| Page Range | 12713-12920 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 12818 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
| 82 FR 12825 - Announcement of the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12786 - Impact of Federal Regulations on Domestic Manufacturing | |
| 82 FR 12864 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12859 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12910 - Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12856 - NASA Advisory Council; Human Exploration and Operations Committee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12783 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 12790 - Regulations And Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12789 - Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12791 - Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12790 - Technical Advisory Committees; Notice of Recruitment of Private-Sector Members | |
| 82 FR 12817 - Notice Regarding Withdrawal of Obligation To Submit Information | |
| 82 FR 12856 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Column Line N Wall ITAAC Dimension Change | |
| 82 FR 12785 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) | |
| 82 FR 12715 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Grand Chenier, LA | |
| 82 FR 12784 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) | |
| 82 FR 12819 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 12858 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 12749 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher/Processors Using Trawl Gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 82 FR 12823 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Assistance Customer Satisfaction Surveys | |
| 82 FR 12824 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Effectiveness of a Community's Implementation of the NFIP Community Assistance Program CAC and CAV Reports | |
| 82 FR 12788 - Foreign-Trade Zone 163-Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; Caribe Rx Services, Inc.; Caguas, Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 12789 - Approval of Subzone Status; Brake Parts Inc.; Hazleton, Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 12788 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 265-Conroe, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bauer Manufacturing LLC dba NEORig (Stationary Oil/Gas Drilling Rigs); Conroe, Texas | |
| 82 FR 12862 - Victory Portfolios, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 12747 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 12841 - Dioctyl Terephthalate (DOTP) From Korea: Scheduling of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty Investigation | |
| 82 FR 12788 - Foreign-Trade Zone 163-Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; R.Ortiz Auto Distributors, Inc.; Caguas, Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 12789 - Foreign-Trade Zone 163-Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; Destilería Serrallés, Inc.; Ponce, Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 12750 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands | |
| 82 FR 12823 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; State/Local/Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans | |
| 82 FR 12918 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review (Application for Approval of a Program in a Foreign Country, VA Form 22-0976) | |
| 82 FR 12917 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Request for Information To Make Direct Payment to Child Reaching Majority | |
| 82 FR 12912 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Secondary to Personal Assault | |
| 82 FR 12911 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Supporting Statement for State Approving Agency Reports and Notices | |
| 82 FR 12919 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Knee and Lower Leg Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-9) | |
| 82 FR 12918 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: (Elbow and Forearm Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-4) | |
| 82 FR 12917 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: (Hip and Thigh Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-8) | |
| 82 FR 12914 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: (Foot Conditions Including Flatfoot (Pes Planus) Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-6) | |
| 82 FR 12913 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: (Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-14) | |
| 82 FR 12879 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12798 - Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe From South Korea and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 12793 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2016 | |
| 82 FR 12805 - Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Five-Year Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 12816 - City of Dover, Delaware; Notice of Filing | |
| 82 FR 12807 - Balfour, Scott C.; Notice of Filing | |
| 82 FR 12791 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 82 FR 12796 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Japan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 82 FR 12800 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Taiwan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures | |
| 82 FR 12802 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescisssion of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2016 | |
| 82 FR 12815 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 12806 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 12816 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 12810 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 12818 - Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Members and Date of First Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12730 - Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan | |
| 82 FR 12835 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leonard Wood, Pulaski County, MO | |
| 82 FR 12826 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO | |
| 82 FR 12833 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO | |
| 82 FR 12828 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO | |
| 82 FR 12826 - Notice of Inventory Completion: St. Joseph Museums, Inc., St. Joseph, MO | |
| 82 FR 12836 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, FL | |
| 82 FR 12832 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, AR | |
| 82 FR 12829 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory, Murray, KY | |
| 82 FR 12834 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leonard Wood, Pulaski County, MO | |
| 82 FR 12842 - Ammonium Sulfate From China | |
| 82 FR 12782 - Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers; Notice of Solicitation for Membership | |
| 82 FR 12904 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 12889 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 12782 - Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers; Request for Nominations | |
| 82 FR 12880 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 12806 - Endangered Species; File No. 17304 | |
| 82 FR 12902 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 12898 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 12886 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 12901 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 12891 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 12890 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 12881 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 12899 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 12716 - Safety Standard for Magnet Sets; Removal of Final Rule Vacated by Court | |
| 82 FR 12822 - Waterway Suitability Assessment for Construction of a Liquefied Natural Gas Facility; Jacksonville, FL | |
| 82 FR 12811 - Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Amended Coastal Bend Header Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 82 FR 12807 - Lock 9 Hydro Partners; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 12817 - Swan Lake North Pumped Storage Project; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12809 - Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions | |
| 82 FR 12808 - Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions | |
| 82 FR 12814 - Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 12813 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Lone Star Project | |
| 82 FR 12843 - Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From Japan, Korea, and Taiwan Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews | |
| 82 FR 12753 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited | |
| 82 FR 12755 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 12850 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Report of Construction Contractor's Wage Rates | |
| 82 FR 12851 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; American Apprenticeship Initiative Grants | |
| 82 FR 12849 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses | |
| 82 FR 12848 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under The Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | |
| 82 FR 12847 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Medical CBRN Defense Consortium | |
| 82 FR 12847 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 12840 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0055 | |
| 82 FR 12839 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0067 | |
| 82 FR 12840 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0114 | |
| 82 FR 12839 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 249 | |
| 82 FR 12915 - Cost of Living Adjustments Effective December 1, 2016 | |
| 82 FR 12878 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12821 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 82 FR 12869 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 6.91 | |
| 82 FR 12860 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Amplify YieldShares Oil Hedged MLP Fund, a Series of the Amplify ETF Trust, Under Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares | |
| 82 FR 12864 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Rules for an Open-Outcry Trading Floor | |
| 82 FR 12916 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Statement of Marital Relationship (VA Form 21-4170) | |
| 82 FR 12912 - Agency Information Collection Activity (Hand and Finger Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-7)) | |
| 82 FR 12919 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Create Payment Request for the VA Funding Fee Payment System (VA Form 26-8986) | |
| 82 FR 12913 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability (VA Form 21-8940) | |
| 82 FR 12914 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review (Residency Verification Report-Veterans and Survivors (FL 21-914)) | |
| 82 FR 12911 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review (Declaration of Status of Dependents (VA Form 21-686c)) | |
| 82 FR 12844 - Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II); Commission Decision To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions | |
| 82 FR 12858 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12908 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8838 | |
| 82 FR 12908 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8038-R | |
| 82 FR 12909 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8941 | |
| 82 FR 12906 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 13094 | |
| 82 FR 12909 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8886-T | |
| 82 FR 12905 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 12855 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Respirator Program Records | |
| 82 FR 12853 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Representative of Miners, Notification of Legal Identity, and Notification of Commencement of Operations and Closing of Mines | |
| 82 FR 12852 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Records of Tests and of Examinations of Personnel Hoisting Equipment | |
| 82 FR 12848 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Application for Approval of a Representative's Fee in Black Lung Claim Proceedings Conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor | |
| 82 FR 12757 - Request for Comment on Possible Changes to Industry Guide 3 (Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies) | |
| 82 FR 12907 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Statements to Recipients of Dividend Payments | |
| 82 FR 12906 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request on Information Collection Tools Relating to Using Omnibus Surveys | |
| 82 FR 12821 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12821 - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12822 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12847 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory; Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure | |
| 82 FR 12910 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Change in Minimum Funding Method | |
| 82 FR 12847 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory; Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure | |
| 82 FR 12819 - Health Risks to Workers Associated With Occupational Exposures to Peracetic Acid; Request for Information | |
| 82 FR 12818 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 12858 - Request To Amend a License To Export Radioactive Waste | |
| 82 FR 12717 - Annual Update to Fee Schedule for the Use of Government Lands by Hydropower Licensees | |
| 82 FR 12713 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Ohio Towns; Findlay, OH; Ashland, OH; Celina, OH; Circleville, OH; Columbus, OH; Defiance, OH; Hamilton, OH; Lima, OH; and London, OH |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Office of Advocacy and Outreach
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Findlay Airport, Findlay, OH; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ashland County Airport, Ashland, OH; Lakefield Airport, Celina, OH; Pickaway County Memorial Airport, Circleville, OH; Ross County Airport, Chillicothe, OH; Fairfield County Airport, Lancaster, OH; Defiance Memorial Airport, Defiance, OH; Findlay Airport; Bluffton Airport, Findlay, OH; Butler County Airport-Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH; Lima Allen County Airport, Lima, OH; and Madison County Airport, London, OH. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), 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. This action also updates the geographic coordinates for Port Columbus International Airport; Findlay Airport; Ashland County Airport; Samaritan Hospital Heliport, Ashland, OH; Lakefield Airport; Ross County Airport; Defiance Regional Medical Center Heliport, Defiance, OH; Bluffton Airport; Lima Allen County Airport; and St. Rita's Medical Center Heliport, Lima, OH, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, the names of Samaritan Hospital Heliport (formerly Samaritian Regional Health System), Defiance Regional Medical Center Heliport (formerly Defiance Hospital), and Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan Field (formerly Butler County Regional Airport) are being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 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 7400.11, 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 amends Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Findlay Airport, Findlay, OH; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ashland County Airport, Ashland, OH; Lakefield Airport, Celina, OH; Pickaway County Memorial Airport, Circleville, OH; Ross County Airport, Chillicothe, OH; Fairfield County Airport, Lancaster, OH; Defiance Memorial Airport, Defiance, OH; Findlay Airport; Bluffton Airport, Findlay, OH; Butler County Airport-Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH; Lima Allen County Airport, Lima, OH; and Madison County Airport, London, OH.
On September 27, 2016, the FAA published in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered a typographical error in the geographic coordinates for Yellow Bud VOR (lat. 39°31′2637″ N. vice lat. 39°31′37″ N.) listed in the boundary description for Circleville, OH. This error has been corrected in this action.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 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 E airspace designations
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 E airspace designated as a surface area at Findlay Airport, Findlay, OH, by removing the segments extending from the 4.3-mile radius 7.4 miles south and northeast of the airport, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface:
By updating the geographic coordinates of Ashland County Airport and noting the name change of Samaritan Hospital Heliport (formerly Samaritian Regional Health System), Ashland, OH, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Lakefield Airport, Celina, OH, and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 10-mile radius) of Pickaway County Memorial Airport, Circleville, OH, with an extension from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.5 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 9.1-mile radius) of Ross County Airport, Chillicothe, OH, and updates the geographic coordinates of the Ross County Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
By updating the geographic coordinates of Port Columbus International Airport, Columbus, OH, and amending the radius of the Fairfield County Airport, Lancaster, OH, to within a 7.0-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius);
Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Defiance Memorial Airport, Defiance, OH, and updates the geographic coordinates and name of Defiance Regional Medical Center Heliport (formerly Defiance Hospital), Defiance, OH, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Within a 6.8-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius) of Findlay Airport, Findlay, OH, and within a 7.2-mile radius (increased from a 6.6-mile radius) of Bluffton Airport, Findlay, OH, and updates the geographic coordinates of these airports to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Within a 6.9-mile radius (increased from a 6.6-mile radius) of Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH, and updates the name of the airport (formerly Butler County Regional Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
By removing the Allen County VOR from the boundary description of Lima Allen County Airport, Lima, OH, and updating the name of St. Rita's Medical Center Heliport (formerly Saint Rita's Medical Center), Lima, OH, and updating the geographic and point in space coordinates of these airports to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
And by removing the segment extending from the 6.4-mile radius 7.4 miles west of Madison County Airport, London, OH.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports for the safety and management of the 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.
Lutz Airport
Within a 4.3-mile radius of the Findlay Airport excluding that portion within a 1-mile radius of the Lutz Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Ashland County Airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space serving Samaritan Hospital Heliport, excluding that airspace which lies within the Mansfield, OH, Class E airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Lakefield Airport, excluding that airspace within the Wapakoneta, OH, Class E airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Pickaway County Memorial Airport, and within 2.9 miles either side of the 345° radial from the Yellow Bud VOR extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.5 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of the Ross County Airport, excluding that airspace within the Waverly, OH, Class E Airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Port Columbus International Airport, and within 3.3 miles either side of the 094° bearing from Port Columbus International Airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.1 miles east of the airport, and within a 7-mile radius of Rickenbacker International Airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 045° bearing from Rickenbacker International Airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.5 miles northeast of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Ohio State University Airport, and within a 7.4-mile radius of Bolton Field Airport, and within a 7-mile radius of Fairfield County Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Darby Dan Airport, excluding that airspace within the London, OH, Class E airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Defiance Memorial Airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space serving Defiance Regional Medical Center Heliport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Findlay Airport and within a 7.2-mile radius of Bluffton Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan Field.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Lima Allen County Airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space serving St. Rita's Medical Center Heliport, excluding the airspace within the Findlay, OH, Class E airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Madison County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Little Pecan Island Airport, Grand Chenier, LA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Approach Procedures developed at Little Pecan Island Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
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 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
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 establishes Class E airspace at Little Pecan Island Airport, Grand Chenier, LA.
On December 9, 2016, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 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 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 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Little Pecan Island Airport, Grand Chenier, LA, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace areas are published in Section 6005 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 E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
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 5-6.5a. 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 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Little Pecan Island Airport
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule.
This final rule removes from the Code of Federal Regulations the final rule published on October 3, 2014, titled, “Safety Standard for Magnet Sets.” This action responds to a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that vacated the rule.
The action is effective on March 7, 2017. However, the court order had legal effect immediately upon its filing on November 22, 2016.
Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408, Room 820; telephone: 301-504-7923; email:
On October 3, 2014, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) published a final rule titled, “Safety Standard for Magnet Sets” (magnet set rule) under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act. 79 FR 59962. The rule established requirements for magnet sets and individual magnets that are intended or marketed to be used with or as magnet sets. As defined in the rule, “magnet sets” are aggregations of separable magnetic objects that are marketed or commonly used as a manipulative or construction item for entertainment, such as puzzle working, sculpture building, mental stimulation, or stress relief. Under the rule, if a magnet set contains a magnet that fits within the CPSC's small parts cylinder, each magnet in the magnet set must have a flux index of 50 kG
On December 2, 2014, Zen Magnets, LLC (Zen) filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit challenging the magnet set rule. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the Commission's rule provided incomplete and inadequately explained findings. The court vacated and remanded the rule to the Commission.
This rule is not subject to the requirement to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment because it falls under the good cause exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The good cause exception is satisfied when notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; annual update to fee schedule.
In accordance with of the Commission's regulations, the Commission, by its designee, the Executive Director, issues this annual update to the fee schedule in the appendix to the part, which lists per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) for use of government lands by hydropower licensees.
This rule is effective March 7, 2017. Updates to appendix A to part 11 with the fee schedule of per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) are applicable from October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017 (Fiscal Year 2017).
Norman Richardson, Financial Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6219,
Section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations provides a method for computing reasonable annual charges for recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands by hydropower licensees.
This Final Rule is effective March 7, 2017. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804, regarding Congressional review of final rules, do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. This Final Rule merely updates the fee schedule published in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect scheduled adjustments, as provided for in section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations.
Public lands.
By the Executive Director.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 11, chapter I, title 18,
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), publishes as regulations the 2017 annual management measures governing the Pacific halibut fishery that have been recommended by the IPHC and accepted by the Secretary of State. This action is intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut and further the goals and objectives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC).
The IPHC's 2017 annual management measures are effective March 3, 2017. The 2017 management measures are effective until superseded.
Additional requests for information regarding this action may be obtained by contacting the International Pacific Halibut Commission, 2320 W. Commodore Way, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98199-1287; or Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; or Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115. This final rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Federal eRulemaking portal at
For waters off Alaska, Rachel Baker or Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7228; or, for waters off the U.S. West Coast, Gretchen Hanshew, 206-526-6147.
The IPHC has recommended regulations that would govern the Pacific halibut fishery in 2017, pursuant to the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979).
As provided by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) at 16 U.S.C. 773b, the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, may accept or reject, on behalf of the United States, regulations recommended by the IPHC in accordance with the Convention (Halibut Act, Sections 773-773k). The Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, accepted the 2017 IPHC regulations as provided by the Halibut Act at 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
The Halibut Act provides the Secretary of Commerce with the authority and general responsibility to carry out the requirements of the Convention and the Halibut Act. The Regional Fishery Management Councils may develop, and the Secretary of Commerce may implement, regulations governing harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen in U.S. waters that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. The NPFMC has exercised this authority most notably in developing halibut management programs for three fisheries that harvest halibut in Alaska: The subsistence, sport, and commercial fisheries. The PFMC has exercised this authority by developing a catch sharing plan governing the allocation of halibut and management of sport fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Subsistence and sport halibut fishery regulations for Alaska are codified at 50 CFR part 300. Commercial halibut fisheries in Alaska are subject to the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program and Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program (50 CFR part 679) regulations, and the area-specific catch sharing plans.
The IPHC apportions catch limits for the Pacific halibut fishery among regulatory areas (Figure 1): Area 2A (Oregon, Washington, and California), Area 2B (British Columbia), Area 2C (Southeast Alaska), Area 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska), Area 3B (Western Gulf of Alaska), and Area 4 (subdivided into 5 areas, 4A through 4E, in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands of Western Alaska).
The NPFMC implemented a catch sharing plan (CSP) among commercial IFQ and CDQ halibut fisheries in IPHC Regulatory Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E (Area 4, Western Alaska) through rulemaking, and the Secretary of Commerce approved the plan on March 20, 1996 (61 FR 11337). The Area 4 CSP regulations were codified at 50 CFR 300.65, and were amended on March 17, 1998 (63 FR 13000). New annual regulations pertaining to the Area 4 CSP also may be implemented through IPHC action, subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State.
The NPFMC recommended and NMFS implemented through rulemaking a CSP for guided sport (charter) and commercial IFQ halibut fisheries in IPHC Regulatory Area 2C and Area 3A on January 13, 2014 (78 FR 75844, December 12, 2013). The Area 2C and 3A CSP regulations are codified at 50 CFR 300.65. The CSP defines an annual process for allocating halibut between the commercial and charter fisheries so that each sector's allocation varies in proportion to halibut abundance, specifies a public process for setting annual management measures, and authorizes limited annual leases of commercial IFQ for use in the charter fishery as guided angler fish (GAF).
The IPHC held its annual meeting in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, January 23-27, 2017, and recommended a number of changes to the previous IPHC regulations (81 FR 14000, March 16, 2016). The Secretary of State accepted the annual management measures, including the following changes to the previous IPHC regulations for 2017:
1. New commercial halibut fishery opening and closing dates in Section 8;
2. New halibut catch limits in all regulatory areas in Section 11;
3. New requirement that commercial halibut be landed and weighed with the head attached in Section 13;
4. Revised regulations pertaining to fishing in multiple regulatory areas in Section 18; and
5. New management measures for Area 2C and Area 3A guided sport fisheries in Section 28, and in Figures 3 and 4.
Pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 300.62, the 2017 IPHC annual management measures are published in the
The IPHC recommended to the governments of Canada and the United States catch limits for 2017 totaling 31,400,000 lb (14,242.80 mt). The IPHC recommended area-specific catch limits for 2017 that were higher than 2016 in most of its management areas except Areas 4A and 4B, where catch limits remained at the same level as in 2016. A description of the process the IPHC used to set these catch limits follows.
In 2016, the IPHC conducted its annual stock assessment using a range of updated data sources as described in detail in Chapter 4 of the 2016 IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities (2016 RARA; available at
The results at the end of 2016 indicate that the Pacific halibut stock declined continuously from the late 1990s to around 2010, as a result of decreasing size at a given age (size-at-age), as well as somewhat weaker recruitment strengths than those observed during the 1980s. The biomass of spawning females is estimated to have stabilized near 200,000,000 lb (90,718 mt) in 2010, and since then the stock is estimated to have been increasing gradually. Results of the 2016 assessment show a slight decrease from the 2015 assessment due to additional data from 2016 and updated recruitment estimates. Overall, the ensemble models predict that the stock would decrease gradually between 2018 and 2020 if total removals are maintained around 40,000,000 lb (18,144 mt).
The IPHC does not currently have an explicit target for the allowable level of total removals, also called coastwide fishing intensity; thus, it is uncertain if current levels of fishing intensity are consistent with the objectives of the IPHC's harvest policy. The IPHC harvest decision table (Table 4 in Chapter 4.2 of the 2016 RARA) provides a comparison of the relative risk of a decrease in stock abundance, status, or fishery metrics, for a range of alternative harvest levels for 2017. The IPHC adopted catch limits for 2017 totaling 31,400,000 lb (14,243.80 mt) coastwide. If these catch limits are fully harvested in 2017, and other sources of removals from bycatch, personal use, sport, subsistence, and wastage in the commercial fishery in 2017 are similar to those observed in 2016, then the total removals would be approximately 43,300,000 lb (19,640 mt) in 2017. At 43,300,000 lb of total removals from all sources, the IPHC estimates that the spawning stock biomass will decrease over the period from 2018 to 2020 relative to 2017. Specifically, the IPHC estimates that there is a 71 percent probability that the spawning stock biomass will decrease in 2018 relative to 2017. However, the IPHC estimates that there is only a 10 percent probability that the spawning stock biomass will decrease by more than 5 percent relative to 2017. After considering this information, the IPHC determined that the 2017 catch limits recommendations are consistent with its conservation objectives for the halibut stock and its management objectives for the halibut fisheries.
The IPHC recommended higher catch limits in 2017 than 2016 for Areas 2A, 2B, and 2C. Fishery-independent survey weight per unit effort (WPUE) and number of fish per unit effort (NPUE) generally indicate a stable and upward trend in these areas. An expanded survey with additional sampling locations has been approved in Area 2A for 2017. Both survey and fishery indices indicate rebuilding of the stock throughout Areas 2B and 2C, with the highest coastwide survey WPUE in Area 2C.
The IPHC recommended increases to the catch limits for Areas 3A and 3B compared to 2016. While survey and fishery WPUEs increased in Area 3A, the survey NPUE decreased in 2016. Based on the increase in WPUEs and decrease in survey NPUE, the IPHC adopted only a small precautionary increase to the catch limit for Area 3A to provide some additional harvest opportunities for the Area 3A commercial and charter sectors. Area 3B has experienced two years of increases in both the fishery and survey WPUE, with a substantial increase in survey WPUE and NPUE in 2016. These results
The IPHC recommended catch limits for Areas 4A and 4B that are the same as the 2016 limits. The IPHC recommended no change in the catch limit amounts in these areas because although the survey results show signs of stability, survey WPUE is still low relative to historical estimates; therefore, a more precautionary approach to management is appropriate.
The IPHC recommended a slight increase in the catch limit for Areas 4CDE compared to 2016. The IPHC noted that for social, cultural, and economic reasons, an even larger increase is warranted, but the survey indices do not support a larger increase. However, ongoing efforts to reduce halibut bycatch in the commercial groundfish trawl fisheries may provide for additional harvest opportunities in the Area 4CDE directed fishery in the future.
The IPHC also considered the Catch Sharing Plan for Area 4CDE developed by the NPFMC in its catch limit recommendation. When the Area 4CDE catch limit is greater than 1,657,600 lb (751.87 mt), a direct allocation of 80,000 lb (36.29 mt) is made to Area 4E to provide CDQ fishermen in that area with additional harvesting opportunity. After this 80,000 lb allocation is deducted from the catch limit, the remainder is divided among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E according to the percentages specified in the CSP. Those percentages are 46.43 percent each to 4C and 4D, and 7.14 percent to 4E. The IPHC recommended a catch limit for Area 4CDE of 1,700,000 lb (771.11 mt) for 2017 to provide benefits from increased harvest opportunities in Area 4E.
The IPHC considers advice from the IPHC's two advisory boards when selecting opening and closing dates for the halibut fishery. The opening date for the tribal commercial fishery in Area 2A and for the commercial halibut fisheries in Areas 2B through 4E is March 11, 2017. The Conference Board had requested an earlier date (March 4) to coincide with favorable tides and to minimize potential interactions with sperm whales; however, the Processor Advisory Group noted that a later opening date facilitates halibut marketing. The March 11 date takes into account a number of factors, including the timing of halibut migration and spawning, and having a Saturday season opening to facilitate marketing. In addition, the majority of the fishing effort on the opening date has historically been for sablefish, whose opening date is tied to the halibut season dates, and not for halibut. The closing date for the halibut fisheries is November 7, 2017. This date takes into account the anticipated time required to fully harvest the commercial halibut catch limits, seasonal holidays, and adequate time for IPHC staff to review the complete record of 2017 commercial catch data for use in the 2017 stock assessment process.
In the Area 2A non-treaty directed commercial fishery the IPHC recommended seven 10-hour fishing periods. Each fishing period shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800 hours local time on June 28, July 12, July 26, August 9, August 23, September 6, and September 20, 2017, unless the IPHC specifies otherwise. These 10-hour openings will occur until the quota is taken and the fishery is closed.
The NMFS West Coast Region published a proposed rule for changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and California on February 23, 2017 (82 FR 11419), with public comments accepted through March 15, 2017. A separate final rule will be published to approve changes to the Area 2A CSP and to implement the portions of the CSP and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC annual management measures that are published in this final rule. These measures include the sport fishery allocations and management measures for Area 2A. Once published, the final rule implementing the Area 2A CSP will be available on the NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region's Web site at
In 2014, NMFS implemented a CSP for Area 2C and Area 3A. The CSP defines an annual process for allocating halibut between the charter and commercial fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, and establishes allocations for each fishery. To allow flexibility for individual commercial and charter fishery participants, the CSP also authorizes annual transfers of commercial halibut IFQ as GAF to charter halibut permit holders for harvest in the charter fishery. Under the CSP, the IPHC recommends combined catch limits (CCLs) for the charter and commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. Each CCL includes estimates of discard mortality (wastage)
The IPHC recommended a CCL of 10,000,000 lb (4,535.92 mt) for Area 3A. Following the CSP allocations in Tables 2 and 4 of subpart E of 50 CFR part 300, the charter fishery is allocated 1,890,000 lb (857.29 mt) of the CCL and the remainder of the CCL, 8,110,000 lb (3,678.63 mt), is allocated to the commercial fishery. Wastage in the amount of 371,000 lb (168.28 mt) was deducted from the commercial allocation to obtain the commercial catch limit of 7,739,000 lb (3,510.35 mt). The commercial allocation increased by about 324,000 lb (146.96 mt) or 4.2 percent, from the 2016 allocation of 7,786,000 lb (3,531.67 mt) (including wastage). The charter allocation increased by about 76,000 lb (34.47 mt), or 4.2 percent, from the 2016 allocation of 1,814,000 lb (822.82 mt).
Guided (charter) recreational halibut anglers are managed under different regulations than unguided recreational halibut anglers in Areas 2C and 3A in Alaska. According to Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.61, a charter vessel angler means a person, paying or non-paying, receiving sport fishing guide services for halibut. Sport fishing guide services means assistance, for compensation or with the intent to receive compensation, to a person who is sport fishing, to take or attempt to take halibut by accompanying or physically directing the sport fisherman in sport fishing activities during any part of a charter vessel fishing trip. A charter vessel fishing trip is the time period between the first deployment of fishing gear into the water from a charter vessel by a charter vessel angler and the offloading of one or more charter vessel anglers or any halibut from that vessel. The charter fishery regulations described below apply only to charter vessel anglers receiving sport fishing guide services during a charter vessel fishing trip for halibut in Area 2C or Area 3A. These regulations do not apply to unguided recreational anglers in any regulatory area in Alaska, or guided anglers in areas other than Areas 2C and 3A.
The NPFMC formed the Charter Halibut Management Committee to provide it with recommendations for annual management measures intended to limit charter harvest to the charter catch limit while minimizing negative economic impacts to charter fishery participants in times of low halibut abundance. The committee is composed of representatives from the charter fishing industry in Areas 2C and 3A. The committee considered previously analyzed alternatives and suggested new alternative measures to be analyzed in October 2016. After reviewing an analysis of the effects of the alternative measures on estimated charter removals, the committee made recommendations for preferred management measures to the NPFMC for 2017. The NPFMC considered the recommendations of the committee, its industry advisory body, and public testimony to develop its recommendation to the IPHC, and the IPHC took action consistent with the NPFMC's recommendations. The NPFMC has used this process to select and recommend annual management measures to the IPHC since 2012.
The IPHC recognizes the role of the NPFMC to develop policy and regulations that allocate the Pacific halibut resource among fishermen in and off Alaska, and that NMFS has developed numerous regulations to support the NPFMC's goals of limiting charter harvests. The IPHC concluded that new management measures were necessary for 2017 to limit the Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut fisheries to their charter catch limits under the CSP, to achieve the IPHC's overall conservation objective to limit total halibut harvests to established catch limits, and to meet the NPFMC's allocation objectives for these areas. The IPHC determined that limiting charter harvests by implementing the management measures discussed below would meet these objectives.
