Fourth Amended NYSE Group Certificate”). More specifically, the Exchange proposes to:
• Amend Article XIV, “Effective Time,” to replace “Fourth” with “Fifth” and to replace December 29, 2014, the date of effectiveness of the Fourth Amended NYSE Group Certificate, with a placeholder which will be completed with the date that the Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate becomes effective; and
• on the signature page of the NYSE Group Certificate, replace “Fourth” with “Fifth” and replace December 29, 2014, with a placeholder which will be completed with the date that the Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate becomes effective.
No other changes to the ICE Holdings Certificate or Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate are proposed.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The proposed amendment to the ICE Holdings Certificate to add a reference to the name under which it filed its original certificate of incorporation is a non-substantive, ministerial change requested by the State of Delaware Department of State that does not impact either the governance or ownership of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) because it would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to the Exchange's rules and would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members.
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
As discussed above, the proposed change to amend the Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate, which would replace obsolete references to the Fourth Amended NYSE Group Certificate with references to the Fifth Amended NYSE Group Certificate and update the date of effectiveness, removes impediments to
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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is to make non-substantive changes concerned solely with the clarity and transparency of its parent entities' governing documents.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nevada (FEMA-4303-DR), dated 02/17/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/17/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 150536 and for economic injury is 150546.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4297-DR), dated 2/07/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Georgia, dated 02/07/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers. (OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, Email address:
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 May 1, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has forwarded the attached Notifications of Proposed Export Licenses to the Congress on the dates indicated on the attachments pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d), and in compliance with section 36(f), of the Arms Export Control Act.
As shown on each of the 30 letters.
Mr. Anthony M. Dearth, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2836; email
Section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) mandates that notifications to the Congress pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) must be published in the
Following are such notifications to the Congress:
Pursuant to Section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Norway to support of the manufacture of the M72 Light Anti-Armor Weapon (LAW) System and variants for sale abroad.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to support the manufacture in Germany of multiple missile thermal batteries for sale abroad.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and components abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of fully automatic rifles and grenade launchers for use by the Government of Turkey.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of machine guns to Oman.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the design, manufacture, and integration of the Weapons Bay Door Engine Inlet Ducts for all variants of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft to Italy, Japan and the Netherlands.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and components abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M134 7.62x51mm gun weapons systems to Turkey.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 3(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a license for the transfer of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the re-transfer of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Egypt for the modification, certification, maintenance, operation, training, and post-delivery support of (17) AT-802U Border Patrol Aircraft configured with surveillance and weapons capability.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Mexico to support the manufacture of piezoelectric ceramic products.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Israel to support the manufacture, maintenance, repair and overhaul of the J79-GE-J1E and J79-17 aircraft engines.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services, and manufacturing know-how to Japan to support the manufacture and repair of the Mission Computing System Data Display Group (DDG) and Ground Support Equipment (GSE) for the Japan Defense Force E767 AWACS aircraft.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Germany to support the manufacture and assembly of pistols and long guns in commercial product lines.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Switzerland and Spain to support the operational support, overhaul, maintenance and training pertaining to the F404-GE-402 aircraft gas turbine engines.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of an amendment to a technical assistance agreement for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the continued export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services to Sweden for the design, manufacture and integration of the F414-GE-439E engine.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of an amendment to a technical assistance agreement for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the continued export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services for the Organizational, Intermediate, and Depot Level Maintenance of F110-GE-129C/129E engines for end use by the Republic of Singapore.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M16 assault rifles to Oman.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Israel to support the design, development, integration, testing, initial lot, and full rate co-production of the Arrow 3 Interceptor.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of rifles, pistols, and barrels to Canada for commercial resale.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of semi-automatic pistols and accessories to the United Arab Emirates.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of upper receiver assemblies to be incorporated into assault rifles and sold to the United Arab Emirates.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Belgium, Sweden, and the Netherlands to support the manufacture, overhaul, testing, design, and development of the T-X Trainer Aircraft Aft Fuselage with integration of sub-systems, Ground Based Training Elements, and Logistic Support Elements.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of an amendment to a technical assistance agreement for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $14,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the continued export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services for the sale of P-8I Long Range Maritime Reconnaissance and Anti-Submarine Warfare Aircraft to the Government of India.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, components, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of various semi-automatic rifles, pistols, barrels, components, and accessories to France.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the continued export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services for the sale of T-6C+ aircraft to the government of Mexico.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of various centerfire bolt action rifles to Canada for commercial resale.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the continued export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services for the sale of Phalanx CIWS Block 1B systems to the Republic of Korea.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom to support the modification and manufacture of a Laser and Laser Rangefinder.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of semi-automatic pistols, semi-automatic rifles, lever action rifles, barrel assemblies, barrels, receiver assemblies, spare parts, and accessories to Canada.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, manufacture, and repair of the Patriot Product Improvement Program for the Japan Defense Agency.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $25,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of F-135 engines, including technical data, and defense services to Italy for the F-35 aircraft.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan for the manufacture of assemblies, sub-assemblies, components, and associated kits of Infrared Detecting Systems (IDS) for the Ministry of Defense of Japan.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
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 |