The preliminary estimate of charter removals in Area 2C was below the 2016 charter allocation by about 62,000 lb (28.12 mt) or 6.9 percent, indicating that the 2016 management measures were appropriate and effective at limiting harvest by charter vessel anglers to the charter allocation. The analysis of alternative management measures indicated that both effort and harvest were projected to increase in 2017 under
The preliminary estimate of charter wastage (release mortality) in 2016 represented about 6.5 percent of the directed harvest amount and has increased in recent years. Therefore, projected charter harvest for 2017 was increased by 7.0 percent to account for all charter removals in the selection of annual management measures for Area 2C.
Relaxation of management measures is possible, while managing total charter removals, including wastage, in Area 2C to the 2017 allocation of 915,000 lb (415.04 mt). This final rule amends the 2016 measures applicable to the charter vessel fishery in Area 2C to relax restrictions and allow additional harvest relative to 2016.
For 2017, the IPHC recommended the continuation of a one-fish daily bag limit with a reverse slot limit, as was in place in 2016, but increasing the lower size limit. The IPHC recommends a reverse slot limit that prohibits a person on board a charter vessel referred to in 50 CFR 300.65 and fishing in Area 2C from taking or possessing any halibut, with head on, that is greater than 44 inches (111.8 cm) and less than 80 inches (203.2 cm), as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail. The 2016 reverse slot limit prohibited retention by charter vessel anglers of halibut that were greater than 43 inches (109.2 cm) and less than 80 inches. The projected charter removal under the 2017 recommended reverse slot limit is 888,000 lb (402.79 mt), 27,000 lb (12.25 mt) below the charter allocation. The recommended reverse slot limit for 2017 will increase harvest opportunities for charter vessel anglers, while managing total charter removals to the charter allocation.
The preliminary estimate of charter removals in Area 3A in 2016 exceeded the charter allocation by 167,000 lb (75.75 mt), or 9.2 percent, primarily because charter vessel anglers caught and retained 7.1 percent more halibut and the average size of halibut retained was 3.5 percent heavier, on average, than predicted for the size and bag limits in place. In 2016, charter vessel anglers in Area 3A were limited to a two-fish daily bag limit with a maximum size limit on one fish. One effect of the maximum size limit was that the number of fish harvested per angler decreased in 2016 compared to 2015, but the average weight of harvested fish increased as many anglers opted to maximize the size of retained fish. The estimation error for average weight was factored into the analysis of potential management measures for 2017.
The preliminary estimate of charter wastage in 2016 represented 0.8 percent of the directed harvest amount, but the average from 2013 through 2016 was 1.3 percent. The projected charter harvest for 2017 was increased by 1.5 percent to account for total charter removals in the selection of appropriate annual management measures for Area 3A for 2017.
This final rule amends the 2016 management measures applicable to the charter halibut fishery in Area 3A. The NPFMC and IPHC considered 2016 information on charter removals and the projections of charter harvest for 2017. After considering 2016 harvest information, the NPFMC and IPHC determined that more restrictive management measures in Area 3A are necessary to limit charter removals, including wastage, to the 2017 allocation.
For 2017, the IPHC recommended continuing the following management measures for Area 3A from 2016: (1) A two-fish bag limit with a 28-inch (71.1 cm) size limit on one of the halibut; (2) a one-trip per day limit for the entire season; (3) a day-of-week closure; and (4) an annual limit, with a reporting requirement. In addition, the IPHC recommended closure of another day of the week to charter fishing for part of the season. The projected charter harvest for 2017 under this combination of recommended measures is 1,874,000 lb (850.03 mt), 16,000 lb (7.26 mt) below the charter allocation. Each of these management measures is described in more detail below.
The 2017 charter halibut fishery in Area 3A will be managed under a two-fish daily bag limit in which one of the retained halibut may be of any size and one of the retained halibut must be 28 inches (71.1 cm) total length or less. This is the same maximum size limit as 2016. This daily bag and size limit will be combined with additional restrictions to limit charter halibut removals to the 2017 allocation.
As in 2016, for 2017, a charter halibut permit is only authorized for use to catch and retain halibut on one charter halibut fishing trip per day in Area 3A. Additionally, a charter vessel is only authorized for use to catch and retain halibut on one charter halibut fishing trip per day. If no halibut are retained during a charter vessel fishing trip, the charter halibut permit and vessel may be used to take an additional trip to catch and retain halibut that day.
For purposes of the trip limit in Area 3A in 2017, a charter vessel fishing trip will end when anglers or halibut are offloaded, or at the end of the calendar day, whichever occurs first. Charter operators are still able to conduct overnight trips and anglers may retain a bag limit of halibut on each calendar day, but operators are not allowed to begin another overnight trip until the day after the trip ends. GAF halibut are exempt from the trip limit; therefore, GAF could be used to harvest halibut on a second trip in a day, but only if exclusively GAF halibut were harvested on that trip.
The NPFMC and the IPHC recommended continuing the day-of-week closure on Wednesdays for Area 3A in 2017. No retention of halibut by charter vessel anglers will be allowed in Area 3A on Wednesdays. To further reduce harvest, an additional day-of-week closure will be added for three Tuesdays in 2017: July 18, July 25, and August 1. Retention of only GAF halibut will be allowed on charter vessels on Wednesdays and the three closed Tuesdays; all other halibut that are caught while fishing on a charter vessel must be released. The addition of the three Tuesday closures is expected to reduce charter halibut harvest by 3.9 percent in Area 3A and reduce total charter harvest to below the charter catch limit.
For 2017, charter vessel anglers will continue to be limited to harvesting no more than four halibut on charter vessel fishing trips in Area 3A during a calendar year. This limit applies only to halibut caught and retained during charter vessel fishing trips in Area 3A. Halibut harvested while unguided fishing, fishing in other IPHC regulatory areas, or harvested as GAF will not accrue toward the annual limit.
To enforce the annual limit in 2017, each charter vessel angler who is required to have a State of Alaska sport fishing license and who harvests halibut will be required to record those halibut on the back of the fishing license. For those anglers who are not required to have a sport fishing license (
If the original sport fishing license or harvest record is lost, a duplicate or additional sport fishing license or harvest record card must be obtained and completed for all halibut previously retained during that year that were subject to the annual limit.
Only halibut caught during a charter vessel fishing trip in Area 3A accrue toward the 4-fish annual limit and must be recorded on the license or harvest record card. Halibut that are harvested while charter fishing in regulatory areas other than Area 3A will not accrue toward the annual limit and are not subject to the reporting requirement. Likewise, halibut harvested while sport fishing without a guide in Area 3A, harvested while subsistence fishing, or harvested as GAF do not accrue toward the annual limit and should not be recorded on the license or harvest record. Finally, halibut that are caught during a charter vessel fishing trip that bear IPHC external tags are exempt from the annual limit and reporting requirements (see Section 21 of the IPHC regulations).
On December 28, 2016, NMFS published a final rule to authorize
At its 2016 annual meeting, the IPHC approved longline pot gear, as defined by NMFS, as legal gear for the commercial halibut fishery in Alaska when NMFS regulations permit the use of this gear in the IFQ sablefish fishery. NMFS regulations will authorize the use of longline pot gear in the IFQ sablefish fishery on March 11, 2017 (81 FR 95435, December 28, 2016; notice of delayed effective date 82 FR 9690, February 8, 2017). Therefore, beginning in 2017, vessels using longline pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish in the Gulf of Alaska will be required to retain halibut consistent with IPHC regulations and NMFS regulations specified in the final rule to authorize longline pot gear (81 FR 95435).
The IPHC approved two additional amendments to the 2017 annual management measures.
The first amendment approved by the IPHC requires that beginning in 2017, all commercial Pacific halibut must be landed and weighed with their heads attached (head-on) for data reporting purposes. Section 13 of IPHC regulations previously had two minimum size limits: 32 inches (81.3 cm) for halibut taken or possessed with the head on, and 24 inches (61.0 cm) for halibut taken or possessed with the head removed. This regulatory amendment will require that halibut be landed head-on and those head-on halibut will be subject to a 32-inch minimum size limit. The only exception is for vessels that freeze halibut at sea. Those vessels may deliver their frozen, head-off halibut shoreside with a 24-inch minimum size limit. The IPHC regulations already required that in Area 2A all commercial halibut be landed with the head attached.
This regulatory amendment is intended to improve the estimates of the weight of landed halibut. The IPHC has assumed that the weight of a removed head as a percentage of the whole body is 10 percent. However, results from recent studies (pp. 77-91 of the 2015 RARA and Chapter 2.8 of the 2016 RARA; available at
Landing records show that, coastwide, 67 to 71 percent of catch by weight is reported head-off, so the potential effect of head proportions that differ from assumed values is likely to have a significant impact on the biomass of catch that is used in the IPHC's annual stock assessment. For example, in recent years, the IPHC may have underestimated the coastwide landings by 2 to 3 percent, and estimates in some regulatory areas could be more inaccurate than others depending on the type of processing used and the size of halibut. In order to improve the accuracy of estimated landings, the IPHC approved the requirement for all commercially landed Pacific halibut to be landed and weighed with the head on, except for those halibut processed and frozen at sea.
The second regulatory amendment approved by the IPHC revises Section 18 of the annual management measures for consistency with NMFS' halibut fishery regulations published at 50 CFR 679.7(f)(4), regarding fishing in multiple regulatory areas. Section 18 of the annual management measures and 50 CFR 679.7(f)(4) address the circumstances under which a person may lawfully possess at the same time, on board a vessel, halibut that were caught in more than one IPHC Regulatory Area off Alaska. However, differences in regulatory text have caused confusion for fishery participants. To reduce confusion, the IPHC regulations will allow possession at the same time on board a vessel halibut that were caught in more than one IPHC Regulatory Area off Alaska only if such possession is authorized by Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.7(f)(4), and if the operator of the vessel identifies the halibut by regulatory area by separating halibut from different areas in the hold, tagging halibut, or by other means. The NMFS regulation specifies that a person may not retain IFQ or CDQ halibut on a vessel in excess of the total amount of unharvested IFQ or CDQ that is currently held by all persons on the vessel for the regulatory area in which the vessel is deploying fixed gear. This limit on halibut possession does not apply if the vessel has an observer aboard under the requirements of subpart E of 50 CFR part 679 and the vessel maintains an applicable daily fishing log as specified in IPHC regulations and 50 CFR 679.5. This change to the 2017 IPHC regulations does not change the requirements for vessels fishing in multiple areas, it simply clarifies the
The following annual management measures for the 2017 Pacific halibut fishery are those recommended by the IPHC and accepted by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce.
These Regulations may be cited as the Pacific Halibut Fishery Regulations.
(1) These Regulations apply to persons and vessels fishing for halibut in, or possessing halibut taken from, the maritime area as defined in Section 3.
(2) Sections 3 to 6 apply generally to all halibut fishing.
(3) Sections 7 to 20 apply to commercial fishing for halibut.
(4) Section 21 applies to tagged halibut caught by any vessel.
(5) Section 22 applies to the United States treaty Indian fishery in Subarea 2A-1.
(6) Section 23 applies to customary and traditional fishing in Alaska.
(7) Section 24 applies to Aboriginal groups fishing for food, social and ceremonial purposes in British Columbia.
(8) Sections 25 to 28 apply to sport fishing for halibut.
(9) These Regulations do not apply to fishing operations authorized or conducted by the Commission for research purposes.
(1) In these Regulations,
(a) “authorized officer” means any State, Federal, or Provincial officer authorized to enforce these Regulations including, but not limited to, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Canada's Department of
(b) “authorized clearance personnel” means an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor;
(c) “charter vessel” outside of Alaska waters means a vessel used for hire in sport fishing for halibut, but not including a vessel without a hired operator, and in Alaska waters means a vessel used while providing or receiving sport fishing guide services for halibut;
(d) “commercial fishing” means fishing, the resulting catch of which is sold or bartered; or is intended to be sold or bartered, other than (i) sport fishing, (ii) treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing as referred to in section 22, (iii) customary and traditional fishing as referred to in section 23 and defined by and regulated pursuant to NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 300, and (iv) Aboriginal groups fishing in British Columbia as referred to in section 24;
(e) “Commission” means the International Pacific Halibut Commission;
(f) “daily bag limit” means the maximum number of halibut a person may take in any calendar day from Convention waters;
(g) “fishing” means the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, or any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, including specifically the deployment of any amount or component part of gear anywhere in the maritime area;
(h) “fishing period limit” means the maximum amount of halibut that may be retained and landed by a vessel during one fishing period;
(i) “land” or “offload” with respect to halibut, means the removal of halibut from the catching vessel;
(j) “license” means a halibut fishing license issued by the Commission pursuant to section 4;
(k) “maritime area”, in respect of the fisheries jurisdiction of a Contracting Party, includes without distinction areas within and seaward of the territorial sea and internal waters of that Party;
(l) “net weight” of a halibut means the weight of halibut that is without gills and entrails, head-off, washed, and without ice and slime. If a halibut is weighed with the head on or with ice and slime, the required conversion factors for calculating net weight are a 2 percent deduction for ice and slime and a 10 percent deduction for the head;
(m) “operator”, with respect to any vessel, means the owner and/or the master or other individual on board and in charge of that vessel;
(n) “overall length” of a vessel means the horizontal distance, rounded to the nearest foot, between the foremost part of the stem and the aftermost part of the stern (excluding bowsprits, rudders, outboard motor brackets, and similar fittings or attachments);
(o) “person” includes an individual, corporation, firm, or association;
(p) “regulatory area” means an area referred to in section 6;
(q) “setline gear” means one or more stationary, buoyed, and anchored lines with hooks attached;
(r) “sport fishing” means all fishing other than (i) commercial fishing, (ii) treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing as referred to in section 22, (iii) customary and traditional fishing as referred to in section 23 and defined in and regulated pursuant to NMFS regulations published in 50 CFR part 300, and (iv) Aboriginal groups fishing in British Columbia as referred to in section 24;
(s) “tender” means any vessel that buys or obtains fish directly from a catching vessel and transports it to a port of landing or fish processor;
(t) “VMS transmitter” means a NMFS-approved vessel monitoring system transmitter that automatically determines a vessel's position and transmits it to a NMFS-approved communications service provider.
(2) In these Regulations, all bearings are true and all positions are determined by the most recent charts issued by the United States National Ocean Service or the Canadian Hydrographic Service.
(1) No person shall fish for halibut from a vessel, nor possess halibut on board a vessel, used either for commercial fishing or as a charter vessel in Area 2A, unless the Commission has issued a license valid for fishing in Area 2A in respect of that vessel.
(2) A license issued for a vessel operating in Area 2A shall be valid only for operating either as a charter vessel or a commercial vessel, but not both.
(3) A vessel with a valid Area 2A commercial license cannot be used to sport fish for Pacific halibut in Area 2A.
(4) A license issued for a vessel operating in the commercial fishery in Area 2A shall be valid for one of the following:
(a) The directed commercial fishery during the fishing periods specified in paragraph (2) of section 8;
(b) the incidental catch fishery during the sablefish fishery specified in paragraph (3) of section 8; or
(c) the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery specified in paragraph (4) of section 8.
(5) No person may apply for or be issued a license for a vessel operating in the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery in paragraph (4)(c), if that vessel was previously issued a license for either the directed commercial fishery in paragraph (4)(a) or the incidental catch fishery during the sablefish fishery in paragraph (4)(b).
(6) A license issued in respect to a vessel referred to in paragraph (1) of this section must be carried on board that vessel at all times and the vessel operator shall permit its inspection by any authorized officer.
(7) The Commission shall issue a license in respect to a vessel, without fee, from its office in Seattle, Washington, upon receipt of a completed, written, and signed “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form.
(8) A vessel operating in the directed commercial fishery in Area 2A must have its “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form postmarked no later than 11:59 p.m. on 30 April, or on the first weekday in May if 30 April is a Saturday or Sunday.
(9) A vessel operating in the incidental catch fishery during the sablefish fishery in Area 2A must have its “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form postmarked no later than 11:59 p.m. on 15 March, or the next weekday in March if 15 March is a Saturday or Sunday.
(10) A vessel operating in the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A must have its “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form postmarked no later than 11:59 p.m. on 15 March, or the next weekday in March if 15 March is a Saturday or Sunday.
(11) Application forms may be obtained from any authorized officer or from the Commission.
(12) Information on “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form must be accurate.
(13) The “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form shall be completed and signed by the vessel owner.
(14) Licenses issued under this section shall be valid only during the year in which they are issued.
(15) A new license is required for a vessel that is sold, transferred, renamed, or the documentation is changed.
(16) The license required under this section is in addition to any license, however designated, that is required under the laws of the United States or any of its States.
(17) The United States may suspend, revoke, or modify any license issued under this section under policies and procedures in Title 15, CFR part 904.
(1) The Commission is authorized to establish or modify regulations during the season after determining that such action:
(a) Will not result in exceeding the catch limit established preseason for each regulatory area;
(b) is consistent with the Convention between Canada and the United States of America for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, and applicable domestic law of either Canada or the United States; and
(c) is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with any domestic catch sharing plans or other domestic allocation programs developed by the United States or Canadian governments.
(2) In-season actions may include, but are not limited to, establishment or modification of the following:
(a) Closed areas;
(b) fishing periods;
(c) fishing period limits;
(d) gear restrictions;
(e) recreational bag limits;
(f) size limits; or
(g) vessel clearances.
(3) In-season changes will be effective at the time and date specified by the Commission.
(4) The Commission will announce in-season actions under this section by providing notice to major halibut processors; Federal, State, United States treaty Indian, and Provincial fishery officials; and the media.
The following areas shall be regulatory areas (see Figure 1) for the purposes of the Convention:
(1) Area 2A includes all waters off the states of California, Oregon, and Washington;
(2) Area 2B includes all waters off British Columbia;
(3) Area 2C includes all waters off Alaska that are east of a line running 340° true from Cape Spencer Light (58°11′56″ N. latitude, 136°38′26″ W. longitude) and south and east of a line running 205° true from said light;
(4) Area 3A includes all waters between Area 2C and a line extending from the most northerly point on Cape Aklek (57°41′15″ N. latitude, 155°35′00″ W. longitude) to Cape Ikolik (57°17′17″ N. latitude, 154°47′18″ W. longitude), then along the Kodiak Island coastline to Cape Trinity (56°44′50″ N. latitude, 154°08′44″ W. longitude), then 140° true;
(5) Area 3B includes all waters between Area 3A and a line extending 150° true from Cape Lutke (54°29′00″ N. latitude, 164°20′00″ W. longitude) and south of 54°49′00″ N. latitude in Isanotski Strait;
(6) Area 4A includes all waters in the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B and in the Bering Sea west of the closed area defined in section 10 that are east of 172°00′00″ W. longitude and south of 56°20′00″ N. latitude;
(7) Area 4B includes all waters in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 4A and south of 56°20′00″ N. latitude;
(8) Area 4C includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of Area 4A and north of the closed area defined in section 10 which are east of 171°00′00″ W. longitude, south of 58°00′00″ N. latitude, and west of 168°00′00″ W. longitude;
(9) Area 4D includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of Areas 4A and 4B, north and west of Area 4C, and west of 168°00′00″ W. longitude; and
(10) Area 4E includes all waters in the Bering Sea north and east of the closed area defined in section 10, east of 168°00′00″ W. longitude, and south of 65°34′00″ N. latitude.
(1) Section 7 applies only to any person fishing, or vessel that is used to fish for, Area 4E Community Development Quota (CDQ) or Area 4D CDQ halibut, provided that the total annual halibut catch of that person or vessel is landed at a port within Area 4E or 4D.
(2) A person may retain halibut taken with setline gear in Area 4E CDQ and 4D CDQ fishery that are smaller than the size limit specified in section 13, provided that no person may sell or barter such halibut.
(3) The manager of a CDQ organization that authorizes persons to harvest halibut in the Area 4E or 4D CDQ fisheries must report to the Commission the total number and weight of undersized halibut taken and retained by such persons pursuant to section 7, paragraph (2). This report, which shall include data and methodology used to collect the data, must be received by the Commission prior to 1 November of the year in which such halibut were harvested.
(1) The fishing periods for each regulatory area apply where the catch limits specified in section 11 have not been taken.
(2) Each fishing period in the Area 2A directed commercial fishery
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of section 11, an incidental catch fishery
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), and paragraph (7) of section 11, an incidental catch fishery is authorized during salmon troll seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by NMFS. This fishery will occur between 1200 hours local time on 11 March and 1200 hours local time on 7 November.
(5) The fishing period in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall begin at 1200 hours local time on 11 March and terminate at 1200 hours local time on 7 November, unless the Commission specifies otherwise.
(6) All commercial fishing for halibut in Areas 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall cease at 1200 hours local time on 7 November.
(1) No person shall engage in fishing for halibut in any regulatory area other than during the fishing periods set out in section 8 in respect of that area.
(2) No person shall land or otherwise retain halibut caught outside a fishing period applicable to the regulatory area where the halibut was taken.
(3) Subject to paragraphs (7), (8), (9), and (10) of section 19, these Regulations do not prohibit fishing for any species of fish other than halibut during the closed periods.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), no person shall have halibut in his/her possession while fishing for any other species of fish during the closed periods.
(5) No vessel shall retrieve any halibut fishing gear during a closed period if the vessel has any halibut on board.
(6) A vessel that has no halibut on board may retrieve any halibut fishing gear during the closed period after the operator notifies an authorized officer or representative of the Commission prior to that retrieval.
(7) After retrieval of halibut gear in accordance with paragraph (6), the vessel shall submit to a hold inspection at the discretion of the authorized officer or representative of the Commission.
(8) No person shall retain any halibut caught on gear retrieved in accordance with paragraph (6).
(9) No person shall possess halibut on board a vessel in a regulatory area during a closed period unless that vessel is in continuous transit to or within a port in which that halibut may be lawfully sold.
All waters in the Bering Sea north of 55°00′00″ N. latitude in Isanotski Strait that are enclosed by a line from Cape Sarichef Light (54°36′00″ N. latitude, 164°55′42″ W. longitude) to a point at 56°20′00″ N. latitude, 168°30′00″ W. longitude; thence to a point at 58°21′25″ N. latitude, 163°00′00″ W. longitude; thence to Strogonof Point (56°53′18″ N. latitude, 158°50′37″ W. longitude); and then along the northern coasts of the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island to the point of origin at Cape Sarichef Light are closed to halibut fishing and no person shall fish for halibut therein or have halibut in his/her possession while in those waters, except in the course of a continuous transit across those waters. All waters in Isanotski Strait between 55°00′00″ N. latitude and 54°49′00″ N. latitude are closed to halibut fishing.
(1) The total allowable commercial catch of halibut to be taken during the commercial halibut fishing periods specified in section 8 shall be limited to the net weights expressed in pounds or metric tons shown in the following table:
(2) Notwithstanding
(3) The Commission shall determine and announce to the public the date on which the catch limit for Area 2A will be taken.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the commercial fishing in Area 2B will close only when all Individual Vessel Quotas (IVQs) assigned by DFO are taken, or November 7, whichever is earlier.
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E will each close only when all Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) and all CDQs issued by NMFS have been taken, or 7 November, whichever is earlier.
(6) If the Commission determines that the catch limit specified for Area 2A in paragraph (1) would be exceeded in an unrestricted 10-hour fishing period as specified in paragraph (2) of section 8, the catch limit for that area shall be considered to have been taken and the directed commercial fishery closed as announced by the Commission.
(7) When under paragraphs (2), (3), and (6) the Commission has announced a date on which the catch limit for Area 2A will be taken, no person shall fish for halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless the Commission has announced the reopening of that area for halibut fishing.
(8) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the total allowable catch of halibut that may be taken in the Area 4E directed commercial fishery is equal to the combined annual catch limits specified for the Area 4D and Area 4E CDQ fisheries. The annual Area 4D CDQ catch limit will decrease by the equivalent amount of halibut CDQ taken in Area 4E in excess of the annual Area 4E CDQ catch limit.
(9) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the total allowable catch of halibut that may be taken in the Area 4D directed commercial fishery is equal to the combined annual catch limits specified for Area 4C and Area 4D. The annual Area 4C catch limit will decrease by the equivalent amount of halibut taken in Area 4D in excess of the annual Area 4D catch limit.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any vessel to retain more halibut than authorized by that vessel's license in any fishing period for which the Commission has announced a fishing period limit.
(2) The operator of any vessel that fishes for halibut during a fishing period when fishing period limits are in effect must, upon commencing an offload of halibut to a commercial fish processor, completely offload all halibut on board said vessel to that processor and ensure that all halibut is weighed and reported on State fish tickets.
(3) The operator of any vessel that fishes for halibut during a fishing period when fishing period limits are in effect must, upon commencing an offload of halibut other than to a commercial fish processor, completely offload all halibut on board said vessel and ensure that all halibut are weighed and reported on State fish tickets.
(4) The provisions of paragraph (3) are not intended to prevent retail over-the-side sales to individual purchasers so long as all the halibut on board is ultimately offloaded and reported.
(5) When fishing period limits are in effect, a vessel's maximum retainable catch will be determined by the Commission based on:
(a) The vessel's overall length in feet and associated length class;
(b) the average performance of all vessels within that class; and
(c) the remaining catch limit.
(6) Length classes are shown in the following table:
(7) Fishing period limits in Area 2A apply only to the directed halibut fishery referred to in paragraph (2) of section 8.
(1) No person shall take or possess any halibut that:
(a) With the head on, is less than 32 inches (81.3 cm) as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, as illustrated in Figure 2; or
(b) with the head removed, is less than 24 inches (61.0 cm) as measured from the base of the pectoral fin at its most anterior point to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, as illustrated in Figure 2.
(2) No person on board a vessel fishing for, or tendering halibut shall possess any halibut that has had its head removed, except that halibut frozen at sea with its head removed may be possessed on board a vessel by persons in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E if authorized by Federal regulations.
(3) The size limit in paragraph (1)(b) will not be applied to any halibut that has had its head removed after the operator has landed the halibut.
(1) All halibut that are caught and are not retained shall be immediately released outboard of the roller and returned to the sea with a minimum of injury by:
(a) Hook straightening;
(b) cutting the gangion near the hook; or
(c) carefully removing the hook by twisting it from the halibut with a gaff.
(2) Except that paragraph (1) shall not prohibit the possession of halibut on board a vessel that has been brought aboard to be measured to determine if the minimum size limit of the halibut is met and, if sublegal-sized, is promptly returned to the sea with a minimum of injury.
(1) The operator of any vessel that fishes for halibut in Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D must obtain a vessel clearance before fishing in any of these areas, and before the landing of any halibut caught in any of these areas, unless specifically exempted in paragraphs (10), (13), (14), (15), or (16).
(2) An operator obtaining a vessel clearance required by paragraph (1) must obtain the clearance in person from the authorized clearance personnel and sign the IPHC form documenting that a clearance was obtained, except that when the clearance is obtained via VHF radio referred to in paragraphs (5), (8), and (9), the authorized clearance personnel must sign the IPHC form documenting that the clearance was obtained.
(3) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4A may be obtained only at Nazan Bay on Atka Island, Dutch Harbor or Akutan, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.
(4) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4B may only be obtained at Nazan Bay on Atka Island or Adak, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.
(5) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4C or 4D may be obtained only at St. Paul or St. George, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel.
(6) The vessel operator shall specify the specific regulatory area in which fishing will take place.
(7) Before unloading any halibut caught in Area 4A, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in Dutch Harbor or Akutan, Alaska, by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.
(8) Before unloading any halibut caught in Area 4B, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in Nazan Bay on Atka Island or Adak, by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor by VHF radio or in person.
(9) Before unloading any halibut caught in Area 4C and 4D, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in St. Paul, St. George, Dutch Harbor, or Akutan, Alaska, either in person or by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor. The clearances obtained in St. Paul or St. George, Alaska, can be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel.
(10) Any vessel operator who complies with the requirements in section 18 for possessing halibut on board a vessel that was caught in more than one regulatory area in Area 4 is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1) of this section, provided that:g
(a) The operator of the vessel obtains a vessel clearance prior to fishing in Area 4 in either Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St. Paul, St. George, Adak, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor. The clearance obtained in St. Paul, St. George, Adak, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island can be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel. This clearance will list the areas in which the vessel will fish; and
(b) before unloading any halibut from Area 4, the vessel operator obtains a
(11) Vessel clearances shall be obtained between 0600 and 1800 hours, local time.
(12) No halibut shall be on board the vessel at the time of the clearances required prior to fishing in Area 4.
(13) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4A and lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4A is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).
(14) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4B and lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4B is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).
(15) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4C or 4D or 4E and lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4C, 4D, 4E, or the closed area defined in section 10, is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).
(16) Any vessel that carries a transmitting VMS transmitter while fishing for halibut in Area 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D and until all halibut caught in any of these areas is landed, is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1) of this section, provided that:
(a) The operator of the vessel complies with NMFS' vessel monitoring system regulations published at 50 CFR 679.28(f)(3), (4) and (5); and
(b) the operator of the vessel notifies NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement at 800-304-4846 (select option 1 to speak to an Enforcement Data Clerk) between the hours of 0600 and 0000 (midnight) local time within 72 hours before fishing for halibut in Area 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D and receives a VMS confirmation number.
(1) The operator of any U.S. vessel fishing for halibut that has an overall length of 26 feet (7.9 meters) or greater shall maintain an accurate log of halibut fishing operations. The operator of a vessel fishing in waters in and off Alaska must use one of the following logbooks: The Groundfish/IFQ Longline and Pot Gear Daily Fishing Logbook, in electronic or paper form, provided by NMFS; the Alaska hook-and-line logbook provided by Petersburg Vessel Owners Association or Alaska Longline Fisherman's Association; the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) longline-pot logbook; or the logbook provided by IPHC. The operator of a vessel fishing in Area 2A must use either the WDFW Voluntary Sablefish Logbook, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Fixed Gear Logbook, or the logbook provided by IPHC.
(2) The logbook referred to in paragraph (1) must include the following information:
(a) The name of the vessel and the State (ADF&G, WDFW, ODFW, or CDFW) or Tribal ID number;
(b) the date(s) upon which the fishing gear is set or retrieved;
(c) the latitude and longitude coordinates or a direction and distance from a point of land for each set or day;
(d) the number of skates deployed or retrieved, and number of skates lost; and
(e) the total weight or number of halibut retained for each set or day.
(3) The logbook referred to in paragraph (1) shall be:
(a) Maintained on board the vessel;
(b) updated not later than 24 hours after 0000 (midnight) local time for each day fished and prior to the offloading or sale of halibut taken during that fishing trip;
(c) retained for a period of two years by the owner or operator of the vessel;
(d) open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission upon demand; and
(e) kept on board the vessel when engaged in halibut fishing, during transits to port of landing, and until the offloading of all halibut is completed.
(4) The log referred to in paragraph (1) does not apply to the incidental halibut fishery during the salmon troll season in Area 2A defined in paragraph (4) of section 8.
(5) The operator of any Canadian vessel fishing for halibut shall maintain an accurate record in the British Columbia Integrated Groundfish Fishing Log.
(6) The log referred to in paragraph (5) must include the following information:
(a) The name of the vessel and the DFO vessel registration number;
(b) the date(s) upon which the fishing gear is set and retrieved;
(c) the latitude and longitude coordinates for each set;
(d) the number of skates deployed or retrieved, and number of skates lost; and
(e) the total weight or number of halibut retained for each set.
(7) The log referred to in paragraph (5) shall be:
(a) Maintained on board the vessel;
(b) retained for a period of two years by the owner or operator of the vessel;
(c) open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission upon demand;
(d) kept on board the vessel when engaged in halibut fishing, during transits to port of landing, and until the offloading of all halibut is completed;
(e) submitted to the DFO within seven days of offloading; and
(f) submitted to the Commission within seven days of the final offload if not previously collected by a Commission employee.
(8) No person shall make a false entry in a log referred to in this section.
(1) No person shall receive halibut caught in Area 2A from a United States vessel that does not have on board the license required by section 4.
(2) No person shall possess on board a vessel a halibut other than whole or with gills and entrails removed, except that this paragraph shall not prohibit the possession on board a vessel of:
(a) Halibut cheeks cut from halibut caught by persons authorized to process the halibut on board in accordance with NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679;
(b) fillets from halibut offloaded in accordance with section 17 that are possessed on board the harvesting vessel in the port of landing up to 1800 hours local time on the calendar day following the offload;
(c) halibut with their heads removed in accordance with section 13.
(3) No person shall offload halibut from a vessel unless the gills and entrails have been removed prior to offloading.
(4) It shall be the responsibility of a vessel operator who lands halibut to continuously and completely offload at a single offload site all halibut on board the vessel.
(5) A registered buyer (as that term is defined in regulations promulgated by NMFS and codified at 50 CFR part 679) who receives halibut harvested in IFQ and CDQ fisheries in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E, directly from the vessel operator that harvested such halibut must weigh all the halibut received and record the following information on Federal catch reports: Date of offload; name of vessel; vessel
(6) The first recipient, commercial fish processor, or buyer in the United States who purchases or receives halibut directly from the vessel operator that harvested such halibut must weigh and record all halibut received and record the following information on State fish tickets: The date of offload; vessel number (State or Federal, not IPHC vessel number) or Tribal ID number; total weight obtained at the time of offload including the weight (in pounds) of halibut purchased; the weight (in pounds) of halibut offloaded in excess of the IFQ, CDQ, or fishing period limits; the weight of halibut (in pounds) retained for personal use or for future sale; and the weight (in pounds) of halibut discarded as unfit for human consumption.
(7) The individual completing the State fish tickets for the Area 2A fisheries as referred to in paragraph (6) must additionally record whether the halibut weight is of head-on or head-off fish.
(8) For halibut landings made in Alaska, the requirements as listed in paragraphs (5) and (6) can be met by recording the information in the Interagency Electronic Reporting Systems, eLandings in accordance with NMFS regulation published at 50 CFR part 679.
(9) The master or operator of a Canadian vessel that was engaged in halibut fishing must weigh and record all halibut on board said vessel at the time offloading commences and record on Provincial fish tickets or Federal catch reports: The date; locality; name of vessel; the name(s) of the person(s) from whom the halibut was purchased; and the scale weight obtained at the time of offloading of all halibut on board the vessel including the pounds purchased, pounds in excess of IVQs, pounds retained for personal use, and pounds discarded as unfit for human consumption.
(10) No person shall make a false entry on a State or Provincial fish ticket or a Federal catch or landing report referred to in paragraphs (5), (6), and (9) of section 17.
(11) A copy of the fish tickets or catch reports referred to in paragraphs (5), (6), and (9) shall be:
(a) Retained by the person making them for a period of three years from the date the fish tickets or catch reports are made; and
(b) open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission.
(12) No person shall possess any halibut taken or retained in contravention of these Regulations.
(13) When halibut are landed to other than a commercial fish processor, the records required by paragraph (6) shall be maintained by the operator of the vessel from which that halibut was caught, in compliance with paragraph (11).
(14) No person shall tag halibut unless the tagging is authorized by IPHC permit or by a Federal or State agency.
(1) Except as provided in this section, no person shall possess at the same time on board a vessel halibut caught in more than one regulatory area.
(2) Halibut caught in more than one of the Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E may be possessed on board a vessel at the same time only if:
(a) Authorized by NMFS' regulations published at 50 CFR Section 679.7(f)(4); and
(b) the operator of the vessel identifies the regulatory area in which each halibut on board was caught by separating halibut from different areas in the hold, tagging halibut, or by other means.
(1) No person shall fish for halibut using any gear other than hook and line gear,
(a) except that vessels licensed to catch sablefish in Area 2B using sablefish trap gear as defined in the Condition of Licence can retain halibut caught as bycatch under regulations promulgated by DFO; or
(b) except that a person may retain halibut taken with longline pot gear in the sablefish IFQ fishery if such retention is authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679.
(2) No person shall possess halibut taken with any gear other than hook and line gear,
(a) except that vessels licensed to catch sablefish in Area 2B using sablefish trap gear as defined by the Condition of Licence can retain halibut caught as bycatch under regulations promulgated by DFO; or
(b) except that a person may possess halibut taken with longline pot gear in the sablefish IFQ fishery if such possession is authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679.
(3) No person shall possess halibut while on board a vessel carrying any trawl nets or fishing pots capable of catching halibut,
(a) except that in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E, halibut heads, skin, entrails, bones or fins for use as bait may be possessed on board a vessel carrying pots capable of catching halibut, provided that a receipt documenting purchase or transfer of these halibut parts is on board the vessel; or
(b) except that in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E, halibut may be possessed on board a vessel carrying pots capable of catching halibut, provided such possession is authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679 as referenced in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section; or
(c) except that in Area 2B, halibut may be possessed on board a vessel carrying sablefish trap gear, provided such possession is authorized by the Condition of Licence regulations promulgated by DFO as referenced in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(4) All setline or skate marker buoys carried on board or used by any United States vessel used for halibut fishing shall be marked with one of the following:
(a) The vessel's State license number; or
(b) the vessel's registration number.
(5) The markings specified in paragraph (4) shall be in characters at least four inches in height and one-half inch in width in a contrasting color visible above the water and shall be maintained in legible condition.
(6) All setline or skate marker buoys carried on board or used by a Canadian vessel used for halibut fishing shall be:
(a) Floating and visible on the surface of the water; and
(b) legibly marked with the identification plate number of the vessel engaged in commercial fishing from which that setline is being operated.
(7) No person on board a vessel used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in Area 2A during the 72-hour period immediately before the fishing period for the directed commercial fishery shall catch or possess halibut anywhere in those waters during that halibut fishing period unless, prior to the start of the halibut fishing period, the vessel has removed its gear from the water and has either:
(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its catch of other fish; or
(b) submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.
(8) No vessel used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in Area 2A during the 72-hour period immediately before the fishing period for the directed commercial fishery may be used to catch or possess halibut anywhere in those waters during that halibut fishing period unless, prior to the start of the halibut fishing period, the vessel has removed its gear from the water and has either:
(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its catch of other fish; or
(b) submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.
(9) No person on board a vessel from which setline gear was used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E during the 72-hour period immediately before the opening of the halibut fishing season shall catch or possess halibut anywhere in those areas until the vessel has removed all of its setline gear from the water and has either:
(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its entire catch of other fish; or
(b) submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.
(10) No vessel from which setline gear was used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E during the 72-hour period immediately before the opening of the halibut fishing season may be used to catch or possess halibut anywhere in those areas until the vessel has removed all of its setline gear from the water and has either:
(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its entire catch of other fish; or
(b) submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.
(11) Notwithstanding any other provision in these Regulations, a person may retain, possess and dispose of halibut taken with trawl gear only as authorized by Prohibited Species Donation regulations of NMFS.
The unloading and weighing of halibut may be subject to the supervision of authorized officers to assure the fulfillment of the provisions of these Regulations.
(1) Nothing contained in these Regulations prohibits any vessel at any time from retaining and landing a halibut that bears a Commission external tag at the time of capture, if the halibut with the tag still attached is reported at the time of landing and made available for examination by a representative of the Commission or by an authorized officer.
(2) After examination and removal of the tag by a representative of the Commission or an authorized officer, the halibut:
(a) May be retained for personal use; or
(b) may be sold only if the halibut is caught during commercial halibut fishing and complies with the other commercial fishing provisions of these Regulations.
(3) Any halibut that bears a Commission external tag must count against commercial IVQs, CDQs, or IFQs, unless otherwise exempted by State, Provincial, or Federal regulations.
(4) Any halibut that bears a Commission external tag will not count against sport daily bag limits or possession limits, may be retained outside of sport fishing seasons, and are not subject to size limits in these regulations.
(5) Any halibut that bears a Commission external tag will not count against daily bag limits, possession limits, or catch limits in the fisheries described in section 22, paragraph (7), section 23, or section 24.
(1) Halibut fishing in Subarea 2A-1 by members of United States treaty Indian tribes located in the State of Washington shall be regulated under regulations promulgated by NMFS and published in the
(2) Subarea 2A-1 includes all waters off the coast of Washington that are north of the Quinault River, WA (47°21.00′ N. lat.), and east of 125°44.00′ W. long; all waters off the coast of Washington that are between the Quinault River, WA (47°21.00′ N. lat.), and Point Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.), and east of 125°08.50′ W. long.; and all inland marine waters of Washington.
(3) Section 13 (size limits), section 14 (careful release of halibut), section 16 (logs), section 17 (receipt and possession of halibut) and section 19 (fishing gear), except paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 19, apply to commercial fishing for halibut in Subarea 2A-1 by the treaty Indian tribes.
(4) Regulations in paragraph (3) of this section that apply to State fish tickets apply to Tribal tickets that are authorized by WDFW.
(5) Section 4 (Licensing Vessels for Area 2A) does not apply to commercial fishing for halibut in Subarea 2A-1 by treaty Indian tribes.
(6) Commercial fishing for halibut in Subarea 2A-1 is permitted with hook and line gear from 11 March through 7 November, or until 435,900 pounds (197.72 metric tons) net weight is taken, whichever occurs first.
(7) Ceremonial and subsistence fishing for halibut in Subarea 2A-1 is permitted with hook and line gear from 1 January through 31 December, and is estimated to take 29,600 pounds (13.43 metric tons) net weight.
(1) Customary and traditional fishing for halibut in Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall be governed pursuant to regulations promulgated by NMFS and published in 50 CFR part 300.
(2) Customary and traditional fishing is authorized from 1 January through 31 December.
(1) Fishing for halibut for food, social and ceremonial purposes by Aboriginal groups in Regulatory Area 2B shall be governed by the Fisheries Act of Canada and regulations as amended from time to time.
(1) No person shall engage in sport fishing for halibut using gear other than a single line with no more than two hooks attached; or a spear.
(2) Any size limit promulgated under IPHC or NMFS regulations shall be measured in a straight line passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail.
(3) Any halibut brought aboard a vessel and not immediately returned to the sea with a minimum of injury will be included in the daily bag limit of the person catching the halibut.
(4) No person may possess halibut on a vessel while fishing in a closed area.
(5) No halibut caught by sport fishing shall be offered for sale, sold, traded, or bartered.
(6) No halibut caught in sport fishing shall be possessed on board a vessel when other fish or shellfish aboard said vessel are destined for commercial use, sale, trade, or barter.
(7) The operator of a charter vessel shall be liable for any violations of these Regulations committed by an angler on board said vessel. In Alaska, the charter vessel guide, as defined in 50 CFR 300.61 and referred to in 50 CFR 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67, shall be liable for any violation of these Regulations
(1) The total allowable catch of halibut shall be limited to:
(a) 237,762 pounds (107.85 metric tons) net weight in waters off Washington;
(b) 256,757 pounds (116.46 metric tons) net weight in waters off Oregon; and
(c) 34,580 pounds (15.69 metric tons) net weight in waters off California.
(2) The Commission shall determine and announce closing dates to the public for any area in which the catch limits promulgated by NMFS are estimated to have been taken.
(3) When the Commission has determined that a subquota under paragraph (8) of this section is estimated to have been taken, and has announced a date on which the season will close, no person shall sport fish for halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless a reopening of that area for sport halibut fishing is scheduled in accordance with the Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A, or announced by the Commission.
(4) In California, Oregon, or Washington, no person shall fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure a halibut in any manner that prevents the determination of minimum size or the number of fish caught, possessed, or landed.
(5) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut in the waters off the coast of Washington is the same as the daily bag limit. The possession limit for halibut on land in Washington is two daily bag limits.
(6) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut caught in the waters off the coast of Oregon is the same as the daily bag limit. The possession limit for halibut on land in Oregon is three daily bag limits.
(7) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut caught in the waters off the coast of California is one daily bag limit. The possession limit for halibut on land in California is one daily bag limit.
(8) [The Area 2A CSP will be published under a separate final rule that, once published, will be available on the NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region's Web site at
(1) In all waters off British Columbia:
(a) The sport fishing season will open on 1 February unless more restrictive regulations are in place;
(b) the sport fishing season will close when the sport catch limit allocated by DFO, is taken, or 31 December, whichever is earlier; and
(c) the daily bag limit is two halibut of any size per day per person.
(2) In British Columbia, no person shall fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure a halibut in any manner that prevents the determination of minimum size or the number of fish caught, possessed, or landed.
(3) The possession limit for halibut in the waters off the coast of British Columbia is three halibut.
(1) In Convention waters in and off Alaska:
(a) The sport fishing season is from 1 February to 31 December.
(b) The daily bag limit is two halibut of any size per day per person unless a more restrictive bag limit applies in Commission regulations or Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.65.
(c) No person may possess more than two daily bag limits.
(d) No person shall possess on board a vessel, including charter vessels and pleasure craft used for fishing, halibut that have been filleted, mutilated, or otherwise disfigured in any manner, except that each halibut may be cut into no more than 2 ventral pieces, 2 dorsal pieces, and 2 cheek pieces, with skin on all pieces.
(e) Halibut in excess of the possession limit in paragraph (1)(c) of this section may be possessed on a vessel that does not contain sport fishing gear, fishing rods, hand lines, or gaffs.
(f) All halibut harvested on a charter vessel fishing trip in Area 2C or Area 3A must be retained on board the charter vessel on which the halibut was caught until the end of the charter vessel fishing trip as defined at 50 CFR 300.61.
(g) Guided angler fish (GAF), as described at 50 CFR 300.65, may be used to allow a charter vessel angler to harvest additional halibut up to the limits in place for unguided anglers, and are exempt from the requirements in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section.
(2) For guided sport fishing (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) in Regulatory Area 2C:
(a) The total allocation, including estimated harvest and incidental mortality (wastage), is 915,000 pounds (415.04 metric tons).
(b) No person on board a charter vessel (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) shall catch and retain more than one halibut per calendar day.
(c) No person on board a charter vessel (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) shall catch and retain any halibut that with head on is greater than 44 inches (111.8 cm) and less than 80 inches (203.2 cm) as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, as illustrated in Figure 3.
(3) For guided sport fishing (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) in Regulatory Area 3A:
(a) The total allocation, including estimated harvest and incidental mortality (wastage), is 1,890,000 pounds (857.29 metric tons).
(b) No person on board a charter vessel (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) shall catch and retain more than two halibut per calendar day.
(c) At least one of the retained halibut must have a head-on length of no more than 28 inches (71.1 cm) as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, as illustrated in Figure 4. If a person sport fishing on a charter vessel in Area 3A retains only one halibut in a calendar day, that halibut may be of any length.
(d) A charter halibut permit (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.67) may only be used for one charter vessel fishing trip in which halibut are caught and retained per calendar day. A charter vessel fishing trip is defined at 50 CFR 300.61 as the time period between the first deployment of fishing gear into the water by a charter vessel angler (as defined at 50 CFR 300.61) and the offloading of one or more charter vessel anglers or any halibut from that vessel. For purposes of this trip limit, a charter vessel fishing trip ends at 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) on the same calendar day that the fishing trip began, or when any anglers or halibut are offloaded, whichever comes first.
(e) A charter vessel on which one or more anglers catch and retain halibut may only make one charter vessel fishing trip per calendar day. A charter
(f) No person on board a charter vessel may catch and retain halibut on any Wednesday, or on the following Tuesdays: 18 July, 25 July, and 1 August.
(g) Charter vessel anglers may catch and retain no more than four (4) halibut per calendar year on board charter vessels in Area 3A. Halibut that are retained as GAF, retained while on a charter vessel fishing trip in other Commission regulatory areas, or retained while fishing without the services of a guide do not accrue toward the 4-fish annual limit. For purposes of enforcing the annual limit, each angler must:
(1) Maintain a nontransferable harvest record in the angler's possession if retaining a halibut for which an annual limit has been established. Such harvest record must be maintained either on the back of the angler's State of Alaska sport fishing license or on a Sport Fishing Harvest Record Card obtained, without charge, from ADF&G offices, the ADF&G Web site, or fishing license vendors; and
(2) immediately upon retaining a halibut for which an annual limit has been established, record the date, location (Area 3A), and species of the catch (halibut), in ink, on the harvest record; and
(3) record the information required by paragraph 3(g)(2) on any duplicate or additional sport fishing license issued to the angler or any duplicate or additional Sport Fishing Harvest Record Card obtained by the angler for all halibut previously retained during that year that were subject to the harvest record reporting requirements of this section; and
(4) carry the harvest record on his or her person while fishing for halibut.
These Regulations shall supersede all previous regulations of the Commission, and these Regulations shall be effective each succeeding year until superseded.
These IPHC annual management measures are a product of an agreement between the United States and Canada and are published in the
16 U.S.C. 773
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason General category bluefin tuna quota transfer and retention limit adjustment.
NMFS is transferring 40 metric tons (mt) of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) quota from the Reserve category to the General category January 2017 subquota period (which lasts from January 1 through March 31, 2017, or until the available subquota for this period is reached, whichever comes first). This transfer results in an adjusted subquota of 81 mt for the January 2017 subquota period and 78 mt for the Reserve category quota. NMFS also is adjusting the Atlantic tunas General category BFT daily retention limit for the January 2017 subquota period to one large medium or giant BFT from the current retention limit of three. This action is based on consideration of the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments and applies to Atlantic tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels when fishing commercially for BFT.
The quota transfer is effective March 2, 2017 through March 31, 2017. The General category retention limit adjustment is effective March 5, 2017, through March 31, 2017.
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
The base quota for the General category is 466.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a portion of the annual General category quota. Although it is called the “January” subquota, the regulations allow the General category fishery under this quota to continue until the subquota is reached or March 31, whichever comes first. Based on the General category base quota of 466.7 mt, the subquotas for each time period are as follows: 24.7 mt for January; 233.3 mt for June through August; 123.7 mt for September; 60.7 mt for October through November; and 24.3 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward within the fishing year, which coincides with the calendar year, from one time period to the next, and is available for use in subsequent time periods. Effective January 1, 2017, NMFS transferred 16.3 mt of the 24.3-mt General category quota allocated for the December 2017 period to the January 2017 period, resulting in a subquota of 41 mt for the January period and a subquota of 8 mt for the December 2017 period (81 FR 91873, December 19, 2016). Effective February 28, 2017, NMFS reallocated 138.2 mt of the 2017 Purse Seine category quota to the Reserve and transferred 45 mt from the Reserve category quota to the Longline category, resulting in an adjusted 2017 Reserve category quota of 118 mt (82 FR 12296, March 2, 2017).
Under § 635.27(a)(9), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories, after considering regulatory determination criteria at § 635.27(a)(8).
NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to this inseason quota transfer and change in retention limit in the General category fishery. The criteria and their application are discussed below.
For the inseason quota transfer, NMFS considered the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)). Biological samples collected from BFT landed by General category fishermen and provided by tuna dealers provide NMFS with valuable parts and data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT in the General category would support the continued collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.
NMFS also considered the catches of the General category quota to date (including during the winter fishery in the last several years), and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii)). As of February 27, 2017, the General category landed approximately 52 mt of its adjusted January subquota of 41 mt. Without a quota transfer, NMFS would have to close the January 2017 General category fishery, while unused quota remains in the Reserve category and while commercial-sized BFT may remain available in the areas where General category permitted vessels operate at this time of year. Transferring 40 mt of BFT quota from the Reserve category would result in 81 mt being available for the January subquota period. This quota transfer would provide additional opportunities to harvest the U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it, while preserving the opportunity for General category fishermen to participate in the winter BFT fishery.
Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota (here, the General category) to harvest the additional amount of BFT before the end of the fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iii)), NMFS considered General category landings in the last several years. General category landings in the winter BFT fishery tend to be highly variable and depend on access to commercial-sized BFT and fishing conditions, among other factors. Any unused General category quota from the January subperiod that remains as of March 31 will roll forward to the next subperiod within the calendar year (
NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iv)) and the ability to account for all 2017 landings and dead discards. In the last several years, total U.S. BFT landings have been below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. In 2016, the General category exceeded its adjusted quota (discussed below) but sufficient quota was available to cover the exceedance without affecting the other categories. NMFS will need to account for 2017 landings and dead discards within the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and anticipates having sufficient quota to do that. This quota transfer would provide additional opportunities to harvest the U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it, while preserving the opportunity for General category fishermen to participate in the winter BFT fishery.
This transfer would be consistent with the current quotas, which were established and analyzed in the 2015 BFT quota final rule (80 FR 52198, August 28, 2015), and with objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. (§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). Another principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full annual U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and Amendment 7, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(8)(x)).
NMFS also anticipates that some underharvest of the 2016 adjusted U.S. BFT quota will be carried forward to 2017 and placed in the Reserve category, in accordance with the regulations. This, in addition to the fact that any unused General category quota will roll forward to the next subperiod within the calendar year, along with NMFS' plan to actively manage the subquotas to avoid any exceedances, makes it likely that General category quota will remain available through the end of 2017. NMFS also may conduct other allowable transfers among categories throughout the year after considering the regulatory determination criteria for such adjustments. In 2016, NMFS closed the General category quota effective November 4 to prevent further overharvest of the adjusted General category quota. General category landings were relatively high in the fall of 2016, due to a combination of fish availability, favorable fishing conditions, and higher daily retention limits (described below). NMFS anticipates that General category participants in all areas and time periods will have opportunities to harvest the General category quota in 2017, through active inseason management such as retention limit adjustments and/or the timing of quota transfers, as practicable. Thus, this quota transfer would allow fishermen to take advantage of the availability of fish on the fishing grounds, consider the expected increases in available 2017 quota later in the year, and provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the full U.S. BFT quota.
Based on the considerations above, NMFS is transferring 40 mt of BFT quota from the Reserve category, resulting in a subquota of 81 mt for the January 2017 subquota period and a subquota of 78 mt for the Reserve category. NMFS will close the General category fishery when the adjusted January period subquota of 81 mt has been reached, or it will close automatically on March 31, 2017, whichever comes first, and it will remain closed until the General category fishery reopens on June 1, 2017.
Under § 635.23(a)(4), NMFS may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range of zero to a maximum of five per vessel based on consideration of the relevant criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8), and listed above. NMFS has considered the relevant criteria and their applicability to the General category BFT retention limit for the remainder of the January subquota period.
As described above with regard to the quota transfer, additional opportunity to land BFT (
As described above, a principal consideration in reducing the daily retention limit is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the available U.S. BFT quota without exceeding that quota, based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended. The retention limit currently is three fish and would continue to be three fish if NMFS were to take no action. NMFS is setting the retention limit at one fish through this action because, given the expected level of fishing effort and catch rates, a continued level of three fish may lead to exceeding the adjusted category quota.
Regarding the catches of the particular category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made, NMFS notes that in 2012, 2013, and 2014, the available January subquota (23.1 mt) was reached on January 22, February 15, and March 21, respectively, under a limit of two large medium or giant BFT. In each of these years, the General category did not reach its available quota by the end of the year. For 2015, the adjusted January subquota of 45.7 was not met under a daily retention limit of three large medium or giant BFT, whereas for 2016, the adjusted subquota of 49 mt was reached, and slightly exceeded, as of March 31 under a three-fish limit. For the January 2017 subquota period, NMFS allowed a three-fish limit for most of the subquota period, and is decreasing it only in the final third of the period, to try to best utilize available quota and keep the fishery open for the rest of the subquota period, if possible.
Based on these considerations, NMFS has determined that a General category retention limit of one fish is warranted for the remainder of the January 2017 subquota period. It would provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the U.S. quota of BFT without exceeding it, help optimize the ability of the General category to harvest its available quota, allow collection of a broad range of data for stock monitoring purposes, and be consistent with the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. Therefore, NMFS adjusts the General category retention limit from three to one large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip, effective March 5, 2017, through March 31, 2017, or until the 81-mt January subquota is harvested, whichever comes first.
Regardless of the duration of a fishing trip, the daily retention limit applies upon landing. For example, during the remainder of the January 2017 subquota period, whether a vessel fishing under the General category limit takes a two-day trip or makes two trips in one day, the day/trip limit of one fish applies and may not be exceeded upon landing. This General category retention limit is effective in all areas, except for the Gulf of Mexico, where NMFS prohibits targeted fishing for BFT, and applies to those vessels permitted in the General category, as well as to those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels fishing commercially for BFT.
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. General, HMS Charter/Headboat, Harpoon, and Angling category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the quota transfer and daily retention limit for the remainder of the January 2017 subquota period at this time is impracticable. NMFS could not have proposed these actions earlier, as it needed to consider and respond information about landings and availability of fish and other conditions outside the agency's control that then require immediate action to be effective on the fishing grounds and thus efficiently manage the fishery. Daily landings rates increased substantially the week of February 20, 2017, pushing total landings toward the available 41-mt quota. This information became available on February 24, 2017. NMFS could not effectively react to these landings data if, in implementing the retention limit, it allowed a public comment period, which would preclude fishermen from harvesting BFT that are legally available consistent with all of the regulatory criteria.
Delays in adjusting the retention limit may result in the available quota being exceeded and NMFS needing to close the fishery earlier than otherwise would be necessary under a lower limit. This could adversely affect those General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest BFT under retention limits set in response to the most recent data available. Limited opportunities to harvest the respective quotas may have negative social and economic impacts for U.S. fishermen that depend upon catching the available quota within the time periods designated in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended. Adjustment of the retention limit needs to be effective as soon as possible to extend fishing opportunities for fishermen in geographic areas with access to the fishery only during this time period. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For these reasons, there also is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under §§ 635.23(a)(4) and 635.27(a)(9), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to fully use the A season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch apportioned to catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 4, 2017, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2017. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., March 17, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0127, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 1, 2017 pursuant to the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017).
NMFS has determined that as of March 1, 2017, approximately 200 metric tons of Pacific cod remain in the A season allowance of the 2017 Pacific cod apportionment for catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully use the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of Pacific cod by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 1, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until March 17, 2017.
This action is required by § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amounts of the Aleut Corporation's pollock and the Community Development Quota directed fishing allowance from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the Bering Sea subarea directed fisheries. These actions are necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2017 total allowable catch of pollock, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 7, 2017, until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the portion of the 2017 pollock total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the Aleut Corporation's is 14,700 metric tons (mt) and the Community Development Quota (CDQ) directed fishing allowance (DFA) is 1,900 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017).
As of March 1, 2017, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that 9,000 mt of Aleut Corporation's DFA and 1,900 mt of pollock CDQ DFA in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Aleutians Islands pollock. Since the pollock fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the final Bering Sea subarea and Aleutian Islands subarea pollock allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery; allow the industry to plan for the fishing season and avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors; and provide opportunity to harvest increased seasonal pollock allocations while value is optimum. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 1, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 429 helicopters. This proposed AD would reduce the life limit of certain landing gear parts and is prompted by a stress analysis. The proposed actions are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 8, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued AD No. CF-2014-28, dated August 19, 2014, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Model 429 helicopters, serial numbers 57001 and subsequent. Transport Canada advises that Bell has reduced the life limits of several landing gear components and accordingly revised the airworthiness limitations schedule for Model 429 helicopters. The reduced life limits resulted from a stress analysis completed by Bell after the introduction of the Model 429 helicopter to service. While the reduced life limits were originally published in Revision 9 of the Bell Model 429 maintenance manual, Transport Canada AD No. CF-2014-28 requires inserting the new airworthiness limitations schedule in Revision 10 of the Bell Model 429 maintenance manual. Transport Canada states that failure to replace those components prior to the established airworthiness life could result in an unsafe condition.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We reviewed Bell Model 429 Maintenance Manual BHT-429-MM-1, Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations Schedule, Revision 9, dated January 6, 2012, which specifies airworthiness life limits and inspection intervals for parts installed on Model 429 helicopters. Revision 9 reduced the life limits for the skid tube assemblies, forward crosstube assembly, and aft crosstube assembly.
This proposed AD would reduce the life limit of certain landing gear parts by requiring the removal from service of
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 71 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Calculating the life limit would take about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $1,491 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing a skid tube assembly would take about 2 work-hours and parts would cost about $7,050 for an estimated replacement cost of $7,220. Replacing a forward cross tube assembly would take about 1.5 work-hours and parts would cost about $5,880 for an estimated replacement cost of $6,008. Replacing an aft tube assembly would take about 1.5 work-hours and parts would cost $6,710 for an estimated replacement cost of $6,838.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a landing gear part remaining in service beyond its fatigue life. This condition could result in failure of a landing gear part, failure of a landing gear skid, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter during takeoff or landing.
We must receive comments by May 8, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Before further flight, determine the accumulated retirement index number (RIN) for each part and remove it from service if it has reached or exceeded its life limit as follows. Thereafter, remove each part from service on or before reaching its life limit. For purposes of this AD, a run-on landing is defined as a landing with forward ground travel of the helicopter greater than 3 feet (0.91 m) with weight on skids.
(1) For Skid Tube Assembly part number (P/N) 429-700-101, 429-700-102, and 429-030-586-107: 16,000 RIN. Count 1 RIN for each landing; count 81 RIN for each run-on landing; and count 117 RIN for each autorotation landing.
(2) For Forward Crosstube Assembly P/N 429-712-101: 10,000 RIN. Count 1 RIN for each landing; count 50 RIN for each run-on landing; and count 118 RIN for each autorotation landing.
(3) Aft Crosstube Assembly P/N 429-723-108: 30,000 RIN. Count 1 RIN for each landing; count 32 RIN for each run-on landing; and count 186 RIN for each autorotation landing.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Bell 429 Maintenance Manual BHT-429-MM-1, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Revision 9, dated January 6, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No. CF-2014-28, dated August 19, 2014. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3200, Landing Gear System.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by two fan disks found with a manufacturing-caused flaw. This proposed AD would require removing affected fan disks, performing a one-time inspection, and replacing fan disks that fail inspection. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 21, 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 Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of two fan disks with material rollover condition on the surface of the dovetail slot. The material rollover was caused by incomplete chamfering or edge-break of the fan disk dovetail slots after broaching and subsequent shot-peening. This material rollover was considered a crack-like stress riser that can cause reduction in fatigue life and cracking. This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained failure of the fan disk and damage to the engine and airplane.
We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016. The SB identifies affected fan disks by serial number and describes procedures for removing, inspecting, and replacing the fan disks. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are 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 removing, inspecting, and replacing affected fan disks.
Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016 specifies a five year compliance time with no grace period. This NPRM proposes a tiered compliance time based on cycle accumulation. Also, Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256 specifies compliance with two overhaul/repair instructions (ORIs). Honeywell ORI T43374 addresses the fan disk material rollover condition and Honeywell ORI T43342 addresses additional material in the fan disk wings. This NPRM addresses only ORI T43374 corrective action for an unsafe condition.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 61 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary disk replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We estimate that 6 engines will need this replacement:
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 21, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines, with fan disk, part number (P/N) 3060287-2 and serial numbers (S/Ns) listed in Table 9 of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016, that do not have “T43374” marked adjacent to the engine P/N or S/N.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by a report of two fan disks found with surface rollovers in the dovetail slot area. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the fan disks and damage to the engine and airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Remove fan disks with 9,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) or more on the effective date of this AD, within 100 cycles-in-service (CIS), or at the next shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Remove fan disks with between 8,000 and 8,999 CSN, inclusive, on the effective date of this AD, within 9,100 CSN or within 1,000 CIS, or at the next shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(3) Remove fan disks with fewer than 8,000 CSN, on the effective date of this AD, before exceeding 9,000 CSN, or at the next shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(4) Inspect removed fan disks in accordance with Paragraph 3.D.(2) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016.
(5) Replace all removed fan disks with a part eligible for installation.
(1) For the purposes of this AD, shop visit is defined as the removal of the tie-shaft nut from the engine.
(2) For the purposes of this AD, access is defined as the removal of the fan rotor assembly from the engine.
(3) For the purposes of this AD, parts eligible for installation are those fan disks that pass the inspections and are marked with “T43374” adjacent to the P/N or S/N.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
(3) For service information on returning the fan disk for inspection identified in SB TFE731-72-5256 of this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
(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.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Request for comment.
The Commission is publishing this request for comment to seek public input as to the disclosures called for by Industry Guide 3,
Comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Lindsay McCord, Associate Chief Accountant in the Office of Chief Accountant, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3400, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The Commission is considering possible revisions to its disclosure regime for bank holding companies. When we discuss current disclosure guidance in this request for comment, we focus on the disclosures currently called for by Industry Guide 3,
The goal of the Commission's disclosure system is to ensure that investors receive the information they need to make informed investment and voting decisions.
Industry Guide 3 was first published in 1976
Since the last substantive revisions to Guide 3, the Commission has issued disclosure requirements and guidelines
Furthermore, the financial services industry has evolved significantly since Guide 3 was first published. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies today conduct a wider array of activities than was the case at the time of Guide 3's publication.
In this request for comment, we describe each disclosure section in Guide 3 in turn, as well as related disclosures required by Commission rules, U.S. GAAP and the U.S. banking agencies,
In addition to Article 9 and Guide 3, various Commission rules and accounting standards applicable to registrants in all industries govern the disclosures that bank holding companies provide in Commission filings. For example:
• Article 4 of Regulation S-X
• Item 303 of Regulation S-K,
• Item 305 of Regulation S-K,
• Item 2.02 of Form 8-K requires registrants that make any public announcement or release material non-public information about their results of operations or financial condition for a completed quarter or annual period to furnish the information as an exhibit to Form 8-K. Among other things, this requirement applies to earnings releases and investor presentations.
A wide range of information is publicly available beyond what is called for by the Commission's disclosure requirements and guidance. For example:
• The U.S. banking agencies require their regulated banking organizations to file publicly available Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call
• Banking organizations are subject to the regulatory capital framework and the associated disclosures adopted by the U.S. banking agencies. The current regulatory capital framework, known as “Basel III,” was first phased in beginning on January 1, 2014 and became effective for all U.S. banking organizations on January 1, 2015.
The Basel III framework is based on the following three pillars: (1) Minimum capital requirements, (2) supervisory review process, and (3) market discipline disclosures.
Entities within the scope of ASC 942 include the following: (a) Finance companies; (b) depository institutions; (c) bank holding companies; (d) savings and loan association holding companies; (e) branches and agencies of foreign banks regulated by U.S. federal banking regulatory agencies; (f) state-chartered banks, credit unions and savings institutions that are not federally insured; (g) foreign financial institutions that present U.S. GAAP financial statements; (h) mortgage companies; and (i) corporate credit unions.
• Large, internationally active banking organizations, certain designated nonbank financial companies and certain consolidated subsidiary depositary institutions thereof are subject to a liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) requirement. The LCR requirement is designed to promote the short-term resilience of the liquidity risk profile of covered organizations, thereby improving the financial services industry's ability to absorb shocks arising from financial and economic stress, and to further improve the measurement and management of liquidity risk. It requires covered organizations to maintain adequate levels of “high-quality liquid assets.”
In December 2016, the FRB adopted quarterly public disclosure requirements related to the LCR requirement, including disclosure of the inputs to the LCR calculation. The effective date is scaled based on organization size, and only those covered organizations with $700 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 trillion or more in assets under custody must comply in 2017.
• Under Basel III, certain banking organizations are subject to public disclosure requirements intended to allow market participants to assess an organization's capital adequacy (Pillar 3).
• Large bank holding companies are subject to the FRB's annual comprehensive capital analysis and review (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act)
The FRB uses CCAR to assess whether a banking organization has sufficient capital to continue operations in times of economic and financial stress and to ensure that the organization maintains a robust, forward-looking capital planning process that accounts for the unique risks it faces.
Over the years, the Commission has continuously evaluated its disclosure system and engaged periodically in rulemakings designed to enhance its disclosure and registration requirements. This request for comment is part of the staff's broad-based review of the Commission's disclosure regime.
As part of this effort, the staff requested public input generally on how the Commission's disclosure system could be improved for the benefit of both companies and investors,
In this request for comment, we are seeking public input as to whether and in which respects the specific quantitative and qualitative disclosures called for by Guide 3 should be modified. Such disclosures include statistical disclosures that enable investors to compare results of operations among BHC registrants and evaluate exposures to risk. Portions of Guide 3 may call for the same or similar information as called for by U.S. GAAP or other regulatory reporting requirements that are not subject to the Commission's review. We are considering whether our current disclosure regime for BHC registrants continues to elicit the most relevant and important information for investors. To this end, we are seeking to understand better the types of information investors find important and how our current disclosure regime comports with investor expectations as well as industry practice and trends. In addition, we seek to understand to what degree other disclosure regimes, such as those instituted by U.S. banking agencies, may be used by investors.
We also are considering how Guide 3's disclosures can be most effectively presented from the perspective of both investor protection and promoting efficiency, competition and capital formation.
Further, we are considering whether disclosures called for by Guide 3 should be applicable to certain other registrants in the financial services industry.
1. Does Guide 3 provide important information for investors about BHC registrants? What is the value to investors of the disclosures currently called for by Guide 3?
2. Do the disclosures called for by Guide 3 assist investors with comparing financial condition and results of operations across BHC registrants? Do the disclosures help investors evaluate exposures to risk across BHC registrants?
3. How should the Commission consider the importance of comparability for BHC registrants relative to other industries that do not have defined analytical data or specified disclosures?
4. Which Guide 3 disclosures, if any, should be codified as Commission rules, and why?
5. Excluding Commission filings, on what disclosures (
6. Should the information from disclosures outside of Commission filings be incorporated into the Commission's disclosure requirements? Why or why not? If incorporated, how should the information be presented to facilitate investors' access to such information?
7. Should the disclosures called for by Guide 3 be extended to other registrants, such as those engaged in the financial services industry? If so, which registrants and which disclosures?
In this section, we describe the disclosures currently called for by Guide 3 and other regulatory regimes. Our discussion of U.S. accounting standards and bank regulatory requirements is neither comprehensive nor interpretive, and it emphasizes only current
Net interest income represented more than 64% of total net operating revenue for all FDIC-insured institutions for the first three quarters of 2016.
As called for by Guide 3, average balance sheets
Section I.A of Guide 3 calls for balance sheets that show the average daily balances of significant categories of assets and liabilities, including all major categories of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.
• Interest earned or paid
• average yield for each major category of interest-earning asset;
• average rate paid for each major category of interest-bearing liability;
• average yield on all interest-earning assets;
• average effective rate paid on all interest-bearing liabilities; and
• net yield on interest-earning assets.
Section I.C of Guide 3 calls for a rate and volume analysis of interest income and interest expense for the last two fiscal years. This analysis should be segregated by each major category of interest-earning asset and interest-bearing liability into amounts attributable to:
• changes in volume (changes in volume multiplied by the old rate);
• changes in rates (changes in rates multiplied by the old volume); and
• changes in rate/volume (changes in rates multiplied by changes in volume).
Article 9 prescribes the form and content of consolidated financial statements for bank holding companies and requires presentation of interest income and interest expense separately by type and subtotals of total interest income, interest expense and net interest income on the income statement or in the footnotes to the financial statements.
Other rule provisions require registrants to provide quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk sensitive instruments, both trading and other than trading instruments, that affect their financial condition.
• A tabular presentation of fair value information and contract terms relevant to determining future cash flows, categorized by expected maturity dates.
• A sensitivity analysis expressing potential loss in future earnings, fair values or cash flows from selected hypothetical changes in market rates and prices.
• Value at risk (VaR) disclosures expressing potential loss in future earnings, fair values or cash flows from market movements over a selected period of time with a selected likelihood of occurrence.
Item 305 of Regulation S-K addresses risks arising from changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, equity prices and other market changes that affect market risk sensitive instruments and was designed to strike a balance between comparability and flexibility of market risk disclosures by prescribing these alternatives without stipulating standardized methods or procedures specifying how to comply with each alternative.
During the last five years, other regulatory agencies and the private sector have given increased attention to market risk disclosures. For example, in 2012 the Financial Stability Board's Enhanced Disclosure Task Force (EDTF), a private sector group composed of members representing users and preparers of financial reports, recommended that banking organizations provide information that facilitates users' understanding of the linkages between line items in the balance sheet and income statement with positions included in the market risk disclosures. The EDTF report included 32 recommendations for improving bank risk disclosures in the areas of report usability, risk governance and risk management, capital adequacy, liquidity and funding, market risk, credit risk and other risks.
In addition, the BCBS has focused on whether banking organizations have sufficient capital to cover possible losses due to interest rate changes.
• The carrying amount of classes of financial assets and liabilities segregated according to time intervals based on the contractual repricing of the financial instruments;
• the weighted-average contractual yield by class of financial instrument and time interval as well as the duration for each class of financial instrument;
• an interest rate sensitivity table showing the effects on net income and shareholders' equity of specified hypothetical, instantaneous shifts of interest rate curves as of the measurement date;
• a discussion of the significant changes and reasons for those changes related to the timing and amounts of financial assets and liabilities in the tabular disclosures from the last reporting period to the current reporting period along with any action taken to manage the exposure related to the changes; and
• additional qualitative or narrative disclosure, as necessary, for understanding of exposure to interest rate risk.
During the FASB Exposure Draft's development, the FASB received feedback from users
Banking organizations must report segregated information about interest income and interest expense and quarterly averages of certain balance sheet items in their Call Reports.
8. Do the distribution of (i) assets, liabilities and stockholders' equity; (ii) interest rates and (iii) interest differential disclosures called for by Guide 3 provide investors with information upon which they base investment and voting decisions? Would such information otherwise be provided under Commission rules (
9. Do Commission rules or U.S. GAAP require the same or similar information on the distribution of (i) assets, liabilities and stockholders' equity; (ii) interest rates and (iii) interest differential disclosures as called for by Guide 3? If so, how is the information similar or dissimilar? Please provide a detailed comparison.
10. What improvements could we make to the disclosures called for by Section I of Guide 3? For example, should we require disclosure about how BHC registrants present the effects of hedging of interest rate risk? Should we consider enhancing quantitative interest-rate risk disclosures? If so, what guidance, if any, should we provide to BHC registrants about the presentation?
11. Are there additional interest income and interest expense disclosures that would be important for investors that we should consider? In suggesting additional disclosures, please indicate whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing them. Please describe specifically the evidentiary basis for your knowledge of the challenges faced by BHC registrants in providing such disclosures. In your response, please assess the benefits of such disclosures to investors against the regulatory burdens to BHC registrants.
12. Recognizing the differences between more prescriptive and standardized disclosure requirements, which allow for more comparability, and more principles-based disclosure requirements, which allow registrants to provide disclosures more closely aligned with how their business is managed, would more prescriptive and standardized disclosures about market risks for BHC registrants beyond those called for by Item 305 of Regulation S-K be important for investors? If so, how should we revise our current disclosures? For example, should we limit the disclosure alternatives or assumptions these BHC registrants can use by market risk and/or trading versus other than trading portfolios in Item 305?
13. Alternatively, should we eliminate the prescribed market risk disclosure alternatives in Item 305 for BHC registrants and instead require them to provide market risk disclosures based on the methods they actually use to manage risk? Does the benefit of providing disclosure about the way management assesses market risk outweigh any lack of comparability of these disclosures across BHC registrants for an investor?
14. Should we require any of the interest rate risk disclosures proposed in the FASB's 2012 Exposure Draft in our filings? If so, which ones, and why?
15. Should we revise our market risk disclosures for BHC registrants to better align the disclosures to the financial statements, capital adequacy or other metrics? If so, what revisions should we consider and why?
16. Should we consider requiring that the distribution of (i) assets, liabilities and stockholders' equity; (ii) interest rates and (iii) interest differential disclosures called for by Guide 3 be presented in a structured data format, such as XBRL, to facilitate investor comparison of data across BHC registrants and usability of the disclosures? Why or why not? If so, what elements of these disclosures should be tagged so that they can be extracted in a structured data format?
17. If we require the Guide 3 tabular disclosures to be submitted in XBRL, are the current requirements for the format and elements of the tables suitable for tagging? If not, how should they be revised?
18. Should the categories used for disaggregation of these Guide 3 disclosures be closely aligned with those called for in Call Reports and other U.S. banking agency regulatory filings? If so, which ones and why?
19. Should we require disclosure of the interest income and expense information provided in Call Reports or other regulatory filings? If so, what information and why?
20. Should the distribution of (i) assets, liabilities and stockholders' equity; (ii) interest rates and (iii) interest differential disclosures called for by Guide 3 be extended to other registrants, such as those engaged in the financial services industry? If so, which registrants and which disclosures?
The investment portfolio typically is an important component of BHC registrants' total assets. Due to a recent trend of deposits outpacing lending,
Banking organizations typically use their investment portfolios to provide balance sheet liquidity, to generate income and to engage in risk management and market-making. U.S. GAAP currently classifies investment securities into three categories: Trading securities, held-to-maturity (HTM) securities and available-for-sale (AFS) securities.
In 2016, the FASB issued two new accounting standards for financial instruments.
Accounting Standards Update 2016-13,
Guide 3 investment portfolio disclosures provide investors with insight into the types of investments a BHC registrant holds, the earnings potential of those investments and their risk characteristics. For example, the weighted average yield for a category of securities allows investors to calculate estimated future earnings potential for that category of securities. Disclosures about significant amounts of investments in one or a small number of issuers also alert investors to concentration risks.
Section II.A of Guide 3 calls for disclosure of the book value of investments by specified category as of the end of each reported period. Section II.B calls for a maturity analysis for each category of investments as of the end of the latest reported period, as well as the weighted average yield for each range of maturities.
Article 9 requires disclosure of investment securities either on the balance sheet or in the footnotes to the financial statements. Article 9 also currently requires footnote disclosure of the carrying value and market value of securities by specified category, while Guide 3 calls for disclosure of book value.
Accounting standards have similar disclosure requirements, although the disclosures required by U.S. GAAP are more extensive than those required by Guide 3.
• Amortized cost basis;
• aggregate fair value;
• total other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI);
• total gains for securities with net gains in AOCI;
• total losses for securities with net losses in AOCI; and
• information about the contractual maturities as of the date of the most recent balance sheet presented.
U.S. GAAP requires similar disclosures for HTM securities, except that gross unrecognized holding gains and losses also must be disclosed.
U.S. GAAP also requires disclosures related to asset quality and impairment of investment securities.
U.S. GAAP also requires disclosures about fair value measurements for securities measured at or written-down to fair value.
The Division staff has observed that some BHC registrants discuss the composition of and fluctuations in their investment portfolio in MD&A.
Some BHC registrants, especially the largest ones, often publish and furnish in a current report on Form 8-K supplements to their earnings releases that provide detailed information about the investment portfolio not required by U.S. GAAP, including information about the duration of the portfolio, management's investment strategy or how new regulations may affect the portfolio. Some BHC registrants also provide detailed information about credit ratings or the valuation of specific investments that may be at risk of impairment or were impaired during the period.
Banking organizations are required to report the amortized cost and fair value of both HTM and AFS securities by security type in Call Reports.
In addition, Pillar 3 disclosures require information about how banking organizations measure credit and market risks in their investment portfolios, along with the associated risk weights of investment portfolio assets.
21. Do the investment portfolio disclosures called for by Guide 3 provide investors with information upon which they base investment and voting decisions? Would such information otherwise be provided under Commission rules (
22. Do Commission rules or U.S. GAAP require the same or similar investment portfolio information as called for by Guide 3? If so, how is the information similar or dissimilar? Please provide a detailed comparison.
23. What improvements to the existing investment portfolio disclosures should we consider that would assist investors in making investment and voting decisions? For example, should investment securities that are measured at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in earnings, such as trading securities, fall within the scope of our investment portfolio disclosures? In suggesting improvements, please indicate whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the disclosures.
24. To promote comparability and consistency of investment portfolio disclosures, should we specify the investment categories that BHC registrants must present when providing their investment portfolio disclosures?
25. While investors do not have experience with the disclosures that will be required by ASU 2016-13, is there information about HTM securities and impairment that would be important for investors under an expected credit loss model? If so, please indicate which information and indicate whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the information.
26. In addition, is there information about AFS securities that would be important for investors when
27. Should we consider requiring that the investment portfolio disclosures called for by Guide 3 be presented in a structured data format, such as XBRL, to facilitate investor comparison of data across BHC registrants and usability of the disclosures? Why or why not? If so, what elements of these disclosures should be tagged so that they can be extracted in a structured data format?
28. If we require the Guide 3 tabular disclosures to be submitted in XBRL, are the current requirements for the format and elements of the tables suitable for tagging? If not, how should they be revised?
29. Should the categories used for disaggregation of these Guide 3 disclosures be closely aligned with those called for in Call Reports and other U.S. banking agency regulatory filings? If so, which ones and why?
30. Should we require disclosure of the investment information provided in Call Reports or other regulatory filings? If so, what information and why?
31. Should the investment portfolio disclosures called for by Guide 3 be extended to other registrants, such as those engaged in the financial services industry? If so, which registrants and which disclosures?
Loans
To address risks related to the loan portfolio and the allowance for loan losses,
In 2010, the FASB issued updated disclosure guidance that greatly expanded the loan credit quality disclosures required by U.S. GAAP.
Section III.A of Guide 3 calls for disclosure of the amount of loans in each specified category
Section III.B calls for a maturity analysis
Section III.C.1 calls for disclosure of the aggregate amount of domestic and foreign
• Loans accounted for on a nonaccrual basis;
• loans accruing but contractually past due 90 days or more as to principal or interest payments; and
• loans classified as troubled debt restructurings (TDRs)
Section III.C.2 calls for descriptions of the nature and extent of any potential problem loans
If material amounts of the loans described in these sections are outstanding to borrowers in any foreign country, Guide 3 states that each country should be identified and that the amounts outstanding should be quantified.
Section III.C.3 calls for disclosure of the aggregate amount of cross-border outstandings
• A description of the nature and impact of the developments;
• an analysis of the changes in aggregate outstandings to borrowers in each country for the most recent reported period;
• quantitative information about interest income and interest collected during the most recent period; and
• quantitative information about any outstandings that may be subject to a restructuring.
Section III.C.4 calls for disclosure as of the end of the most recent reported period of any concentration of loans exceeding 10% of total loans not otherwise disclosed as a category of loans pursuant to Section III.A.
Section III.D calls for disclosure as of the end of the most recent reported period of the nature and amounts of any other interest-bearing assets that would be disclosed under Section III.C.1 or III.C.2 if those assets were loans.
Article 9 requires separate disclosure of total loans and unearned income on the balance sheet or in the footnotes for the same loan categories specified in Guide 3.
U.S. GAAP and Guide 3 have some similar loan presentation and disclosure standards. U.S. GAAP requires major categories of loans to be presented separately either on the balance sheet or in the financial statement footnotes.
• A description of each credit quality indicator;
• the recorded investment in financing receivables by credit quality indicator; and
• the date or range of dates in which information was updated for each credit quality indicator.
Currently and after implementation of ASU 2016-13, U.S. GAAP requires disclosure, by class of financing receivable, of the same information as specified in Sections III.C.1(a) and (b) of Guide 3 and an aging analysis of past due financing receivables. ASU 2016-13 will increase the credit quality-related disclosures for loans. For example, it will require registrants to present credit quality indicator disclosures by year of origination and require additional disclosures about loans on nonaccrual status. The disclosures about loans on nonaccrual status will include the amortized cost basis at both the beginning and end of the reporting period and the amortized cost basis for those nonaccrual loans without a related allowance for credit losses. In addition, disclosures will be required by class of financing receivable about collateral-dependent loans and the collateral that secures them.
In addition, both Guide 3 and U.S. GAAP, now and after the adoption of ASU 2016-13, call for disclosure of the following accounting policies:
• Placing financing receivables on nonaccrual status;
• recording payments received on nonaccrual financing receivables;
• resuming accrual of interest; and
• determining past due or delinquency status for each class of financing receivable.
Currently, U.S. GAAP also requires the following disclosures, by class of financing receivable, for impaired loans:
• The accounting policy for recognizing interest income, including how cash receipts are recorded;
• the accounting policy for determining which loans are individually assessed for impairment and the factors considered in determining that a loan is impaired;
• as of each balance sheet date, the recorded investment segregated by the amount for which there is a related allowance versus the amount for which there is no related allowance, and the total unpaid principal balance of impaired loans; and
• for each period, the average recorded investment in impaired loans, the amount of interest income recognized while the loans were impaired and, if practicable, the amount of interest income recognized using a cash-basis method of accounting.
U.S. GAAP also requires qualitative and quantitative information, by class of financing receivable, about TDRs for each period for which an income statement is presented. For example, for TDRs occurring during the period, registrants must disclose how the financing receivables were modified and the financial effects of the modifications. In addition, for TDRs that were completed within the previous 12 months and subsequently have payment defaults during the reporting periods, registrants must disclose the types and amounts of financing receivables that defaulted.
ASU 2016-13 revises these disclosures to require a reconciliation of the difference between the purchase price of these loans and the par value of the assets and removes the requirements described above.
The Division staff has observed that bank holding companies often discuss their loan portfolios and focus on changes in portfolio composition, delinquencies and nonperforming or restructured loans in the results of operations section of MD&A. The Division staff also has observed that BHC registrants with material amounts of nonaccrual loans sometimes provide a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of those loans, although they are not required by Commission rules to do so. As described previously, ASU 2016-13 will require disclosure of the beginning and ending nonaccrual loan balances, but will not require disclosure of activity during the period. Information about activity during the period may help investors understand remediation efforts related to the portfolio and changes in credit quality. Therefore, we are considering whether we should require disclosure of activity during the period in addition to beginning and ending balances.
BHC registrants also may discuss higher-risk loans and declines in collateral value when they are reasonably expected to have a material impact on results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.
BHC registrants often publish and furnish, on current reports, Forms 8-K, supplements to their earnings releases that include credit quality statistics that are adjusted or more disaggregated than those provided under Guide 3 or U.S. GAAP. These statistics may exclude certain types of loans that are not typically classified as nonaccrual.
Banking organizations must report loan amounts categorized by type of security, borrower or purpose in Call Reports.
Pillar 3 disclosures include a description of how banking organizations subject to the disclosure requirements
32. Do the loan portfolio disclosures called for by Guide 3 provide investors with information upon which they base investment and voting decisions? Would such information otherwise be provided under Commission rules (
33. Do Commission rules or U.S. GAAP require the same or similar loan information as called for by Guide 3? If so, how is the information similar or dissimilar? Please provide a detailed comparison.
34. What improvements to the existing loan disclosures should we consider that would be important for investors? For example, should loans held-for-sale or loans carried at fair value under the fair value option fall within the scope of our loan portfolio disclosures? In suggesting improvements, please indicate whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the disclosures.
35. How do investors use the TDR disclosures called for by Guide 3 for investment decisions? Is the basis for a modification (
36. Should we require disclosures of all loan modifications by type of modification and/or credit quality of borrower? Would BHC registrants face any challenges in preparing and providing these disclosures?
37. To promote comparability and consistency, should we prescribe the level of disaggregation that BHC registrants should employ for their loan portfolio disclosures?
38. Should the categories used for disaggregation of these Guide 3 disclosures be closely aligned with those called for in Call Reports and other U.S. banking agency regulatory filings? If so, which ones and why?
39. While investors do not have experience with the disclosures that will be required by ASU 2016-13, is there information about loans that would be important for investors under an expected credit loss model? If so, please indicate which information and whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the information? For example, upon effectiveness of ASU 2016-13, should we require disclosure of the current period activity for nonaccrual loans since the new standard will require disclosure of the beginning and ending nonaccrual balances only?
40. Should we consider requiring that the loan portfolio disclosures called for by Guide 3 be presented in a structured data format, such as XBRL, to facilitate investor comparison of data across BHC registrants and usability of the disclosures? Why or why not? If so, what elements of these disclosures should be tagged so that they can be extracted in a structured data format?
41. If we require the Guide 3 tabular disclosures to be submitted in XBRL, are the current requirements for the format and elements of the tables suitable for tagging? If not, how should they be revised?
42. Should we require disclosure of the loan information provided in Call Reports or other regulatory filings? If so, what information and why?
43. Should the loan portfolio disclosures called for by Guide 3 be extended to other registrants, such as those engaged in the financial services industry? If so, which registrants and which disclosures?
BHC registrants generally accept and manage significant amounts of credit risk, and most of their credit losses traditionally have come from loans and declines in the value of collateral underlying loans. The allowance for loan losses is a critical accounting estimate and is a primary focus of management, investors and the U.S. banking agencies. This discussion focuses on the allowance for loan loss methodology currently required by U.S. GAAP and highlights only the significant changes that will occur once the new standard, ASU 2016-13, becomes effective.
A BHC registrant's methodology for estimating loan losses is influenced by many factors, including the its size, organizational structure, business environment and strategy, loan portfolio characteristics, loan administration procedures and management information systems.
ASU 2016-13, once effective, will replace the current incurred loss methodology with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and will require consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates.
Loan loss disclosures, like those required by U.S. GAAP, provide investors with information about how a registrant analyzes and assesses credit risk when determining the allowance for loan losses and the reasons for any changes in how it determines the allowance.
Section IV.A of Guide 3 calls for a five-year analysis of loan loss experience,
Section IV.B calls for a breakdown of the allowance for loan losses by category along with the percentage of loans in each category. BHC registrants may, however, furnish a narrative discussion of the loan portfolio's risk elements and the factors considered in determining the amount of the allowance in lieu of providing a breakdown. The staff has observed that BHC registrants generally elect to use the tabular format and loan categories in Section IV.B to present the allocation of allowance for loan losses instead of the narrative discussion.
Article 9 currently requires disclosure of the total allowance for loan losses on the balance sheet or in the footnotes to the financial statements and the changes in the allowance for loan losses for each period in which an income statement is presented in the footnotes.
U.S. GAAP requires disclosure of loan loss information, including the related accounting policies, for each portfolio segment except loans measured at fair value.
• A description of the methodology used to estimate the allowance for loan losses, including a description of the factors that influenced management's judgment;
• a discussion of risk characteristics relevant to each portfolio segment;
• the identification of any change in accounting policies or methodology from the prior period, the rationale for the change and the quantitative effect of the change; and
• a description of the policy for charging off uncollectible financing receivables.
ASU 2016-13, once effective, will add new policy disclosures regarding the changes in the factors that influenced management's current estimate of expected credit losses and reasons for significant changes in the amount of write-offs. In addition, ASU 2016-13 will require disclosures related to the forecasted information management used in developing its allowance for credit losses.
Since ASU 2016-13 requires the allowance methodology for all loans to reflect the current estimate of expected credit losses, it eliminates this disaggregation requirement.
Both before and after adoption of ASU 2016-13, U.S. GAAP requires qualitative information, by portfolio segment, about the impact of TDRs on the allowance for loan losses. For TDRs occurring during each period for which an income statement is presented, U.S. GAAP requires disclosure of how the modifications were factored into the determination of the allowance for loan losses. Similarly, for TDRs that were completed within the previous 12 months and subsequently have payment defaults during the reporting periods, U.S. GAAP requires disclosure of how the defaults were factored into the determination of the allowance for loan losses.
U.S. GAAP currently also requires specific disclosures about the impact that loans acquired with deteriorated credit quality have on the allowance for loan losses in periods subsequent to acquisition.
The staff has observed that bank holding companies consider their methodology for determining the allowance for loan losses, when it could have a material impact on the financial condition or operation performance, to be a critical accounting estimate and provide a discussion of the material implications of uncertainties associated with their allowance methodology and assumptions in MD&A.
• The historical loss data used as the starting point for estimating current losses;
• how economic factors affecting loan quality are incorporated into the allowance estimate;
• the level of specificity used to group loans for purposes of estimating losses;
• the application of loss factors to risk-rated loans; and
• any other estimation methods and assumptions used.
Banking organizations must report the amount of loans charged off against the allowance for loan losses during the period, as well as the amount of recoveries of loans previously charged off by specified loan category in Call Reports.
Pillar 3 disclosures provide qualitative and quantitative information about the allowance for loan losses that are more detailed than the disclosures called for by Guide 3 and U.S. GAAP. For example, qualitative disclosures include a description of the approaches used to determine the allowance for loan losses, including statistical methods used and an explanation of the internal rating system and its relationship with external ratings by loan type. Quantitative disclosures include actual losses for the preceding period for each loan category, including how the amounts differ from past experience or the banking organization's estimates of losses compared to actual losses over a longer period.
44. Do the summary of loan loss experience disclosures called for by Guide 3 provide investors with information upon which they base investment and voting decisions? Would such information otherwise be provided under Commission rules (
45. Do Commission rules or U.S. GAAP require the same or similar loan loss experience information as called for by Guide 3? If so, how is the information similar or dissimilar? Please provide a detailed comparison.
46. What improvements to the existing summary of loan loss experience disclosures should we consider that would be important for investors? For example, should BHC registrants disclose the qualitative portion of their allowance or details about their allowance methodology, such as adjustments made due to existing economic conditions? In suggesting improvements, please indicate whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the disclosures.
47. To promote comparability and consistency, should we prescribe the level of disaggregation that BHC registrants should employ for their summary of loan loss disclosures? If so, what threshold should be used and why?
48. Should the categories used for disaggregation of these Guide 3 disclosures be closely aligned with those called for in Call Reports and other U.S. banking agency regulatory filings? If so, which ones and why?
49. While investors do not have experience with the disclosures that will be required by ASU 2016-13, is there information about loan impairment that would be important for investors under an expected credit loss model? If so, please indicate which information and whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the information? For example, upon effectiveness of ASU 2016-13, should we require separate disclosure of the amount of provision that relates to loans originated during the period in the allowance for credit losses roll-forward? Why or why not?
50. Should we require any of the suggested disclosures from the 2009 Sample MD&A Letter? Why or why not? If so, which disclosures should we require and what challenges, if any, would BHC registrants face in preparing and providing them? For example, should we require the disclosure suggestions related to changes in practices such as the historical loss data used as the starting point for estimating current losses?
51. Should we consider requiring that the summary of loan loss experience disclosures called for by Guide 3 be presented in a structured data format, such as XBRL, to facilitate investor comparison of data across BHC registrants and usability of the disclosures? Why or why not? If so, what elements of these disclosures
52. If we require the Guide 3 tabular disclosures to be submitted in XBRL, are the current requirements for the format and elements of the tables suitable for tagging? If not, how should they be revised?
53. Should we require disclosure of any loan information provided in Call Reports or other regulatory filings? If so, what information and why?
54. Should the summary of loan loss experience disclosures called for by Guide 3 be extended to other registrants, such as those engaged in the financial services industry? If so, which registrants and which disclosures?
Deposits are generally the most significant liability on an FDIC-insured institution's balance sheet, and interest paid on deposits generally represents a large portion of expenses. As of September 30, 2016, deposits represented 76% of the total liabilities and capital of all FDIC-insured institutions.
Deposit disclosures, together with the level of other disclosed funding sources,
Section V.A of Guide 3 calls for presentation of the average amounts of and the average rates paid for specified deposit categories that exceed 10% of average total deposits.
Article 9 requires separate presentation on the balance sheet of noninterest-bearing deposits and interest-bearing deposits.
As part of the standard-setting process for ASU 2016-01, in 2013 the FASB proposed a definition of “core deposit liabilities” and related disclosures.
• The core deposit liability balance;
• the implied weighted-average maturity period; and
• the estimated all-in-cost-to-service rate.
The FASB did not include these disclosures in the final standard due to
The staff has observed that BHC registrants generally discuss in MD&A material changes to or key metrics for deposits when deposits are a material source of liquidity.
Banking organizations must separately report deposits held at U.S. bank offices and deposits held at foreign bank offices
55. Do the deposit disclosures called for by Guide 3 provide investors with information upon which they base investment and voting decisions? Would such information otherwise be provided under Commission rules (
56. Do Commission rules or U.S. GAAP require the same or similar deposits information as called for by Guide 3? If so, how is the information similar or dissimilar? Please provide a detailed comparison.
57. What improvements to the existing deposits disclosures should we consider that would be important for investors? For example, should BHC registrants disclose the amount and maturity of brokered deposits? Should we require disclosures about core deposits and, if so, what disclosures? In suggesting improvements, please indicate whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the disclosures.
58. How do investors use the time deposit disclosures? Should we retain the $100,000 threshold for these disclosures or should we change it to another threshold, such as the FDIC insurance limit? Why or why not?
59. Should we require disclosure of an estimate of the quantitative and qualitative benefits of using government guaranteed deposits?
60. Should we consider requiring that the deposit disclosures called for by Guide 3 be presented in a structured data format, such as XBRL, to facilitate investor comparison of data across BHC registrants and usability of the disclosures? Why or why not? If so, what elements of these disclosures should be tagged so that they can be extracted in a structured data format?
61. If we require the Guide 3 tabular disclosures to be submitted in XBRL, are the current requirements for the format and elements of the tables suitable for tagging? If not, how should they be revised?
62. Should the categories used for disaggregation of these Guide 3 disclosures be closely aligned with those called for in Call Reports and other U.S. banking agency regulatory filings? If so, which ones and why?
63. Should we require disclosure of any deposit information provided in Call Reports or other regulatory filings? If so, what information and why?
64. Should the deposit disclosures called for by Guide 3 be extended to other registrants, such as those engaged in the financial services industry? If so, which registrants and which disclosures?
Financial ratios allow investors to compare registrants in the same industry. Section VI of Guide 3 calls for disclosure of four specific ratios. Two are profitability ratios, one is an indicator of how much capital a BHC registrant returns to investors, and the other is an indicator of solvency.
While useful to investors for comparing BHC registrants and making investment decisions, the ratios called for by Guide 3 are not specific to the financial services industry. Moreover, Guide 3 does not call for other industry-specific ratios, other than the ratio of net charge-offs to average loans outstanding in Section IV.A. Examples of industry-specific ratios that investors may use to evaluate BHC registrants and make investment decisions include the efficiency ratio,
Section VI of Guide 3 calls for the following ratios for each reported period:
• Return on assets (ROA);
• return on equity (ROE);
• dividend payout ratio; and
• equity to assets ratio.
No other Commission rules, U.S. accounting standards or bank regulatory requirements specifically require disclosure of the four ratios included in Guide 3. These ratios, however, can be calculated using financial information disclosed in Commission filings. ROA, ROE and equity to assets can be derived from amounts reported on the income statement and the average balance sheet called for by Section I.A of Guide 3.
Bank holding companies also disclose non-GAAP measures in Commission filings. For example, they commonly present non-GAAP versions of ROE, return on average equity, and book value per common share using tangible equity
65. Do the return on equity and assets disclosures called for by Guide 3 provide investors with information upon which they base investment and voting decisions? Would such information otherwise be provided under Commission rules (
66. Do Commission rules or U.S. GAAP require the same or similar ratios as called for by Guide 3? If so, how are the ratios similar or dissimilar?
67. What improvements to the existing return on equity and assets disclosures should we consider that would be important for investors? For example, should we require other industry-specific ratios, such as nonaccrual loans to total loans, and if so, which ones? In suggesting improvements, please indicate whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the disclosures.
68. What non-GAAP financial measures do BHC registrants disclose? Which of these measures help make investment decisions and why? Should we require disclosure of any of these measures to enhance the comparability of information for investors?
69. Are there any bank regulatory capital metrics, such as risk-weighted assets or liquidity ratios, that BHC registrants are not already required to disclose under accounting standards or Commission rules that would be important for investors? If so, which ones and how do investors use them?
70. Banking organizations typically are afforded a transition period to comply with new bank regulatory capital metric requirements. For recently issued accounting standards that have not yet been adopted, registrants generally discuss the potential effects of adoption in registration statements and reports filed with the Commission.
71. Should we consider requiring that the return on equity and assets disclosures called for by Guide 3 be presented in a structured data format, such as XBRL, to facilitate investor comparison of data across BHC registrants and usability of the disclosures? Why or why not? If so, what elements of these disclosures should be tagged so that they can be extracted in a structured data format?
72. If we require the Guide 3 tabular disclosures to be submitted in XBRL, are the current requirements for the format and elements of the tables suitable for tagging? If not, how should they be revised?
73. Should the return on equity and assets disclosures called for by Guide 3 be extended to other registrants, such as those engaged in the financial services industry? If so, which registrants and which disclosures?
BHC registrants often use short-term borrowings to supplement their deposits and diversify their funding sources. Short-term borrowings may include federal funds transactions,
A BHC registrant's use of short-term borrowings can fluctuate significantly during a reporting period. As a result, the presentation of period-end amounts alone may not accurately reflect a BHC registrant's funding needs or use of short-term borrowings during the period.
The Guide 3 short-term borrowings disclosures provide investors with information beyond the period-end borrowings balance. These disclosures focus on the activity in short-term borrowings and related interest expense throughout the period and may help investors better understand the role of this form of financing and its related risks to BHC registrants.
Section VII of Guide 3 calls for the following short-term borrowings disclosures by category:
• The period-end amount outstanding;
• the average amount outstanding during the period; and
• the maximum month-end amount outstanding.
Article 9 requires separate disclosure of the period-end balances of federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase, commercial paper and other short-term borrowings on the face of the financial statements or in the footnotes.
The staff has observed that BHC registrants typically discuss their sources of funding and outstanding borrowings in their liquidity section of MD&A. In 2010, the Commission issued interpretive guidance on liquidity and capital resources disclosures that highlighted important trends and uncertainties related to liquidity for registrants to consider in their MD&A disclosures.
Regulation S-K also requires a discussion of off-balance sheet arrangements when the arrangements have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on the registrant's financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources that is material to investors.
Short-term borrowing levels and deposit levels also factor into the LCR calculation, because it is based on projected cash outflows during a 30-day stress period.
Banking organizations must report the year-end balance, quarterly average balances and interest expense on federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase, and other borrowings in their Call Reports.
74. Do the short-term borrowings disclosures called for by Guide 3 provide investors with information upon which they base investment and voting decisions? Would such information otherwise be provided under Commission rules (
75. Do Commission rules or U.S. GAAP require the same or similar short-term borrowing information as called for by Guide 3? If so, how is the information similar or dissimilar? Please provide a detailed comparison.
76. What improvements to the existing short-term borrowings disclosures should we consider? For example, should BHC registrants discuss the degree of reliance on wholesale or short-term funding sources? Should they describe the nature, timing, and extent of volatile short-term funding? In suggesting improvements, please indicate whether BHC registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the disclosures.
77. Are there disclosures about off-balance sheet arrangements in the financial services industry that investors find important? If so, which disclosures? Would such information otherwise be provided under Commission rules (
78. Are there quantitative and qualitative disclosures that would add transparency about ongoing liquidity risk exposure for BHC registrants? For example, should BHC registrants describe the liquidity risks arising from their assets, derivatives and off-balance-sheet activities? If so, what disclosures would be important for investors and in what manner should they be provided? For example, should we require these BHC registrants to disclose their compliance with and the calculation of their bank regulatory LCR?
79. What non-GAAP financial measures do BHC registrants provide concerning short-term funding? Should we require BHC registrants to disclose any of these measures to enhance the comparability of information for investors?
80. Do the short-term borrowings disclosures properly balance the benefits to investors and the costs to BHC registrants? If no, why?
81. Should we consider requiring disclosure of a liquidity mismatch index (MMI)
82. Should we consider requiring that the short-term borrowings disclosures called for by Guide 3 be presented in a structured data format, such as XBRL, to facilitate investor comparison of data across BHC registrants and usability of the disclosures? Why or why not? If so, what elements of these disclosures should be tagged so that they can be extracted in a structured data format?
83. If we require the Guide 3 tabular disclosures to be submitted in XBRL, are the current requirements for the format and elements of the tables suitable for tagging? If not, how should they be revised?
84. Should the categories used for disaggregation of these Guide 3 disclosures be closely aligned with those called for in Call Reports and other U.S. banking agency regulatory filings? If so, which ones and why?
85. Should the short-term borrowings disclosures called for by Guide 3 be extended to other registrants, such as those engaged in the financial services industry? If so, which registrants and which disclosures?
As originally published, Guide 3 focused on eliciting what the Division of Corporation Finance believed at the time to be the most significant statistical disclosures relating to the operations of bank holding companies. Over the intervening four decades, and particularly following the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
We are considering whether and to what extent refinement of Guide 3 to account for the shifting landscape of the financial industry would yield important information for investors in their evaluation of BHC registrants. Part of this shifting landscape is supervisory or regulatory in nature. For example, in recent years CCAR, DFAST and resolution planning were implemented for certain large banking organizations.
We also are mindful of how our disclosure regime interacts with the various disclosure requirements of the U.S. banking agencies. In some cases, our disclosure regime and the regimes of the U.S. banking agencies require different types of information or present information in inconsistent ways; in
Guide 3 disclosures currently focus on interest-earning and interest-bearing activities and do not address other revenues that a BHC registrant may earn. Non-interest income represented more than 35% of total net operating revenue for all FDIC-insured institutions for the first three quarters of 2016.
We also are considering whether or not more prescriptive disclosures not related specifically to the financial statements would be important for investors. An example is risk management disclosure. In May 2012, the Financial Stability Board established the EDTF with the goal of improving risk disclosures in the financial services industry. In October 2012, the EDTF published a report containing a number of recommendations for enhancing risk disclosures.
Finally, we are considering whether our disclosure regime should better utilize technological advances that have occurred over the years that allow information to be provided in a more accessible manner. For example, interactive data allows users to search disclosure documents and extract specific information and compare it to information from other companies, performance in past years and industry averages. Commission rules require registrants to provide their financial statements, including notes and financial statement schedules, in interactive data format using eXtensible Business Language Reporting (XBRL) by filing them with the Commission and posting them on their corporate Web sites.
86. Are there activities in which BHC registrants engage that are not covered by Guide 3 about which we should require disclosure? For example, should we require disclosure, in addition to that already required by accounting standards, about commodities, asset management or broker-dealer activities? If so, what information is important for investors and what challenges, if any, would BHC registrants face in preparing and providing it? What thresholds should trigger any disclosure requirements we consider?
87. Are there additional disclosures, either potential new disclosures or disclosures required by other regimes, not already discussed in this request for comment that we should consider for BHC registrants that would be important for investors? If so, what disclosures and how are they similar or dissimilar to the disclosures called for by Guide 3? What challenges, if any, would BHC registrants face in preparing and providing them?
88. Are there other Commission rules or disclosure guidance we should consider as part of this project that are not already discussed in this request for comment?
89. Should we require disclosures about non-interest income and/or non-interest expense for BHC registrants? If so, what disclosures should we require and how should these disclosures be presented? For example, should we require statistical disclosures about trading revenue?
90. Do the current distinctions between Guide 3 disclosures and the Call Reports and other bank regulatory filings enhance investor understanding or contribute to investor confusion? Please indicate which distinctions enhance investor understanding versus contribute to investor confusion and why.
91. The Dodd-Frank Act requires bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more and nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for supervision by the FRB to periodically submit resolution plans to the FRB and the FDIC.
92. In recent years, BHC registrants have become subject to many new bank regulatory and capital requirements, including pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. Should we specifically require BHC registrants to discuss the effects, when material, of such regulations on their business, financial condition and results of operations? For example, should we require disclosure of the effects of these regulations on their dividend policy or disclosure of an estimate of the costs of such regulations? Why or why not?
93. Should we require disclosure that summarizes the inputs and results of the various stress testing scenarios that bank holding companies perform? For example, should we require disclosures related to DFAST and its results. Why or why not?
94. Should we require any of the disclosures recommended in the EDTF report that are not addressed specifically by Commission rules or U.S. GAAP? If so, which ones? For example, should a reconciliation of risk-weighted assets at the beginning and ending of the period be disclosed?
95. For disclosure areas already addressed by Commission rules or U.S. GAAP, should we consider any EDTF recommendations that could potentially elicit additional or better information? If so, which ones?
96. Should we expand the scope of our XBRL requirements to apply to the Guide 3 statistical tabular disclosures to facilitate investor comparison of data across BHC registrants? Why or why not?
97. If we require the Guide 3 tabular disclosures to be submitted in XBRL, are the current requirements for the format and elements of the tables suitable for tagging? If not, how should they be revised?
98. Should we require disclosure of any of the information provided in Call Reports or other regulatory filings? If so, what information and why? How should the information be presented or included in a Commission filing? Should we require hyperlinks directly to the Call Reports or other regulatory filings that are available on third-party government Web sites? Should it be incorporated by reference?
Some Commission disclosure requirements and guidance, including Guide 3, apply only to bank holding companies.
99. Should the disclosures called for by Guide 3 apply to registrants other than BHC registrants in the financial services industry? Why or why not? If so, which categories of non-BHC registrants should we consider?
100. Should Guide 3 employ an activity-based approach? If so, how should the disclosures be triggered?
101. Some Guide 3 disclosures, such as short-term borrowings, employ bright-line percentages or dollar amount thresholds to trigger disclosures. While the use of thresholds provides BHC registrants with certainty and promotes consistency, it does not allow BHC registrants to apply judgment to all facts and circumstances. Would employing a principles-based approach instead of using specific quantitative thresholds improve the effectiveness of the disclosures? Why or why not? What practical issues might arise if registrants apply judgment?
Foreign registrants that qualify as foreign private issuers
• U.S. GAAP;
• another comprehensive body of accounting with reconciliation to U.S. GAAP; or
• IFRS as issued by the IASB without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
Foreign registrants that do not qualify as foreign private issuers must present their financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP and must use the same registration and reporting forms as domestic registrants. The staff has observed that most foreign registrants that are banking organizations meet the foreign private issuer definition and file their annual reports on Form 20-F or Form 40-F. As a result, most of the Commission disclosure requirements described in Section II of this request for comment apply to them.
Because the categories and classifications specified by Guide 3 are influenced heavily by U.S. banking regulation and U.S. GAAP, some categories and classifications may not be relevant for understanding their operations. In addition, the Commission accepted IFRS without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, for foreign private issuers, only in the last ten years, and Guide 3 was last substantively updated more than 30 years ago. Therefore, Guide 3 does not address the fact that some of its disclosures are not recognized concepts under IFRS. As a result, the staff has observed diversity in the manner in which foreign registrants that are banking organizations and file IFRS financial statements provide this information. For example, because nonaccrual is not a recognized concept under IFRS, the staff has observed disclosure of total impaired loans or disclosure of all past due loans in lieu of providing the nonaccrual loan disclosures called for by Item III.C.1 of Guide 3. Similarly, because the concept of TDRs is not recognized under IFRS, the staff has observed disclosure of all loan modifications, regardless of whether they were undertaken for credit risk management purposes or for commercial or other reasons.
Further, Guide 3 does not address the differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS, which are significant. For example, the IASB issued a new accounting standard in July 2014, IFRS 9, that will have a significant impact on the accounting and disclosures for financial instruments. This standard differs from the FASB's two new financial instruments standards, ASU 2016-01 and ASU 2016-13.
We are considering generally the applicability of the Guide 3 disclosures to foreign registrants that are banking organizations, as well as the accommodation provided to them if the information is not available or cannot be compiled without unwarranted or undue burden or expense. We also are considering whether IFRS accounting and disclosure requirements elicit disclosures that are duplicative of or substantially similar to those called for by Guide 3, or whether the disclosures called for by Guide 3 should be different for foreign registrants that are banking organizations. Since there are significant differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS, we are considering whether investors in foreign registrants that are banking organizations and that prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS would lose any important information if we eliminated all duplicative or overlapping Guide 3 disclosures in favor of those in U.S. GAAP.
102. Should foreign registrants that are banking organizations provide the disclosures discussed in this request for comment? Why or why not?
103. Is the information called for by Guide 3 generally available to foreign registrants that are banking organizations without unwarranted or undue burden or expense such that an accommodation should no longer be provided to these registrants? Why or why not?
104. Does IFRS require the same or similar information as called for by Guide 3? If so, how is the information similar or dissimilar? Please provide a detailed comparison.
105. What concepts or disclosures called for by Guide 3 are not recognized or contradict with IFRS? Please provide a detailed list.
106. Would investors in foreign registrants that are banking organizations and that prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS lose any important information if we were to eliminate all Guide 3 disclosures that are duplicative of or overlap with current U.S. GAAP? If so, which information would be lost?
107. While investors do not have experience with the disclosures that will be required by IFRS 9, is there information about financial instruments under an expected credit loss model that would be useful for investors in making investment and voting decisions? If so, please indicate which and whether registrants would face any challenges in preparing and providing the information?
Guide 3 applies to all bank holding company registrants, regardless of size. However, Guide 3 calls for those registrants with less than $200 million in total assets or less than $10 million of equity to provide scaled disclosures in terms of the number of periods presented.
Guide 3 currently calls for five years of loan portfolio and summary of loan loss experience data and three years of data for all other information.
Guide 3's five-year presentation of loan portfolio and allowance for loan losses data provides a basis for statistical trend analysis and identifies unusual or non-recurring events which may have affected the loan portfolio and its related provision for loan losses.
108. Should the reporting periods called for by Guide 3 be modified, and if so, how? For example, should the Guide 3 reporting periods be reduced to match the Regulation S-X requirements and the scaled disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies?
109. Should the Guide 3 reporting periods explicitly include interim periods so investors receive the information more frequently than once a year?
110. Should we eliminate the reporting period size threshold in Guide 3? Why or why not?
111. What is the minimum number of periods an investor needs to analyze and comprehend changes in trends? Do investors need five years of information to analyze and comprehend fully changes in trends in asset quality and loan losses?
112. If the reporting periods are reduced, should BHC registrants without reporting histories or publicly available financial information provide additional years of disclosures?
This request for comment is not intended to limit the scope of comments, views, issues or approaches to be considered. In addition to investors and registrants, the Commission welcomes comment from other market participants and particularly welcomes statistical, empirical and other data from commenters that may support their views and/or support or refute the views or issues raised.
By the Commission.
Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.
Notice of request for nominations.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture is soliciting nominations for membership to fill six positions on the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers (the “Committee”).
Consideration will be given to nominations received on or before March 31, 2017.
Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0170; (202) 720-6350; email:
Nomination packages may be sent by postal mail or commercial delivery to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mail Stop 0601, Washington, DC 20250, Attn: Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers. Nomination packages may also be faxed to (202) 720-7704.
The Committee advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters broadly affecting new farmers and ranchers including strategies, policies, and programs that will enhance opportunities and create new farming and ranching operations. The Committee will consider Department goals and objectives necessary to implement prior recommendations. The Committee will develop and recommend an overall framework and strategies to encompass principles that leverage and maximize existing programs, and create and test new program opportunities.
In this notice, we are soliciting nominations from interested organizations and individuals from among ranching and farming producers (industry), related government, State, and Tribal agricultural agencies, academic institutions, commercial banking entities, trade associations, and related nonprofit enterprises. An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's background and experience. Nomination forms are available on the Internet at
The Secretary will select up to six members from among those organizations and individuals solicited in order to obtain the broadest possible representation on the Committee, pursuant to Section 5 of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-554), in accordance with the FACA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Regulation 1041-1. Equal opportunity practices, in line with the USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.
Notice of Solicitation for Membership.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture is soliciting nominations for membership for the Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers (the “Committee”) to serve a term of up to 2 years.
Consideration will be given to nominations received on or before March 31, 2017.
Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0170; (202) 720-6350; email:
Nomination packages may be sent by postal mail or commercial delivery to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mail Stop 0601, Washington, DC 20250, Attn: Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers. Nomination packages may also be faxed to (202) 720-7704.
The Advisory Committee for Minority Farmers (ACMF) will advise the Secretary of Agriculture on strategies to heighten participation of historically socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in the USDA's assistance programs. The ACMF will also advise the Secretary on outreach and administration of competitive grants programs and how the USDA may enhance its efforts to build an inclusive future for this targeted group of minority farmers. The ACMF may also look at the civil rights activities of USDA and how they affect USDA programs in general.
We are soliciting nominations from socially disadvantaged farming and ranching producers; civil rights professionals; private nonprofit organizations that support socially disadvantaged producers; and higher
An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Current members may likewise apply for reappointment. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's background and experience. Nomination forms are available on the Internet at:
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension without change of a currently approved information collection titled Data Collection for Container Availability.
Comments on this notice must be received by May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
April Taylor, Transportation Services Division, Transportation and Marketing Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave SW.—Room 4523 South, Stop 0266, Washington, DC, 20250, telephone 202-295-7374, fax 202-690-2451.
As part of the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Transportation Services Division (TSD) provides insightful agricultural transportation information and analysis to help move agricultural products to market. TSD informs, represents, and assists agricultural shippers and government policymakers through: Market reports, representation, analysis, assistance, and responses to inquiries. TSD collects data for its analysis from public resources as well as unique data sources to help the agricultural exporters make the most out of the transportation options available.
The Data Collection for Container Availability provides U.S. agricultural exporters with weekly data detailing the availability of containers at 18 select locations around the country. AMS collects these data on a voluntary basis from ocean container carriers and then provides these up-to-date data in an aggregate report on its Web site. The goal of the report is to provide more transparency in the market for the location and availability of marine shipping containers for U.S. exporters. Exporters use this tool to make more knowledgeable decisions about which locations provide the best chance for finding available containers to move their products overseas.
Estimated Total Annual Responses: 1,092.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Office of Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are sponsoring a public meeting on April 4, 2017. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 49th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Beijing, China April 24-29, 2017. The Administrator and Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Food Safety and the EPA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 49th Session of the CCPR and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 2017, from 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Room S-7100, One Potomac Yard South, 2777 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA, 22202.
Documents related to the 49th Session of the CCPR are accessible via Internet at the following address:
Captain David Miller, U.S. Delegate to the 49th Session of the CCPR, and the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, invite interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
Captain David Miller, Chief, Chemistry & Exposure Branch and Acting Chief, Toxicology & Epidemiology Branch, Health Effects Division, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (703) 305-5352, Fax: (703) 305-5147; Email:
Marie Maratos, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 4861, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: (202) 205-7760, Fax: (202) 720-3157, Email:
The Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, the Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade.
The CCPR is responsible for establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food; establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues in certain animal feeding stuffs moving in international trade where this is justified for reasons of protection of human health; preparing priority lists of pesticides for evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR); considering methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of pesticide residues in food and feed; considering other matters in relation to the safety of food and feed containing pesticide residues; and establishing maximum limits for environmental and industrial contaminants showing chemical or other similarity to pesticides, in specific food items or groups of food.
The CCPR is hosted by China, The United States attends this committee as a member country of the Codex Alimentarius.
The following items on the Agenda for the 49th Session of the CCPR will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters referred to the Committee Codex or other subsidiary bodies;
• Matters of interest arising from the FAO and WHO;
• Matters of interest arising from other international organizations;
• Report on items of general consideration by the 2016 JMPR;
• Report on 2016 JMPR responses to specific concerns raised by CCPR;
• Draft and proposed draft maximum residue limits for pesticides in food and feed at steps 7 and 4;
• Draft and proposed revision of the Classification of Food and Feed at Steps 7 and 4: Vegetable commodity groups;
• Draft revision of the Classification of Food and Feed at Step 7: Selected commodity groups Group 020—Grasses of cereal grains);
• Proposed draft revision of the Classification of Food and Feed at Step 4: Selected commodity groups (Group 021—Grasses for sugars or syrup production);
• Proposed draft revision of the Classification of Food and Feed at Step 4: Selected commodity groups (Group 024—Seeds for beverages and sweets);
• Proposed draft Tables—Examples of selection of representative commodities (vegetable and other commodity groups) (for inclusion in the Principles and guidance for the selection of representative commodities for the extrapolation of maximum residue limits for pesticides to commodity groups) at Step 4;
• Draft Guidelines on performance criteria for methods of analysis for the determination of pesticide residues in food at Step 7;
• Discussion paper on the possible revision of the International Estimated Short Term Intake equations;
• Establishment of Codex Schedules and Priority Lists of Pesticides; and
• Other Business and Future Work.
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or
At the April 4, 2017 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Captain David Miller, U.S. Delegate for the 49th Session of the CCPR. (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Office of Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service FSIS), is sponsoring a public meeting on April 6, 2017. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 23rd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Australia between May 1 and 5, 2017. The Administrator and Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Food Safety recognizes the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 23rd Session of the CCFICS and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2017, from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 107-A, Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 23rd Session of the CCFICS will be accessible via the Internet at the following address:
Mary Stanley, U.S. Delegate to the 23rd Session of the CCFICS invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
The participant code will be posted on the Web page below:
Attendees may register to attend the public meeting by emailing
Mary Stanley, Director, Office of International Coordination, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2925, South Agriculture Building, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-0287, Fax: (202) 720-4929, Email:
Kenneth Lowery, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, Washington, DC 20250 Phone: (202) 690-4042, Fax: (202) 720-3157, Email:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The CCFICS is responsible for:
(a) Developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems, with a view to harmonizing methods and procedures that protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trading practices, and facilitate international trade in foodstuffs;
(b) Developing principles and guidelines for the application of measures by the competent authorities of exporting and importing countries to provide assurance, where necessary, that foodstuffs comply with requirements, especially statutory health requirements;
(c) Developing guidelines for the utilization, as and when appropriate, of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform with requirements and to promote the recognition of these systems in facilitating trade in food products under bilateral/multilateral arrangements by countries;
(d) Developing guidelines and criteria with respect to format, declarations and language of such official certificates as countries may require with a view towards international harmonization;
(e) Making recommendations for information exchange in relation to food import/export control;
(f) Consulting as necessary with other international groups working on matters related to food inspection and certification systems; and
(g) Considering other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to food inspection and certification systems.
The CCFICS is hosted by Australia. The U.S. attends CCFICS as a member country to the Codex.
The following items on the Agenda for the 23rd Session of the CCFICS will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Discussion paper on system comparability/equivalence;
• Discussion paper on the use of electronic certificates by competent authorities and migration to paperless certification;
• Discussion paper on third party certification (with broad parameters);
• Discussion paper on consideration of emerging issues and future directions for the work of CCFICS;
• Discussion paper on food integrity/food authenticity as emerging issues; and
• Other business and future work.
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed by the Secretariat before to the Committee Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the April 6, 2017, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Mary Stanley, U.S. Delegate for the 23rd Session of the CCFICS (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, Department of Commerce.
Notice; request for information (RFI).
The Department of Commerce is seeking information on the impact of Federal permitting requirements on the construction and expansion of domestic manufacturing facilities and on regulations that adversely impact domestic manufacturers. As directed by President Trump's Memorandum of January 24, 2017, “Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing,” the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental
Comments must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern time on March 31, 2017.
The preferred method for submission of comments is via
For questions about this notice, contact: Carter Halfman, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, at 202-482-7466. Please direct media inquiries to the Department of Commerce Office of Public Affairs at 202-482-4883, or
President Trump's Memorandum of January 24, 2017, “Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing” (82 FR 8667) directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct outreach to stakeholders concerning the impact of Federal regulations on domestic manufacturing. The Department of Commerce is soliciting comments from the public concerning Federal actions to streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturers. For the purposes of this effort, “domestic manufacturers” refers to private businesses located in the United States (and its territories) engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products, consistent with the 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) definition of Sector 31-33: Manufacturing.
Responses to this RFI will inform the Secretary's report to the President which will set forth guidelines for Federal permitting and regulatory agencies to streamline Federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and reduce regulatory burdens affecting domestic manufacturers. The plan will be coordinated with related activities under existing laws (
Given the nature and importance of the Presidential Memorandum, the Secretary requests information from stakeholders about how the construction, operation, and expansion of domestic manufacturing facilities are affected by (1) the process of acquiring Federal permits required for the construction, expansion, or operation of such facilities and (2) the burdens of complying with Federal regulations for manufacturing facility construction, expansion, or operation.
Through this RFI, the Department is seeking information from stakeholders (such as manufacturers, trade associations, and other interested parties) about the Federal permitting process and regulatory burdens affecting domestic manufacturing. The Secretary seeks information that will assist the Department in developing a proposal to reduce regulatory burdens and streamline or otherwise improve the permitting process by understanding the cumulative burden of federal regulations and permits and by improving efficiency, transparency, and certainty in the process.
You may respond to any, all or none of the following questions/requests for information, and may address related topics. Please identify the questions or topic areas each of your comments addresses. These questions are directed towards domestic manufacturers and their stakeholders. Responses may include estimates. Please indicate where the response is an estimate. Respondents may organize their submissions in response to this RFI in any manner, and all responses that comply with the requirements listed in the
a. NAICS code(s)
b. What do you manufacture?
c. Where are your facilities located?
d. How many employees?
e. Approximate sales revenue?
1. How many permits from a Federal agency are required to build, expand or operate your manufacturing facilities? Which Federal agencies require permits and how long does it take to obtain them?
2. Do any of the Federal permits overlap with (or duplicate) other federal permits or those required by State or local agencies? If the answer is yes, how many permits? From which Federal agencies?
3. Briefly describe the most onerous part of your permitting process.
4. If you could make one change to the Federal permitting process applicable to your manufacturing business or facilities, what would it be? How could the permitting process be modified to better suit your needs?
5. Are there Federal, State, or local agencies that you have worked with on permitting whose practices should be widely implemented? What is it you like about those practices?
1. Please list the top four regulations that you believe are most burdensome for your manufacturing business. Please identify the agency that issues each one. Specific citation of codes from the Code of Federal Regulations would be appreciated.
2. How could regulatory compliance be simplified within your industry or sector?
3. Please provide any other specific recommendations, not addressed by the questions above, that you believe would help reduce unnecessary Federal agency regulation of your business.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status for the facility of Caribe Rx Services, Inc., located in Caguas, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on March 1, 2017.
The proposed subzone (2.1 acres) is located at Road #1 Km. 39.9, Bo. Turabo, Caguas, Puerto Rico. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone encompasses the boundaries of FTZ 163—Site 14 which expires May 31, 2017.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 17, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 1, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status for the facility of R.Ortiz Auto Distributors, Inc., located in Caguas, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR 400). It was formally docketed on March 1, 2017.
The proposed subzone (1.8 acres) is located at Road #189 Km. 2.0, Caguax Industrial Park, Caguas, Puerto Rico. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone encompasses the boundaries of FTZ 163—Site 15 which expires May 31, 2017.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 17, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 1, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
The City of Conroe, Texas, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Bauer Manufacturing LLC dba NEORig (Bauer), located in Conroe, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 24, 2017.
Bauer already has authority to produce pile drivers and leads, boring machinery, foundation construction equipment, foundation casings and related parts and sub-assemblies, tools and accessories for pile drivers, and stationary oil/gas drilling rigs and related subassemblies within Site 1 of FTZ 265. The current request would add foreign status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Bauer from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Bauer would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the company's finished products previously approved by the FTZ Board (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5%) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials/components sourced from abroad include: V-belts (without
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 17, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Destilería Serrallés, Inc., located in Ponce, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on March 1, 2017.
The proposed subzone (5.8 acres) is located at Calle B Lots 5 and 6, Bo. Canas, Playa de Ponce, Ponce, Puerto Rico. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone encompasses the boundaries of FTZ 163—Site 16 which expires May 31, 2017.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 17, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 1, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
On December 1, 2016, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Eastern Distribution Center, Inc., grantee of FTZ 24, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 24, on behalf of Brake Parts Inc., in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on April 18, 2017, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 12, 2017 pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet March 30, 2017, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Seven Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) advise the Department of Commerce on the technical parameters for export controls applicable to dual-use commodities and technology and on the administration of those controls. The TACs are composed of representatives from industry representatives, academic leaders and U.S. Government representing diverse points of view on the concerns of the exporting community. Industry representatives are selected from firms producing a broad range of goods, technologies, and software presently controlled for national security, non-proliferation, foreign policy, and short supply reasons or that are proposed for such controls, balanced to the extent possible among large and small firms.
TAC members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve terms of not more than four consecutive years. The membership reflects the Department's commitment to attaining balance and diversity. TAC members must obtain secret-level clearances prior to appointment. These clearances are necessary so that members may be permitted access to the classified information needed to formulate recommendations to the Department of Commerce. Each TAC meets approximately four times per year. Members of the Committees will not be compensated for their services.
The seven TACs are responsible for advising the Department of Commerce on the technical parameters for export controls and the administration of those controls within the following areas: Information Systems TAC: Control List Categories 3 (electronics), 4 (computers), and 5 (telecommunications and information security); Materials TAC: Control List Category 1 (materials, chemicals, microorganisms, and toxins); Materials Processing Equipment TAC: Control List Category 2 (materials processing); Regulations and Procedures TAC: The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and Procedures for implementing the EAR; Sensors and Instrumentation TAC: Control List Category 6 (sensors and lasers); Transportation and Related Equipment TAC: Control List Categories 7 (navigation and avionics), 8 (marine), and 9 (propulsion systems, space vehicles, and related equipment) and the Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee: (1) The identification of emerging technologies and research and development activities that may be of interest from a dual-use perspective; (2) the prioritization of new and existing controls to determine which are of greatest consequence to national security; (3) the potential impact of dual-use export control requirements on research activities; and (4) the threat to national security posed by the unauthorized exports of technologies.
To respond to this recruitment notice, please send a copy of your resume to Ms. Yvette Springer at
Ms. Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.
The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on March 23-24, 2017, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.
The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 22, 2017, pursuant to Section l0(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a) (3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
Effective March 7, 2017.
Myrna Lobo or Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2371 or (202) 482-4956, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on October 18, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is rebar from Turkey. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, the Department calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisis A.S. (Habas) and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (Icdas) that are not zero,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
The Department normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where the Department preliminarily made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, the Department has offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate.
Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, the Department will direct CBP to begin collecting estimated antidumping duty cash deposits unadjusted for countervailed export subsidies at the time that the provisional CVD measures expire.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its preliminary determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1) provide that the Department will issue the final determination within 75 days after the date of its preliminary determination. Accordingly, the Department will make its final determination no later than 75 days after the signature date of this preliminary determination.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with bar markings (
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (“solar products”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is July 31, 2014 through January 31, 2016. The administrative review covers one mandatory respondent, Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Trina”), which we have preliminarily determined to treat as a single entity with the additional affiliated companies identified below. The Department preliminarily finds that Trina sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (“NV”) during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective March 7, 2017.
Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769.
The merchandise covered by the order is modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials.
Based on an analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) information, and comments provided by Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (“JA Solar”), the Department preliminarily determines that JA Solar had no shipments during the POR. For additional information regarding this determination,
Consistent with an announced refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, the Department is not rescinding this review, in part, but intends to complete the review with respect to the companies for which it has preliminarily found no shipments and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
Based on record evidence, the Department preliminarily finds that the mandatory respondent Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. is affiliated with the following four companies pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act: (1) Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; (2) Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd.; (3) Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; and (4) Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. In addition, based on the information presented in this review, we preliminarily find that these six companies should be treated as a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). For additional information,
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply FA if (1) necessary information is not on the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Trina was unable to obtain FOPs from tollers of two inputs. Because this information is necessary and not available on the record, the Department is applying FA with respect to the FOPs in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act.
The Department preliminarily determines that information placed on the record by the mandatory respondent Trina, as well as by seven other separate rate applicants, demonstrates that these companies are entitled to separate rate status. For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents which we did not individually examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference that we not calculate an all-others rate using rates which are zero,
The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The
For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary results of this review,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
The Department intends to disclose to parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Pursuant to Departmental practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the rate for the PRC-wide entity.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.
The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for antidumping duties equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties has occurred, and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties and/or increase the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Japan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. The estimated dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective March 7, 2017.
David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3870.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on October 18, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is rebar from Japan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Both mandatory respondents, Jonan Steel Corporation (Jonan) and Kyoei Steel Ltd. (Kyoei), failed to participate in this investigation by not responding to the Deparment's initial questionnaire.
Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that, in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero,
As noted above, we determined the dumping margin for the individually examined companies Jonan and Kyoei under section 776 of the Act. Consequently, the only available dumping margins for this preliminary determination are found in the petition and are margins upon which we initiated this investigation. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department's practice under these circumstances has been to calculate the “all-others”' rate as a simple average of these margins from the petition.
The Department preliminarily determines that rebar from Japan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, pursuant to section 733 of the Act, and that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise as described in the “scope of the investigation” section of this notice entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if
Because the mandatory respondents in this investigation did not provide information requested by the Department and the Department preliminarily determines each of the mandatory respondents to have been uncooperative, verification will not be conducted.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with Section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), we will make the final determination no later than 75 days after the signature date of this preliminary determination.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with bar markings (
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective March 7, 2017.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe from South Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail is indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.
The antidumping duty orders on welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe from South Korea and Taiwan were published on December 30, 1992.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i) and (ii), the Department received a notice of intent to participate in these sunset reviews from Bristol Metals LLC,
On December 1, 2016, the Department received complete substantive responses to the notices of initiation from Domestic Interested Parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department received no substantive response from any respondent interested parties. As a result, the Department conducted an expedited,
The products covered by the order are shipments of welded austenitic stainless steel pipe (WSSP) from Korea that meets the standards and specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated ASTM A-312. WSSP is produced by forming stainless steel flat-rolled products into a tubular configuration and welding along the seam. WSSP is a commodity product generally used as a conduit to transmit liquids or gases. Major applications for WSSP include, but are not limited to, digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical stock lines, brewery process and transport lines, general food processing lines, automotive paint lines and paper process machines.
Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065 and 7306.40.5085. Although the HTSUS subheadings include both pipes and tubes, the scope of the order is limited to welded austenitic stainless steel pipes. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
The merchandise subject to the order is welded austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets the standards and specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated ASTM A-312. The merchandise covered by the scope of the order also includes austenitic welded stainless steel pipes made according to standards of other nations, which are comparable to ASTM A-312.
WSSP is produced by forming stainless steel flat-rolled products into a tubular configuration and welding along the seam. WSSP is a commodity product generally used as a conduit to transmit liquids or gases. Major applications for WSSP include, but are not limited to, digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical stock lines, brewery process and transport lines, general food processing lines, automotive paint lines and paper process machines. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065 and 7306.40.5085. Although the HTSUS subheadings include both pipes and tubes, the scope of the order is limited to welded austenitic stainless steel pipes. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from South Korea and the antidumping duty order on Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the following weighted-average margins:
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Taiwan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
Effective March 7, 2017.
Jun Jack Zhao or Kathryn Wallace, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1396 or (202) 482-6251, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on October 18, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is rebar from Taiwan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, the Department calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Power Steel Co., Ltd. (Power Steel) and Lo-Toun Steel and Iron Works Co., Ltd. (Lo-Toun) that are not zero,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On February 16, 2017, and February 21, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Power Steel and Lo-Toun requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with bar markings (
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products) from Taiwan. The period of review (“POR”) is July 31, 2014, through January 31, 2016. This administrative review covers 14 exporters of the subject merchandise, including two mandatory respondents, Motech Industries, Inc. (“Motech”) and Sino-American Silicon Products Inc. (“SAS”). The Department preliminarily determines SAS and Motech made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the POR. Additionally, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to 18 companies that timely withdrew their request for administrative review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective March 7, 2017.
Magd Zalok or Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162 or (202) 482-3936, respectively.
On February 3, 2016, the Department notified interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative review of orders, findings, or suspended investigations with anniversaries in February 2016, including the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on solar products from Taiwan.
In the
On May 18, 2016, the Department selected Motech and SAS as mandatory respondents.
From May 20, 2016, through February 23, 2017, the Department issued questionnaires to, and received timely responses from from the two mandatory respondents.
On October 12, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for issuing the
On December 12, 2016, we determined that SAS and Solartech Energy Corp. (“Solartech”), an affiliated entity involved in the production, sales and distribution of the products covered by this administrative review, are affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act.
SAS-Solartech and Petitioner submitted comments in response to the Department's January 18, 2017, request for comments for consideration in these preliminary results of review on February 9, 2017, and February 10, 2017, respectively.
On February 29, 2016, the Department received multiple timely requests for an administrative review of the AD order on solar products from Taiwan. In response to timely-filed withdrawal requests, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to 18 companies
The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period July 31, 2014 through January 31, 2016:
For the rate for non-selected respondents in an administrative review, generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation. Under section
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of solar products from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
The Department intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to interested parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised by the parties in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain helical spring lock washers (lock washers) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Effective March 7, 2017.
Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1293.
On November 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the antidumping duty orders on lock washers from Taiwan and the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
On December 1, 2016, the Department received a complete substantive response from the petitioner for both reviews, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from any respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these antidumping duty orders.
The products covered by the orders are lock washers of carbon steel, of carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non-heat-treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. Lock washers subject to the orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 7318.21.0000, 7318.21.0030, and 7318.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on lock washers from the PRC and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the weighted-average margin percentages:
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for a permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that Kristen Hart, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey, 3205 College Ave., Davie, Florida 33314, has requested a modification to scientific research Permit No. 17302-02.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 6, 2017.
The modification request and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the Features box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Erin Markin or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject modification to Permit No. 17304-02, issued on September 20, 2013 (78 FR 59657) is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Permit No. 17304-02 authorizes the permit holder to capture by hand, strike nets, dip net, tangle net, or trawl up to 100 green (
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 28, 2017, Scott C. Balfour, submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 USCS 825d(b) (2016) and section 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8 (2016).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On September 1, 2016, Lock 9 Hydro Partners filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Valley View Hydroelectric Station Project (project) to be located at the Kentucky River Authority's Lock and Dam 9 on the Kentucky River in Jessamine and Madison Counties, Kentucky. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The existing 242-foot-long, 35-foot-high concrete lock and dam; (2) the existing 343-acre reservoir having a storage capacity of 6,550-acre-feet; (3) twelve proposed 50-foot-long, 63-inch-diameter siphoning penstocks encased in concrete; (4) six submersible generating units, each fed by two penstocks, located within the auxiliary section of the dam with a total combined capacity of 3.36 megawatts; (5) a proposed 30-foot-long, 48-foot-wide on-shore building to house project controls; and (6) a proposed 2,000-foot-long, 12.47 kilovolt transmission line. The estimated annual generation of the project would be 12.9 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary”
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The existing Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A 27-foot-high and 2,968-foot-long reinforced concrete and embankment dam that includes a: (a) 400-foot-long saddle dike, (b) 1,400-foot-long detached embankment, (c) 400-foot-long earthen embankment, (d) 125-foot-long concrete non-overflow slab and buttress section, (e) 267-foot-long concrete gated spillway section, (f) 9-foot-long concrete sluice gate section, (g) 300-foot-long right embankment, and (h) 67-foot-long concrete and brick masonry powerhouse housing two generating units with a total installed capacity of 2.6 megawatts; (2) a 67.5-foot-wide, 18 foot-high intake and ten 6-foot-wide sections of steel trashracks with clear bar spacing of 2.5 inches that is integral with the powerhouse; (3) Lake Mohawksin, the project reservoir with a surface area of 2,773 acres and 1,367 acre-feet of usable storage at the maximum full pool elevation of 1,435.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum; (4) two 27.25-foot-long, 31.75-foot-wide, 9.25-foot-high draft tubes that discharges into a 34-foot-long, 60-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 100-foot-long, 24.9 kilovolt transmission power line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate an average of 9,836 megawatt-hours annually.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro
p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in 5.22: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The existing Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A 36-foot-high and 762-foot-long reinforced concrete dam consisting of a 52-foot-long masonry retaining wall, a 263-foot-long concrete spillway section, a 147-foot-long non-overflow masonry dam, and a 300-foot-long rockfill embankment; (2) a 108-foot-long, 12-foot-wide timber (concrete pier supported) canal bridge that crosses the upstream end of the canal, three intake canal embankments totaling 3,400 feet in length, a 4,000-foot-long, 300-foot-wide intake canal, and a 55.5-foot-wide intake structure; (3) an existing 340-acre reservoir at elevation 1,397.1 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a gross storage capacity of 2,200 acre-feet with the pool elevation maintained between 1,396.1 and 1,397.1 feet NGVD; (4) two 55.5-foot-wide, 30.5-foot-high trashracks with clear bar spacing of 2.5 inches; (5) an 11-foot-diameter, 1,317-foot-long wood-stave penstock that transitions into a 30-foot-long steel penstock and a 13.5-foot-diameter 1,310-foot-long wood-stave penstock that transitions into a 30-foot-long steel penstock; (6) a 51-foot-diameter surge tank with a 37.87-foot-high internal riser and a 39-foot-diameter surge tank with a 33.43-foot-high internal riser that are connected to the steel portion of the penstocks; (7) a 67-foot-wide, 53-foot-long, 46-foot-high concrete and masonry powerhouse containing two generating units with a total installed capacity of 17.24 megawatts (MW); (8) a 50-foot-long, 60-foot-wide bedrock excavated tailrace; (9) a 300-foot-long, 46 kilovolt overhead transmission power line; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate an average of 72,031.72 megawatt-hours annually.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in § 5.22: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the amendment to the Coastal Bend Header Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) in southeastern Texas. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the amendment to the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. Your input during the scoping process will help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Please note that the scoping period will close on March 31, 2017.
Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on November 5, 2014, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP17-62-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project and includes landowners affected by the amended Project. State and local government officials are asked to notify their constituents of this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before March 31, 2017.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number (CP17-62-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
1. You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature located on the Commission's Web site (
2. You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature located on the Commission's Web site (
3. You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
On June 12, 2015, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) filed an application with the FERC for the Coastal Bend Header Project (Project), pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) in Docket No. CP15-517-000. The EA for the Project
Gulf South has been authorized to construct 64 miles of 36-inch diameter pipeline in Wharton and Brazoria Counties, Texas, a new compressor station in Wharton County along the new pipeline, and two new compressor stations and upgrades at two compressor stations along Gulf South's existing Index 129 pipeline in Fort Bend, Harris, Polk, and Sabine Counties, Texas. The new pipeline would enable delivery of 1.54 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) of natural gas to the proposed Freeport Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Export Terminal near Freeport, Texas. Gulf South's planned in-service date for Project facilities is spring 2018.
On September 25, 2015, Gulf South filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement in its recent rate case, in Docket No. RP15-65-000 (Settlement), which was approved by the Commission on December 18, 2015. In order to accommodate volumes associated with the Project and volumes associated with contractual modifications by Gulf South's existing shipper, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corporation, in the Settlement that occurred after the filing of the Project, Gulf South was required to increase the size of the currently certificated gas-fired turbine compressor unit at its Magasco Compressor Station in Sabine County, Texas.
On February 22, Gulf South filed a Section 7(c) application to amend its Order issued by the Commission on June 20, 2016. In this amendment, Gulf South now seeks Commission authorization to incorporate a modification to the compressor unit to be installed at the Magasco Compressor Station, which is located along Gulf South's Index 129 legacy system. Gulf South is proposing to install a Solar Titan 130 compressor unit, rather than a Solar Mars 100 compressor unit as proposed in the June 2015 FERC application and approved in the June 20, 2016 Order. The Solar Titan 130 compressor unit is capable of generating approximately 20,482 brake-horsepower (bhp) of compression, which is an increase of approximately 4,734 bhp compared to the previously authorized Solar Mars 100 compressor unit. Gulf South also proposes to modify the emergency generator from an 800 bhp unit to a 691 bhp unit.
The location of the Magasco Compressor Station and the approved pipeline facilities are depicted in the figures in Appendix 1.
Gulf South does not propose any additional modifications to the station yard piping and ancillary equipment that would be installed along with the compressor unit. Therefore, there would be no change in land requirements for the Project.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources;
• wetlands and vegetation;
• fish and wildlife including migratory birds;
• threatened and endangered species;
• land use, recreation, and visual resources;
• air quality and noise;
• cultural resources;
• reliability and safety; and
• cumulative environmental impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project modification including the no action alternative, and make recommendations on how to minimize or avoid impacts on affected resources.
The supplemental EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 5.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this Project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Texas Historical Commission which has been given the role of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for Texas, and to solicit the SHPO's view and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
The proposed increase of 4,734 bhp in compression at Magasco Compressor Station would have a potential impact on air quality and noise emissions.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and
When an EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version, or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the supplemental EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, Gulf South has established a Web site for the Project at
On August 19, 2016, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-496-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Lone Star Project (Project), and would allow Tennessee to provide firm incremental transportation service of up to 300 million cubic feet per day to the Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC facility currently under construction in San Patricio County, Texas.
On September 1, 2016 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Tennessee proposes to construct and operate the following facilities as part of the Project: (1) A new 10,915 horsepower compressor station (CS 3A) in San Patricio County, Texas; and (2) a new 20,500 horsepower compressor station (CS 11A) in Jackson County, Texas. The proposed facilities would be on Tennessee's existing Line 100. Tennessee proposes to begin construction of the Project by January 2018 and to place the facilities in service by January 1, 2019.
On October 12, 2016, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
Take notice that on February 22, 2017, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission, in Docket No. CP15-517-000 for the Coastal Bend Header Project.
Specifically, Gulf South requests to amend its certificate to (i) install a gas-fired Solar Titan 130 turbine compressor unit in place of the currently certificated gas-fired Solar Mars 100 turbine compressor unit at the Magasco Compressor Station, located in Sabine County, Texas, increasing the horsepower from 15,748 hp to 20,482 hp and (ii) modify the emergency generator from an 800 brake-horsepower (bhp) unit to a 691 bhp unit. This amendment will not require any additional workspace or land disturbance beyond what has been approved by the Commission. The estimated cost of the amendment is approximately $3 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates & Tariffs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by telephone at (713) 479-8252, or by email to
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 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 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 seven 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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 17, 2017, the City of Dover, Delaware submitted its tariff filing: City of Dover, Delaware Revised Rate Schedule to be effective June 1, 2017.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Commission staff will meet with representatives of the Klamath Tribes (Tribes) regarding the proposed Swan Lake North Pumped Storage Project (Project No. 13318-003). The meeting will be held at the location and time listed below:
Members of the public, intervenors, agencies, and the applicant, in the referenced proceeding may attend this meeting; however, participation will be limited to only tribal representatives and Commission staff. If the Tribes decide to disclose information about a specific location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that portion of the meeting.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that it is withdrawing its requests that owners and operators in the oil and natural gas industry provide information on equipment and emissions at existing oil and gas operations.
Peter Tsirigotis, Director, Sector Policies & Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Office of Air & Radiation, Mail code D205-01, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; 1-888-372-8696;
In 2016, EPA sent letters to more than 15,000 owners and operators in the oil and gas industry, requiring them to provide information. The information request comprised two parts: An “operator survey” that asked for basic information on the numbers and types of equipment at onshore oil and gas production facilities in the United States, and a “facility survey” asking for more detailed information on sources of methane emissions and emissions control devices or practices in use by a representative sampling of facilities in several segments of the oil and gas industry. EPA is withdrawing both parts of the information request.
The withdrawal is occurring because EPA would like to assess the need for the information that the agency was collecting through these requests, and reduce burdens on businesses while the Agency assesses such need. This also comes after the Agency received a letter on March 1, 2017 from nine state Attorneys General and the Governors of Mississippi and Kentucky, expressing concern with the burdens on businesses imposed by the pending requests. EPA takes these concerns seriously and is committed to strengthening its partnership with the states.
The withdrawal was effective upon announcement on March 2, 2017. As such, owners and operators—including those who have received an extension to their due dates for providing the information—are no longer required to respond.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces the meeting date, time and agenda of the first meeting of the second term of its Disability Advisory Committee (“DAC” or “Committee”). The meeting is open to the public. During this meeting, members of the Committee will discuss: The roles and responsibilities of the Committee and its members; issues that the Committee will address; recommended subcommittees, subcommittee membership and meeting schedule, and the tasks for which each subcommittee will be responsible; and any other topics related to the DAC's work that may arise.
The Committee's next meeting will take place on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (EST), at the headquarters of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, in the Commission Meeting Room.
Elaine Gardner, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-0581 (voice) email:
On December 2, 2014, in document DA 14-1737, published at 79 FR 73309, December 10, 2014, the FCC announced the establishment and process for appointment of members of the DAC, an advisory committee, to provide advice and recommendations to the FCC on a wide array of disability matters. The DAC's first term expired on December 29, 2016. On September 6, 2016, the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau in document DA 16-1011, published at 81 FR 66020, September 26, 2016, announced the anticipated renewal of the DAC and solicited applications for membership for the DAC's second term, which runs from December 30, 2016, through December 29, 2018. On January 5, 2017, in document DA 17-19, announcement of the members selected for the renewed second term of the DAC was made. As authorized by Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Committee has established subcommittees, and the Commission has invited additional individuals and organizations who are not members of the full Committee to participate on these subcommittees. For the second term of the DAC, subcommittees are established to focus on emergency communications, relay/equipment distribution, technology transitions, and video programming.
The March 21, 2017 meeting will be led by the new DAC co-chairs: Lise Hamlin, Director of Public Policy of the Hearing Loss Association of America, and Sam Joehl, Principal Technical Consultant of the SSB BART Group. In addition, initial subcommittee meetings may be held following the meeting of the full DAC.
A reserved amount of time will be available on the agenda for comments and inquiries from the public. The public may comment or ask questions of presenters via the email address
During its first meeting, members of the Committee will clarify the Committee's roles and responsibilities and begin to define, clarify, and prioritize issues that the Committee and its subcommittees will address.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. If making a request for an accommodation, please include a description of the accommodation you will need and tell us how to contact you if we need more information. Make your request as early as possible by sending an email to
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 16, 2017.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD, Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
1-(866) 867-4769, Passcode: 129-339.
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 29, 2017.
A.
1.
B.
1.
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 20, 2017.
1.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for information.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention intends to evaluate the scientific and technical data on occupational exposures to peracetic acid (CAS #79-21-0, also known as peroxyacetic acid and PAA). NIOSH is requesting information on the following: (1) Workplace exposure data for peracetic acid, (2) possible health effects observed in workers exposed to peracetic acid, (3) workplaces and products in which peracetic acid may be found, (4) description of work tasks and scenarios with a potential for exposure to peracetic acid, (5) reports and findings from in vitro and in vivo toxicity studies with peracetic acid, (6) data applicable to the quantitative risk assessment of health effects associated with acute, subchronic and chronic workplace exposures to peracetic acid, (7) sampling and analytical methods for peracetic acid, and (8) control measures, including engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment (PPE), that are being used in workplaces where there is potential for exposure to peracetic acid.
Electronic or written comments must be received by June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2017-0015 and docket number NIOSH-295, by any of the following methods:
•
•
G. Scott Dotson, NIOSH, Education and Information Division, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45226, (513) 533-8540 (not a toll free number).
Peracetic acid is a peroxide-based molecule used extensively as an antimicrobial agent in many commercial applications. It is routinely used as a sterilant during the cleaning of endoscopes and other medical devices, as a disinfectant in food processing, as a bleaching agent, and in the synthesis of other chemicals [NAS 2010; Pechacek et al. 2015]. The chemical and physical properties of peracetic acid make the molecule highly reactive, unstable, and volatile. Peracetic acid has a pungent, vinegar-like odor [NAS 2010].
Peracetic acid is formed from a sulfuric acid-catalyzed chemical reaction between acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide [NAS 2010]. Peracetic acid solutions typically consist of a mixture of peracetic acid,
Acute exposure to peracetic acid is irritating to the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. Peracetic acid is a strong sensory irritant considered to be more potent than acetic acid or hydrogen peroxide [NAS 2010]. Cristofari-Margquand et al. [2007] indicated that healthcare workers experienced asthma associated with workplace exposures to peracetic acid. No data on human lethality due to exposure to peracetic acid were identified. Lethal exposures in animals caused hemorrhage, edema, and pulmonary consolidation [NAS 2010].
NIOSH does not have a recommended exposure limit (REL) for peracetic acid. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has not established a permissible exposure limit (PEL). The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) has not established a PEL for peracetic acid. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) has established a threshold limit value (TLV®)—short term exposure limit (STEL) of 1.24 mg/m
In May 2015, NIOSH published a notice in the
Research efforts are needed to characterize the acute and chronic health effects of occupational exposures to peracetic acid. These efforts include: (1) Epidemiological and field studies designed to assess workplace exposures to peracetic acid, (2) in vivo and in vitro studies designed to characterize the acute, sub-chronic, and chronic effects of peracetic acid, (3) quantitative risk assessment(s) intended to characterize the increased risks associated with workplace exposures to peracetic acid, (4) evaluation of workplace controls, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE, (5) development of analytical methods to accurately collect and analyze air samples of peracetic acid under various conditions (
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DP15-0020301SUPP17, Supplement to Enhance Laboratory and Statistical Support of the Population Registry of Diabetes in Youth.
11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., EDT, March 29, 2017 (Closed).
Teleconference.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Supplement to Enhance Laboratory and Statistical Support of the Population Registry of Diabetes in Youth”, FOA DP15-0020301SUPP17.
Jaya Raman Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6511,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the intramural research review 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville received a Letter of Intent (LOI) and Waterways Suitability Assessment (WSA) for a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility construction project in Jacksonville, Florida. The LOI and WSA for Eagle LNG were submitted by Rodino, Inc. The Coast Guard requests comments on the proposed construction of this LNG facility, as defined by 33 CFR 127.005.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 6, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0033 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document: call or email Lieutenant Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (904) 714-7616, email
Under 33 CFR 127.007(a), an owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling LNG, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling LNG, where the construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG marine traffic on the waterway associated with a proposed facility or modification to an existing facility, must submit an LOI to the Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. Eagle LNG submitted an LOI and WSA on November 25, 2014, and a Follow-on WSA on November 10, 2016.
Under 33 CFR 127.009, after receiving an LOI, the COTP issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional authorities. The LOR is based on a series of factors outlined in 33 CFR 127.009 that relate to the physical nature of the affected waterway and issues of safety and security associated with LNG marine traffic on the affected waterway.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the proposed construction project as submitted by Rodino, Inc. on behalf of Eagle LNG. Input from the public may be useful to the COTP with respect to developing the LOR. The Coast Guard requests comments to help assess the suitability of the associated waterway for increased LNG marine traffic as it relates to navigation, safety, and security.
On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard published Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, “Guidance Related to Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities.” NVIC 01-2011 provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to construct and operate LNG facilities. The Coast Guard will refer to NVIC 01-2011 for process information and guidance in evaluating the project included in the LOIs and WSAs submitted by Rodino, Inc. A copy of NVIC 01-2011 is available on the Coast Guard's Web site at
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223-1225, Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number 0170.1(70), 33 CFR 127.009, and 33 CFR 103.205.
We encourage you to submit comments on this notice for the waterway suitability assessment for the construction of this LNG facility. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. More information regarding this project can be found on the following Web site:
Please submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, or email address
This information collection previously published in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning information collection activities related to Hazard Mitigation Plans.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Kathleen Smith, Chief, Planning and Safety Branch; Planning, Safety and Building Science Division; Risk Management Directorate; Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration; FEMA (202) 646-4372. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5165, as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), Public Law 106-390, provides the framework for linking pre-and post-disaster mitigation planning and initiatives with public and private interests to ensure an integrated, comprehensive approach to disaster loss reduction. Regulations found at 44 CFR part 201 provide the mitigation planning requirements for State, local, and Indian Tribal governments to identify the natural hazards that impact them, to identify actions and activities to reduce any losses from hazards, and to establish a coordinated process to implement the plan, taking advantage of a wide-range of resources.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the effectiveness of a community's implementation of the NFIP Community Assistance Program Community Assistance Contact (CAC) and Community Assistance Visit (CAV) Reports.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Bret Gates, Senior Program Specialist, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, (202) 646-4133. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646-3347 or email address:
The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 4001,
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) Public Meeting.
This gives notice of a Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) meeting and sets forth the proposed agenda. The Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 14, 2017. The meeting is open to the public and is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, notice for the March 14, 2017, meeting is being published fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting as exceptional circumstances exist. It is imperative that the Committee hold its March 14, 2017, meeting to accommodate the scheduling priorities of key participants so that they may begin the work of the Committee. Given HUD's need for the Committee's advice, and the scheduling difficulties of selecting an alternative date, the agency deems it important for the advisory committee to meet on March 14, 2017, despite the late notice.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 14, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) at HUD Headquarters, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 and via conference phone.
Marjorie George, Housing Program Technical Specialist, Office of Housing Counseling, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38103; telephone number (901) 544-4228 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 (toll-free number). Individuals may also email
HUD is convening the meeting of the HCFAC on Tuesday, March 14, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT. The meeting will be held at HUD Headquarters, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 and via conference phone. This meeting notice is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5. U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2).
The public is invited to attend this one-day meeting in-person or by phone. Advance registration is required to participate. To register to attend, please visit the following link:
After completing the pre-registration process at the above link, in-person attendees will receive details about the meeting location and how to access the building. The meeting is also open to the public with limited phone lines available on a first-come, first-served basis. Phone attendees can call-in to the one-day meeting by using the following number in the United States: (800) 230-1096 (toll-free number). An operator will ask callers to provide their names and their organizational affiliations (if applicable) prior to placing callers into the conference line to ensure they are part of the pre-registration list. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines and HUD will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS): (800) 977-8339 (toll-free number) and providing the FRS operator with the conference call number: (800) 230-1096.
With advance registration, members of the public will have an opportunity to provide oral and written comments relative to the four agenda topics for the Committee's consideration. To provide oral comments, please be sure to indicate this on the registration link. The total amount of time for oral comments will be 15 minutes with each commenter limited to two minutes to ensure pertinent Committee business is completed. Written comments must be provided no later than March 7, 2017 to
Records and documents discussed during the meeting, as well as other information about the work of this Committee, will be available for public viewing as they become available at:
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology and NAGPRA Officer, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Denver, CO, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Around 1925, one cultural item was removed from an unknown wooded location. It had been given or sold to a local collector before Karen Petersen obtained it in 1975. Petersen sold it to Mary and Francis Crane on February 19, 1976, and the Cranes donated it to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science on May 27, 1983. In the 1950s, Karen Petersen and her husband Sydney Petersen spent their summers visiting Anishinaabe communities, camping out and buying crafts from tribal members. When she was able to sell items, she sold them through churches in St. Paul, MN. She also collected Anishinaabe objects for the Science Museum of Minnesota as a staff member from 1958 to 1964. The one cultural item (AC.11537) is a water drum. It had been left in the woods for religious reasons. The drum has broken into six pieces but is still ceremonially significant today because of the etchings on the wood that contain a song or story.
Museum accession, catalogue, and documentary records, as well as consultation with a representative of the Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, indicate that the one cultural item is Ojibwe and is from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation in northern Minnesota.
Officials of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and the Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology and NAGPRA Officer, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, email
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying the Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The St. Joseph Museums, Inc., has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Trevor Tutt, St. Joseph Museums, Inc., P.O. Box 8096, St. Joseph, MO 64508, telephone (816) 232-8471, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the St. Joseph Museums, Inc. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple counties in the state of Missouri.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., professional staff in consultation with representatives of Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; and The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
In 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 23AT21 near Rock Creek in Atchison County, MO. The site was discovered during the construction of Highway I-29. When the site was discovered, construction ceased and Missouri Highway geologist Bill Herndon and state archeologists Don Reynolds and Mike Fisher excavated the site. The human remains were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., and accessioned in 1992. No known individual was identified. There are, at minimum, 800 individual bone fragments from the site. The seven associated funerary objects are 1 chert; 4 containers of charcoal and bone; and 2 bison horns.
In 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Big Ditch site (23AT15) in Atchison County, MO. The site was excavated and the human remains and funerary objects were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. The 32 associated funerary objects are 22 sherds; 3 projectile points; 1 bison horn; 1 scraper; 4 lime nodules; and 1 stone.
From the early 1900s through 1989, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from The King Hill site (23BN1) in Buchanan County, MO. The King Hill site (23BN1) is identified as a burial mound within the city of St. Joseph, MO and is a frequent site of archeological investigation. No known individuals were identified. The 623 associated funerary objects are 1 piece of wood, 66 stones and rock samples, 16 shells, 1 screw, 5 scrapers, 28 rimsherds, 1 projectile point, 457 potsherds, 2 ornaments, 3 concretion, 1 hearthstone, 1 pot handle, 1 fossil, 29 chert, 3 coal, 1 bullet casing, 4 brick and mortar, and 3 botanical remains.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Enterprise Hill in Buchanan County, MO. The human remains were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., at an unknown date by Whipple S. Newell. No known individuals were identified. The 42 associated funerary objects are 1 sherd; 6 shells; 13 pendants; 1 flake; 8 charcoal; and 13 beads.
In 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Benton High School in Buchanan County, MO. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 23AN35 in Andrew County, MO and donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., by Kenneth Lawrie at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. The 41 associated funerary objects are 1 stone; 35 sherds; 4 pieces of clay; and 1 daub.
In the mid to late 1900s, human remains representing at minimum, one individual were removed from site 23JA24 in Jackson County, MO by J. Mett Shippee. These human remains were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., in 1992. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
All the sites listed in this notice are affiliated with the Iowa, Omaha, Osage, Otoe-Missouria, and Sac & Fox tribes.
Officials of the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 15 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 745 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; and The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to: Trevor Tutt, St. Joseph Museums, Inc., P.O. Box 8096, St. Joseph, MO 64508, telephone (816) 232-8471, email
The St. Joseph Museums, Inc., is responsible for notifying Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology and NAGPRA Officer, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
At an unknown date, six cultural items were removed from multiple unknown locations. In the 1950s, Karen Petersen and her husband Sydney Petersen spent their summers visiting Anishinaabe communities, camping out, and buying crafts from tribal members. When she was able to sell items, she sold them through churches in St. Paul, MN. She also collected Anishinaabe objects for the Science Museum of Minnesota as a staff member from 1958 to 1964. The six cultural items were purchased by Petersen in 1975 from unknown collectors who obtained or purchased them from tribal members at the White Earth Indian Reservation in northwestern Minnesota. The baton (AC.11531) was obtained by an unknown collector from Annie Fineday of the White Earth Indian Reservation in 1941, and, in turn, was obtained by Petersen in 1975. It was purchased by Francis and Mary Crane on February 5, 1976. The Cranes donated the baton to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science (DMNS) in December of 1976. The bird carving (AC.11532) was purchased by an unknown collector from Mrs. John Basswood in Ponsford, which is part of the White Earth Indian Reservation, in 1949. It was obtained by Petersen in 1975 and was purchased by the Cranes on February 5, 1976. The Cranes donated the bird carving to the DMNS in December of 1976. The rattle (AC.11534) was sold to an unknown collector by Jack Saylor at the White Earth Indian Reservation, and, in turn, was purchased by Petersen in 1975, and by the Cranes on February 5, 1976. The Cranes donated the rattle to the DMNS in December of 1976. The medicine bag (AC.11535H) was obtained from Mrs. Moose Jonas from an unknown collector in the 1930s, and, in turn, was obtained by Petersen in 1975. It was purchased by the Cranes on February 5, 1976. The Cranes donated the medicine bag to the DMNS in December of 1976. The second bird figure (AC.11540) was obtained from Annie Fineday by an unknown collector in 1941, and, in turn, was obtained by Petersen in 1975. It was purchased by the Cranes on February 5, 1976. The Cranes donated the bird figure to the DMNS in December of 1976. The Midewiwin Post (AC.11543) was purchased from Mrs. John Basswood in Ponsford in 1949, and, in turn, was obtained by Petersen in 1975. It was purchased by the Cranes on February 5, 1976. The Cranes then donated the Midewiwin Post to the DMNS in December of 1976. The six cultural items are one Midewiwin baton (AC.11531), two Midewiwin bird figures (AC.11532 and AC.11540), one Midewiwin rattle (AC.11534), one Midewiwin medicine bag (AC.11534H), and one Midewiwin post (AC.11534). The cultural items are identified in museum records as being from the White Earth Indian Reservation in northwestern Minnesota. Bird figures and their posts are used to mark Mide lodges and to signify a family or society affiliation. Similarly, rattles, medicine bags, and batons have an integral role in Midewiwin's current ceremonial practices.
Museum accession, catalogue, and documentary records, as well as consultation with representatives of the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, indicate that the six cultural items are Ojibwe and are from the White Earth Indian Reservation, Minnesota. The six cultural items, AC.11531, AC.11532, AC.11534, AC.11535H, AC.11540, and AC.11543, relate to the Grand Medicine Society or Midewiwin, a ritual society.
Officials of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the six cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology and NAGPRA Officer,
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Director of the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Dr. Anthony Ortmann, Director, Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory, Blackburn Science Building 334, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071, telephone (270) 809-6755, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory, Murray, KY. The human remains were removed from various counties in Kentucky and one county in Tennessee.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Eastern Band of Cherokee, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, and The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma. The following tribes were invited to consult but did not participate: Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma in Oklahoma.
On an unknown date in the 1980s, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Twin Mounds site (15Ba2) in Ballard County, KY. Archeological research at the Twin Mounds site (15Ba2) was undertaken by the University of Illinois as part of their Western Kentucky Project. The human remains from the Twin Mounds site (15Ba2) were transferred to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory sometime between 2001 and 2005. The human remains consist of 27 fragments of human bone, all of indeterminate age and sex. The Twin Mounds site (15Ba2) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site 15Ba42 in Ballard County, KY, during surface collections by unknown individuals. These human remains consist of 100 specimens including skull fragments, mandible fragments, vertebral fragments, and possible ulna, radius, fibula, humerus, femur, and/or tibia fragments, all of indeterminate age and sex. These human remains were discovered in the collections maintained by the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory. The date of the site associated with the human remains is unknown. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Backusburg site (15Cw65) in Calloway County, KY. These human remains consist of 1 small, unidentifiable specimen that was collected from the back dirt pile of a looter's pit by Dr. Kenneth Carstens. The Backusburg site (15Cw65) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). Neither age nor sex could be determined for this skeletal element. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the early 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Backusburg site (15Cw65) in Calloway County, KY. These human remains consist of 60 specimens that were recovered by an amateur archeologist and donated to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory in 2003. The specimens consist of fragments of a human femur, fibula, tibia, humerus, and ulna, as well as skull, mandible, scapula, vertebral, and sacrum fragments. Age and sex could not be determined for any of these specimens. The Backusburg site (15Cw65) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unnamed and unnumbered site near the town of Hardin in Calloway County, KY. These human remains consist of 100 fragments of human bone that were recovered by an amateur archeologist and donated to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory in 2003. Skeletal elements include skull fragments, rib fragments, sacrum fragments, vertebral fragments, and one unidentified long bone fragment. Neither age nor sex could be determined for any of the specimens. The age of the site is unknown. No known individual
On an unknown date in the 1980s, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from the Turk site (15Ce6) in Carlisle County, KY. Archeological research at the Turk site was undertaken by the University of Illinois as part of their Western Kentucky Project. These human remains were transferred to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory sometime between 2001 and 2005. These human remains consist of 848 specimens including at least nine infants or children and at least three adults. The sex of the individuals could not be determined. The Turk site (15Ce6) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1980s, human remains representing, at minimum, ten individuals were removed from the Adams site (15Fu4) in Fulton County, KY. Archeological research at the Adams site was undertaken by the University of Illinois as part of their Western Kentucky Project. These human remains were transferred to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory sometime between 2001 and 2005. These human remains consist of 463 specimens including at least three children or infants. No other age of sex characteristics could be determined. The Adams site (15Fu4) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1980s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Sassafras Ridge site (15Fu3) in Fulton County, KY. Archeological research at the Sassafras Ridge site was undertaken by the University of Illinois as part of their Western Kentucky Project. These human remains were transferred to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory sometime between 2001 and 2005. The Sassafras Ridge site (15Fu3) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). These human remains consist of 15 fragments of human bone. Age and sex could not be determined for any of the specimens. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Stahr Hill site (15Fu45) in Fulton County, KY. These human remains were obtained during surface collection. There is no record regarding who collected the human remains or how they got into the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory collections. The Stahr Hill site (15Fu45) is of unknown age. The human remains consist of a single tooth. Age and sex could not be determined for this specimen. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Jonathan Creek site (15Ml4) in Marshall County, KY. These human remains were removed by an amateur archeologist and were subsequently donated to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory in 2003. The Jonathan Creek site (15Ml4) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). The human remains consist of 40 fragments including cranial elements, vertebral elements, and one fragment of a radius. Age and sex could not be determined for any of the specimens. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Hardin site (15Ml82) in Marshall County, KY. These human remains were obtained during surface collection, but there is no record regarding who collected the human remains or how they got into the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory collections. The Hardin site (15Ml82) is of unknown age. The human remains consist of nine fragmentary bones including cranial elements and possibly unidentified long bone elements. Age and sex could not be determined for any of these specimens. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Reed site (15McN51) in McCracken County, KY. These human remains were removed during excavation by field school students at Murray State University and subsequently curated in the collections of the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory. The Reed site (15McN51) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). The human remains consist of eight fragments including two skull fragments, one navicular fragment, and five unidentified fragments. Age and sex could not be determined for any of the specimens. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1980s, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Crawford Lake site (15McN18) in McCracken County, KY. These human remains were removed during archaeological investigations by the University of Illinois as part of their Western Kentucky Project and transferred to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory sometime between 2001 and 2005. The Crawford Lake site (15McN18) likely dates to the Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1600). The human remains consist of 24 specimens recovered from disturbed contexts. Age and sex have not been determined for any of the specimens. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle, Fulton, Marshall, and McCracken counties, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 25 individuals were removed from the Savage Cave site (15Lo11) in Logan County, KY. Some of these human remains consist of out-of-context human remains that were donated to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory by the site's previous owner, Genevieve Savage. Other human remains from the Savage Cave site were recovered from back dirt piles associated with looter's pits during visits by Murray State University archeologists in 1991, 1994, and 1997. Some of the human remains from the Savage Cave site were recovered during excavations by the Carnegie Institute during the late 1960s. The Savage Cave site had a long history of occupation and use throughout the prehistoric period. The human remains from the Savage Cave site include a total of 260 specimens including both whole and fragmentary human remains. Some skeletal elements of children and infants are present in the collection, otherwise no age or sex determinations were possible. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Logan County, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
On an unknown date in the 1960s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 15Tr7 in Trigg County, KY. These human remains were removed by a graduate student from the University
On an unknown date in the 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unnamed and unnumbered site in Stewart County, TN. These human remains were recovered by an amateur archaeologist and subsequently donated to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory in 2003. The age of the site is unknown. The human remains from the site consist of 137 specimens including cranial, mandible, rib, scapula, and vertebral fragments. Age and sex could not be determined for any of these specimens. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Bear Creek site (40Sw23) in Stewart County, TN. These human remains were recovered during Murray State University archeological field school excavations and subsequently curated in the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory. The age of the Bear Creek site (40Sw23) is unknown. The human remains from the site consist of 176 specimens including vertebral, cranial, and long bone fragments. At least two individuals were either infants or children. No other age or sex determinations could be made. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Trigg County, KY, and Stewart County, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Between May 25, 2001, and July 5, 2001, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from site 15Hk280 in Hopkins County, KY, by Thor Olmanson as part of a cultural resources management assessment. The human remains were transferred to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory in 2003. This site is a rock shelter and test excavations revealed that it had been thoroughly looted prior to the archeological assessment. As a result, all recovered human remains were out of context. The human remains removed from site 15Hk280 consist of 139 fragmentary specimens ranging in age from subadult to adult. No sex determinations could be made. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Hopkins County, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Shawnee Tribe, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
On an unknown date in the 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Sanders site in Livingston County, KY. These human remains were surface collected by an amateur archeologist and subsequently transferred to the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory in 2003. The age of the Sanders site is unknown. The human remains from the site consist of a total of 137 specimens including cranial elements, vertebral fragments, rib fragments, long bone fragments, and phalanges. No age or sex determinations could be made. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Livingston County, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Officials of the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence, association with prehistoric archaeological sites, and their geographic and temporal affiliation which is consistent with the historically documented territory of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least 79 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle, Fulton, Marshall, and McCracken counties, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle, Fulton, Marshall, and McCracken counties, KY, may be to The Chickasaw Nation.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Logan County, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Logan County, KY, may be to the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Trigg County, KY, and Stewart County, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Trigg County, KY, and Stewart County, TN, may be to the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Hopkins County, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Shawnee Tribe, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Hopkins County, KY, may be to the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Livingston County, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Livingston County, KY, may be to the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Anthony Ortmann, Director, Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory, Murray, KY 42071, telephone (270) 809-6755, email
The Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory is responsible for notifying the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Kristina Boykin, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, telephone (501) 569-2079, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Hot Spring and Clark counties, AR.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
In 1998, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were recovered from the Helm site (3HS499) in Hot Spring County, AR, during data recovery for the replacement of a bridge. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department contracted the excavations out to Mid-Continental Research Associates, Inc., in Lowell, AR. The human remains were taken to the laboratory at Mid-Continental Research Associates, Inc., for analysis and then to the Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS) for curation. The human remains were identified as one infant (less than two years old), three children (2 to 12 years), two youth (13 to 18 years), and three adults (19 to 35 years). The human remains consisted of two females, two males, and five undetermined. No known individuals were identified. The 23 associated funerary objects are 3 bowls, 2 bottles, 1 jar, 12 undescribed ceramic vessels, 4 deposits of red ochre, and 1 piece of metal. These associated funerary objects and other diagnostic artifacts found at site 3HS449 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Caddo Period (A.D. 1450-1700).
In 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, 24 individuals were recovered from the Hardman site (3CL418) in Clark County, AR. The Hardman site was excavated to mitigate the impacts of the construction of a bridge over Bayou Saline. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department contracted the excavations out to the AAS, and the human remains and associated funerary objects have remained at the AAS's collections since the time of their removal. No known individuals were identified. The 105 associated funerary objects include 1 untyped Plain bottle (FSN134), 1 Hodges engraved
Officials of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 33 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 128 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Kristina Boykin, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, telephone (501) 569-2079, email
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department is responsible for notifying the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology and NAGPRA Officer, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from an unknown location. Museum records show that the cultural item was obtained by Monrow P. Killy from Charlie Day, a tribal member at the Nett Lake Indian Reservation, also known as the Bois Forte Indian Reservation. Killy was a photographer and electrician who wrote extensively for
Museum accession, catalogue, and documentary records, as well as consultation with a representative of the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, indicate that the one cultural item is Ojibwe and is from the Bois Forte Indian Reservation, Minnesota.
Officials of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the 1 cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the one cultural item and the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology and NAGPRA Officer, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, email
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leonard Wood has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Fort Leonard Wood. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Fort Leonard Wood at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Stephanie L. Nutt, Cultural Resources Program Coordinator, Natural Resources Branch, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leonard Wood, IMLD-PWE, 8112 Nebraska Avenue, Building 11400, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473, telephone (573) 596-7607, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of Fort Leonard Wood. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the property within Fort Leonard Wood, Pulaski County, MO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fort Leonard Wood professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals, including two subadults and one adult, were removed from the Laughlin Cairns Site on Fort Leonard Wood in Pulaski County, MO. The individuals were collected from Cairns 2, 3, and 7 by Environmental Consultants, Inc., during an excavation of site 23PU221. No known individuals were identified. The five associated funerary objects include one thick black rim sherd, one shell tempered with incised lines parallel to the rim; two gray/pink chert flakes; and one small triangular biface flake of white chert.
The human remains and the associated funerary objects from this site date to the Late Maramec Spring subphase (A.D. 900-1500), based on relation to other Cairn burial sites. Cultural affiliation to the aforementioned tribes stems from aboriginal lands established on historical maps and traditional burial practices.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals, including two adults, were removed from Fort Leonard Wood/Mark Twain National Forest Joint Use Land in Pulaski County, MO. The individuals were collected from a cairn site by Environmental Consultants, Inc. during an excavation of site 23PU222. No known individuals were identified. The 53 associated funerary objects include one beige colored Scallorn projectile point; one pink and gray Scallorn projectile point; one grayish-white long Scallorn projectile point; three large modified pieces of chert; 25 small chert flakes; one small piece of hematite; one large dark brown rough stone; one grayish-tan Scallorn projectile point; one grayish-white Rice projectile point
The human remains and associated funerary objects from this site date between the Late Woodland (A.D. 400-900) and Late Maramec Spring subphase (A.D. 900-1500) periods, based on the relative dates of the associated funerary objects. Cultural affiliation to the aforementioned tribes stems from aboriginal lands established on historical maps and traditional burial practices.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 adult individual were removed from Fort Leonard Wood/Mark Twain National Forest Joint Use Land in Pulaski County, MO. The individual was collected from a cairn site by Environmental Consultants, Inc., during an excavation of site 23PU224. No known individuals were identified. The four associated funerary objects are four gray banded chert flakes.
The human remains and associated funerary objects from this site date to the Late Maramec Spring subphase (900-1500 A.D.) on the basis of relation to other cairn sites. Cultural affiliation to the aforementioned tribes stems from aboriginal lands established on historical maps and traditional burial practices. Cultural affiliation for the human remains and associated funerary objects was established on historical maps and traditional burial practices. Cultural affiliation was determined to exist between the human remains and associated funerary objects and the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.
Officials of Fort Leonard Wood have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 9 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 62 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Stephanie L. Nutt, Cultural Resources Program Coordinator, Natural Resources Branch, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leonard Wood, IMLD-PWE, 8112 Nebraska Avenue, Building 11400, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473, telephone (573) 596-7607, email
Fort Leonard Wood is responsible for notifying the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leonard Wood has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Fort Leonard Wood. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Fort Leonard Wood at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Stephanie L. Nutt, Cultural Resources Program Coordinator, Natural Resources Branch, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leonard Wood, IMLD-PWE, 8112 Nebraska Avenue, Building 11400, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473, telephone (573) 596-7607, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of Fort Leonard Wood, Pulaski County, MO. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Fort Leonard Wood, Pulaski County, MO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fort Leonard Wood professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; The Osage Nation; and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.
In the late 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unidentified site on Fort Leonard Wood property in Pulaski County, MO. The human remains were found by a pair of unidentified boys and were turned over to the Missouri Highway Patrol, who then delivered the human remains to the Fort Leonard Wood Museum. In 1998, they were turned over to the post archeologist who placed them with the rest of the Fort Leonard Wood archeological collections. The individual is of unknown antiquity due to the lack of archeological context. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one adult individual were removed from Wilson Cave on Fort Leonard Wood in Pulaski County, MO. The individual was collected by Environmental Consultants, Inc., during an excavation of Test Unit 2, levels 3 and 4, and a looter's backdirt pile at site 23PU152. The individual is of unknown antiquity, though diagnostic artifacts were found nearby from the periods between 6000-3000 B.C. and A.D. 900-1500., making the antiquity ambiguous. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one adult individual were removed from Deadman's Cave on Fort Leonard Wood in Pulaski County, MO. The individual was collected by Environmental Consultants, Inc., during an excavation at site 23PU207. The individual is of unknown antiquity, though diagnostic artifacts were found nearby from the periods between 3000-1000 B.C. and A.D. 500-1500., making the antiquity ambiguous. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals, including one adult male and subadult, were removed from Davis Cave on Fort Leonard Wood in Pulaski County, MO. The individuals were collected by Environmental Consultants, Inc., during an excavation at site 23PU209. The individuals are of unknown antiquity due to disturbed archeological context, though diagnostic artifacts were found nearby from periods between 7800-1000 B.C. and A.D. 900-1500, making the antiquity ambiguous. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals, including three subadults and two adults, were removed from Joy Cave on Fort Leonard Wood in Pulaski County, MO. The individuals were collected by Environmental Consultants, Inc., during an excavation at site 23PU210. The individuals are of unknown antiquity due to disturbed archeological context, though diagnostic artifacts were found nearby from periods between 7800-3000 B.C. and A.D. 900-1500 making the antiquity ambiguous. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals, including one adult and one subadult of indeterminate gender, were removed from Davis Cave on Fort Leonard Wood in Pulaski County, MO. The individuals were collected on the surface by Environmental Consultants, Inc., during an excavation of site 23PU211. The individuals are of unknown antiquity due to the disturbed archeological context, though diagnostic artifacts were found nearby from periods between 7800-3000 B.C. and A.D. 900-1500, making the antiquity ambiguous. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of Fort Leonard Wood have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the context of their burials, relative dates of the burial sites, as well as physical condition of the remains.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 13 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Stephanie L. Nutt, Cultural Resources Program Coordinator, Natural Resources Branch, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leonard Wood, IMLD-PWE, 8112 Nebraska Avenue, Building 11400, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473, telephone (573) 596-7607, email
Fort Leonard Wood is responsible for notifying the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources at the address in this notice by April 6, 2017.
Daniel M. Seinfeld, Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Mission San Luis State Archaeological Collections, 2100 West Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32304, telephone (850) 245-6301.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources. The human remains were removed from several counties in Florida and indeterminate locations in Florida.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. The following tribes were invited to consult but did not participate in consultation: Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from an unknown site most likely located in Nassau or Clay Counties, FL. The human remains were in a box labeled “Johnson's Lake.” While Marion County, FL, has a Johnson Lake site (8MR63), it is not known to contain burials. Close variations of the place name (Johnson Lake, Lake Johnson) are located in Nassau and Clay Counties, FL. Coquina shell and crab claw fragments were in the box with the human remains. These items are not believed to be grave goods but their presence is consistent with archeological sites near the east coast of Florida. The human remains are fragmented and their degree of mineralization and dental attrition is consistent with human remains from prehistoric skeletal human remains from Florida. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from an unknown site, most likely in Daytona Beach, Volusia County, FL. The human remains were in a small box labeled “John Raabe skull fragments” and contained small cranial fragments as well as marine and land snail shells. John Raabe was a local collector in Daytona Beach, FL. The bones were fragmented and mineralized, as is typical of prehistoric skeletal human remains from Florida. The fragmented nature of the human remains and their association in the box with shell is consistent archeological contexts in peninsular Florida. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from an unknown site, most likely in Volusia County, FL. These human remains were housed with other archeological material that came from Volusia County, FL, collectors. The bones were fragmented and mineralized, as is typical of prehistoric skeletal human remains from Florida. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Bissetts Mound site (8VO122) in Volusia County, FL. The human remains were found in a bag labeled “Bissetts Mound,” which is a known site (8VO122) in Volusia County, FL. The site dates to between 700 B.C. to A.D. 1700 and is known to contain burials. Due to the fragmented nature of the human remains, there are no biological markers with which to assess ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Ormond Mound site (8VO240) in Volusia County, FL. The human remains are highly mineralized and encased in a shell midden matrix. Their reported discovery site, Ormond Mound, is a known prehistoric Native American burial ground. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice from Nassau, Clay, and Volusia counties, FL, are part of a larger collection from the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Daytona Beach, FL. The Museum of Arts and Sciences in Daytona Beach accepted numerous donations in the past, often with little documentation. The Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources assumed jurisdiction over these human remains pursuant to Section 872.05,
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from an unknown site in Hillsborough County, FL. In October 2013, a woman brought to the Tampa Police Department a box containing human bones and pottery that she found in her deceased uncle's attic. She told police that her uncle and father were construction workers in the Tampa area and would often dig through construction sites collecting bones and artifacts. She had no knowledge of where the bones came from or how long her uncle had them in his possession. A detective with the Tampa Police Department brought the bones to the medical examiner who then suggested she bring them to Dr. Erin Kimmerle, a physical anthropologist with the University of South Florida. Dr. Kimmerle noted that the bones were likely human remains from a prehistoric Native American. In May 2014, the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources assumed jurisdiction over these human remains pursuant to Section 872.05,
At an unknown date in the 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Fairyland Hill site (8BR162) in Brevard County, FL. In 2013, the individual who removed the human remains brought them to a local professional archeologist. The archeologist assessed that these human remains were ancient, and passed this information along to the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources. In March 2013, the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources assumed jurisdiction over these human remains pursuant to Section 872.05,
At an unknown date in the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Coonbottom Mound site (8JE13) in Jefferson County, FL. In November 2014, the person who removed the human remains gave them to a local professional archeologist who confirmed that the human remains were ancient. In November 2014, the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources assumed jurisdiction over these human remains pursuant to Section 872.05,
At an unknown date in the 1980s, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected from an unknown site in Brevard County, FL. After the person who found the human remains passed away, his family members contacted the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources. In 2015, the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources assumed jurisdiction over these human remains pursuant to Section 872.05,
In 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Pillsbury Mound (8MA31) in Manatee County, FL. These human remains were in the collections of the Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee, FL. During an assessment of their collections, Southeast Archeological Center staff realized these human remains were under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources and transferred them to the Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources in 2015. The human remains are fragmented and their degree of mineralization is consistent with human remains from prehistoric contexts in Florida. Previous archeological investigations have demonstrated that the Pillsbury Mound is a known burial mound that dates to the Late Weeden Island and Safety Harbor periods (A.D. 800-1700). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 2013, human remains representing, at minimum, 25 individuals were removed from the McClamory Key site (8LV288) in Levy County, FL. In the fall of 2012, pursuant to Section 872.05,
Officials of the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on contextual information and osteological analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 43 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 4 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Daniel M. Seinfeld, Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources, Mission San Luis State Archaeological Collections, 2100 West Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32304, (850) 245-6301, by April 6, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians may proceed.
The Florida Department of State/Division of Historical Resources is responsible for notifying the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians that this notice has been published.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 249.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announces the availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS) for the proposed Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 249 (GOM Sale 249). 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 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, provides affected states the opportunity to review the Proposed NOS. The Proposed NOS sets forth the proposed terms and conditions of the sale, including minimum bids, royalty rates, and rental rates.
Affected states may comment on the size, timing, and location of proposed GOM Sale 249 within 60 days following their receipt of the Proposed NOS. The Final NOS will be published in the
The Proposed NOS for GOM Sale 249 and Proposed NOS Package containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394; telephone: (504) 736-2519. The Proposed NOS and Proposed NOS Package also are available on BOEM's Web site at
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request renewed authority for the collection of information for the Form OSM-23, Restriction on financial interests of state employees and its associated regulations. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the collection and assigned it clearance number 1029-0067.
Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by May 8, 2017, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783 or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for approval. This collection is contained in 30 CFR part 705 and Form OSM-23, Restriction on financial interests of state employees. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for part 705 is 1029-0067. Responses are mandatory in accordance with 517(g) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as the use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request renewed approval for the collection of information for Rights of Entry.
Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by May 8, 2017, to be assured of consideration.
Mail comments to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 203-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically at
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for extension. This collection is contained in 30 CFR 877.
OSMRE has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on reestimates of burden or respondents and costs. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.
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.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request renewed authority to collect information for a series of customer surveys to evaluate OSMRE's performance in meeting the performance goals outlined in its annual plans developed pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the collection and assigned it clearance number 1029-0114.
Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by May 8, 2017, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203-SIB,
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease, at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies the information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for approval. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0114 and is on the forms along with the expiration date. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.
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.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-1330 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) from Korea, provided for in subheading 2917.39.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be sold at less-than-fair-value.
Effective February 3, 2017.
Porscha Stiger (202-205-3241), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigation, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
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 May 25, 2016, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by PCI Nitrogen, LLC, Pasadena, Texas. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of ammonium sulfate from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV 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
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 March 2, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4671 (March 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip from Korea and the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel sheet and strip from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.
Michael Szustakowski ((202) 205-3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1675(c)(5)(B).
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) final initial determination (“Final ID”) issued on December 9, 2016, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“section 337”) in the above-captioned investigation.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 27, 2015, based on a Complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Cisco”). 80 FR 4313-14 (Jan. 27, 2015). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain network devices, related software and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,853; 6,377,577; 7,460,492; 7,061,875; 7,224,668; and 8,051,211. The Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's Notice of Investigation named Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (“Arista”) as respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party to the investigation. The Commission previously terminated the investigation in part as to certain claims of the asserted patents. Order No. 38 (Oct. 27, 2015), unreviewed Notice (Nov. 18, 2015); Order No. 47 (Nov. 9, 2015), unreviewed Notice (Dec. 1, 2015).
On December 9, 2016, the ALJ issued her Final ID, finding a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the '577 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and 64 of the '668 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with respect to claim 2 of the '577 patent; claims 46 and 63 of the '853 patent; claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '492 patent; claims 1-4, and 10 of the '875 patent; and claims 2, 6, 13, and 17 of the '211 patent.
In particular, the Final ID finds that Cisco has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused products infringe asserted claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the '577 patent; and asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and 64 of the '668 patent. The Final ID finds that Cisco has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused products infringe asserted claim 2 of the '577 patent; asserted claims 46 and 63 of the '853 patent; asserted claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '492 patent; asserted claims 1-4, and 10 of the '875 patent; and asserted claims 2, 6, 13, and 17 of the '211 patent.
The Final ID also finds that assignor estoppel bars Arista from asserting that the '577 and '853 patents are invalid. The Final ID finds, however, that if assignor estoppel did not apply, Arista has shown by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the '577 patent and claim 46 of the '853 patent are invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,920,886 (“Feldmeier”). The Final ID further finds that Arista has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that any of the remaining asserted claims are invalid. The Final ID also finds that Arista has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Cisco's patent claims are barred by equitable estoppel, waiver, implied license, laches, unclean hands, or patent misuse.
The Final ID finds that Cisco has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all of the patents-in-suit pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 337(A), (B), and (C). The Final ID finds, however, that Cisco has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '875, '492, and '211 patents. The Final ID finds that Cisco has satisfied the technical prong with respect to the '577, '853, and '668 patents.
The Final ID also contains the ALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding. The ALJ recommended that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order with a certification provision and a cease and desist order against Arista. The ALJ recommended the imposition of a bond of 5% during the period of Presidential review.
On December 29, 2016, Cisco, Arista, and OUII each filed petitions for review of various aspects of the Final ID. As described below, some of the issues
Cisco petitions for review of the Final ID's construction of certain limitations recited in claim 46 of the '853 patent and the resulting finding that Arista's accused products do not infringe that claim. Cisco also petitions for review of the Final ID's findings of non-infringement and non-satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '875, '492, and '211 patents. Cisco requests contingent review of the Final ID's finding that Arista does not indirectly infringe the asserted claims of the '577 patent should the Commission review the Final ID's finding that Arista's post-importation direct infringement cannot alone support a finding of violation of section 337. Cisco also requests contingent review of the Final ID's finding that Feldmeier anticipates the asserted claims of the '577 patent should the Commission review the Final ID's finding that assignor estoppel applies.
Arista petitions for review of the Final ID's construction of certain limitations recited in the asserted claims of the '577 and '668 patents and the resulting finding that certain of Arista's accused products infringe those claims. Arista also petitions for review of the Final ID's findings of indirect infringement with respect to the '577 and '668 patents. Arista further petitions for review of the Final ID's finding that assignor estoppel precludes Arista from challenging the validity of the '577 and '853 patents. Arista requests contingent review of the Final ID's finding that claim 46 of the '853 patent is invalid as anticipated and indefinite should the Commission review the ALJ's non-infringement findings with respect to that claim. Arista also requests contingent review of the issue of indirect infringement regarding the '853, '211, '875, and '492 patents should the Commission review the Final ID's findings of no direct infringement with respect to those patents.
OUII petitions for review of the Final ID's finding that the “configurable PiP CoPP” implementation in Arista's accused products infringes the asserted claims of the '668 patent. OUII also petitions for review of the Final ID's reliance on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in finding that claims 1 and 12 of the '211 patent are invalid as anticipated. OUII requests contingent review of the Final ID's finding that Feldmeier anticipates the asserted claims of the '577 patent should the Commission review the Final ID's finding that assignor estoppel applies. OUII further requests contingent review of the Final ID's construction of certain means-plus-functions claims recited in claim 46 of the '853 patent should the Commission review the Final ID's finding that the accused products do not infringe that claim.
On January 10, 2017, Cisco, Arista, and OUII filed responses to the various petitions for review.
On January 11, 2017, Cisco and Arista each filed a post-RD statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). No responses were filed by the public in response to the post-RD Commission Notice issued on December 20, 2016.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the Final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID in part.
With respect to the '577 patent, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's finding that Arista has indirectly infringed the '577 patent by importing Imported Components, as referenced at page 110 in the Final ID. The Commission has also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Arista's post-importation direct infringement cannot alone support a finding of violation of section 337. The Commission has further determined to review the Final ID's finding that Feldmeier anticipates claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the '577 patent.
With respect to the '853 patent, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's claim construction findings with respect to claim elements (c), (d), and (f) of claim 46. The Commission has also determined to review the Final ID's findings concerning direct and indirect infringement regarding the '853 patent. The Commission has further determined to review the Final ID's finding that assignor estoppel applies to validity challenges based on indefiniteness. The Commission has also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Feldmeier does not anticipate claim 46.
With respect to the '875 and '492 patents, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's finding of no direct infringement and the related finding of no indirect infringement. The Commission has also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Cisco has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '875 and '492 patents.
With respect to the '668 patent, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's finding of direct infringement and the Final ID's finding of indirect infringement, in particular as concerns Arista's importation of Imported Components.
With respect to the '211 patent, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's finding that Cisco has failed to satisfy the technical prong with respect to claims 1 and 12 of the '211 patent, including the Final ID's finding that claims 1 and 12 are invalid.
The Commission has determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the Final ID.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
1. Discuss the relevant case law regarding the requirement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(c), that to be found liable for contributory infringement, the accused infringer must import into the United States or sell within the United State a device that constitutes a “material part of the invention.” In addition, please address whether the Imported Components satisfy this requirement with respect to the '577, '853, and '668 patents. Please cite to and discuss any relevant evidence in the record.
2. Please address whether the Accused ACL Products infringe asserted claim 46 of the '853 patent if the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6 (means-plus-function) limitation “means for matching matchable information, said matchable information being responsive to said packet label, with said set of access control patterns in parallel” is construed to require as the corresponding structure an access control memory, including one or more content-addressable memory units of the type shown in Figure 2 of the '853 patent.
3. Please address whether the Accused ACL Products infringe asserted claim 46 of the '853 patent if the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6 (means-plus-function) limitation “means for generating a set of matches in response thereto, each said match having priority information associated therewith” is construed to require as the corresponding structure an access control memory, including one or more content-addressable memory units of the type shown in Figure 2 of the '853 patent.
4. Please address whether the Accused ACL Products with the Petra chip infringe asserted claim 46 of the '853 patent, in particular with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6 (means-plus-function) limitation “means for
5. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6 (means-plus-function) limitation “means for making a routing decision in response to said access result” recited in asserted claim 46 of the '853 patent, please address whether any corresponding structure disclosed in the specification of the '853 patent satisfies the claimed function, other than the structure recited in the Final ID's claim construction or the structures previously proposed by the parties.
6. With reference to question five, please address whether the Accused ACL Products infringe claim 46 of the '853 patent under the proper construction of the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6 (means-plus-function) limitation “means for making a routing decision in response to said access result.”
7. Please address whether the Accused Loop Guard Products and the DI Loop Guard Products practice the limitation “including a discarding state” recited in claims 1 and 10 of the '875 patent and/or the limitation “including a discarding port state” recited in claim 1 of the '492 patent under the ALJ's claim construction of “discarding [port] state,” which requires “a port state in a spanning tree protocol or algorithm in which data frames are neither forwarded to nor received from the port.” Please cite to and discuss any relevant evidence in the record.
8. Please address whether the Accused Loop Guard Products and the DI Loop Guard Products practice the limitation “including . . . a listening state” recited in claims 1 and 10 of the '875 patent and/or the limitation “including . . . a listening [port] state” recited in claim 1 of the '492 patent. In particular, please discuss the disclosure in exhibit CX-0653 at pages 63, 66, and 67. In addition, please cite to and discuss any other relevant evidence in the record.
9. With respect to the '668 patent, please address whether the Pip CoPP feature in the '668 Accused Products is a physical port service. In particular, please address the significance of the ALJ's finding on page 196 of the Final ID. In addition, please cite to and discuss any relevant evidence in the record.
The parties have been invited to brief only these discrete issues, as enumerated above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-945”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will hold a meeting on April 28, 2017. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
April 28, 2017 from 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a meeting on April 25-26, 2017. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
Hotel Ella, 1900 Rio Grande, Austin, Texas 78705.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Notice is hereby given that, on February 3, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Sanofi, Frankfurt, Germany; BioReference Laboratories, Elmwood Park, NJ; BioVariance GmbH, Munich, Germany; and UCB Pharma SA, Brussels, Belgium, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 14, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 3, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MCDC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 13, 2015, MCDC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 16, 2016. A notice was published in the
On March 1, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit against the Maynard Steel Casting Company (“Defendant”) under the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7401
The consent decree resolves the allegations in the complaint and requires the Defendant to: (1) Perform a study to evaluate the emissions capture and control effectiveness of each of its air pollution control systems; (2) conduct performance stack tests; (3) conduct monitoring of visible emissions; (4) install and operate various monitors to alert operators of malfunctions with the air pollution control systems; (5) perform air dispersion modeling; (6) continue implementing and complying with RCRA requirements for the storage, handling, and transport, and disposal of its hazardous waste; and (7) pay a civil penalty based on an inability-to-pay analysis. The Defendant will pay civil penalties of $25,000 to the United States.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
For a paper copy of the entire Consent Decree with appendices (142 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction cost), please enclose a check or money order for $35.50 made payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the appendices and signature pages, the cost is $13.25.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Application for Approval of a Representative's Fee in Black Lung Claim Proceedings Conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Application for Approval of a Representative's Fee in Black Lung Claim Proceedings Conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor that uses Form CM-972. An individual filing with the OWCP, Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. 901
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) information collection. The SOII is the primary indicator of the Nation's progress in providing every working man and woman safe and healthful working conditions. The survey measures the overall rate of work injuries and illnesses by industry. Survey data are also used to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal and State programs and to prioritize scarce resources. Respondents include employers who maintain related records in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and employers who are normally exempt from such recordkeeping. Each year a sample of exempt employers is required to keep records and participate in the survey. This information collection is classified as a revision, because of the addition of a one-time pilot test entitled the Household Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (HSOII) to this information collection. The BLS will use HSOII Pilot Test data collected to (1) test the feasibility of collecting occupational injuries and illness from workers directly: (2) To estimate the burden of occupational injuries and illnesses in the U.S.; and (3) to compare against occupational injury and illness estimates from the SOII at the national level and for broad industries and occupations. OSH Act section 24(a) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Report of Construction Contractor's Wage Rates,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-WHD, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “American Apprenticeship Initiative Grants,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064 (these are not a toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the American Apprenticeship Initiative (AAI) Grants information collection. The ETA requires grantees to submit Quarterly Progress Reports on enrolled apprentices in Registered Apprenticeship programs and/or pre-apprenticeship program participants, along with a narrative summary of the partnership progress and implementation measures identified by the grantee in the project work plan. These reports help ETA gauge the effects of the AAI grants, identify grantees and programs that could serve as useful models, and target technical assistance appropriately. The reports can also be used to inform future evaluations. American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 as Amended section 414(c)(7) authorizes this information collection.
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Records of Tests and of Examinations of Personnel Hoisting Equipment.
All comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners.
Under Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), MSHA has requirements that address hoists and appurtenances, including wire rope, used for hoisting persons. The requirements address both metal and nonmetal surface and underground mines (30 CFR parts 56 and 57); and underground coal and surface work areas of underground coal mines (30 CFR parts 75 and 77).
Title 30 CFR 56/57.19022 and 30 CFR 75/77.1432 requires the diameter of newly installed wire rope to be measured at least once in every third interval of the rope's active length to establish a baseline for subsequent semiannual measurements. A record of the measurements is required to be made and retained until the rope is retired from service.
Title 30 CFR 56/57.19023 and 30 CFR 75/77.1433 require the wire rope to be visually examined at least every fourteen days for visible structural damage, corrosion, and improper lubrication or dressing. If the examination reveals weakening portions of the rope, the weakened portions must be monitored daily for further deterioration until retirement criteria require that the rope be removed from service. The person conducting the examination must certify that the examination was made and the record must be retained for one year.
Title 30 CFR 56/57.19121 requires the person conducting the inspection, test or examination of hoisting equipment certify that these activities have been done. Any unsafe conditions must be noted in a record and dated. All certifications and records must be retained for one year.
Title 30 CFR 75.1400-2 requires a record to be made of tests conducted on safety catches. Safety catches are the last means to safely stop a falling conveyance in the event of rope or equipment failure.
Title 30 CFR 75.1400-4 and 77.1404 require a record to be made of each daily examination. If any unsafe condition is found during the examination, the person conducting the examination must make a record of the condition. All certifications and records must be retained for one year.
Title 30 CFR 77.1906 requires a daily examination of hoists used for shaft sinking. If any unsafe condition is found
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Records of Tests and of Examinations of Personnel Hoisting Equipment. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Records of Tests and of Examinations of Personnel Hoisting Equipment. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Representative of Miners, Notification of Legal Identity, and Notification of Commencement of Operations and Closing of Mines.
All comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended, 30 U.S.C. 813, authorizes the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners.
The Mine Act establishes miners' rights that may be exercised through a representative. Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations (30 CFR) part 40 contains procedures that a person or organization must follow to be identified by the Secretary as a representative of miners. The regulations define what is meant by “representative of miners,” a term that is not defined in the Mine Act.
Title 30 CFR 40.2 requires a representative of miners to file the information specified in 30 CFR 40.3 with the MSHA district manager and the mine operator. Title 30 CFR 40.3 requires the following information to be filed with MSHA:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the representative of miners. If the representative is an organization, the name, address, and telephone number of the organization and the title of the official or position, who is to serve as the representative and his or her telephone number.
(2) The name and address of the operator of the mine where the represented miners work and the name, address, and Mine Safety and Health Administration identification number, if known, of the mine.
(3) A copy of the document evidencing the designation of the representative of miners.
(4) A statement that the person or position named as the representative of miners is the representative for all purposes of the Act; or if the representative's authority is limited, a statement of the limitation.
(5) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers, of any representative to serve in his absence.
(6) A statement that copies of all information filed pursuant to this section have been delivered to the operator of the affected mine, prior to or concurrently with the filing of this statement.
(7) A statement certifying that all information filed is true and correct followed by the signature of the representative of miners.
Title 30 CFR 40.4 requires that a copy of the information provided the operator pursuant to section 40.3 be posted upon receipt by the operator on the mine bulletin board and maintained in a current status. Once the required information has been filed, a representative retains his or her status unless and until his or her designation is terminated.
Under 30 CFR 40.5, a representative who becomes unable to comply with the requirements of part 40 must file a written statement with the appropriate MSHA district manager terminating his or her designation.
Section 109(d) of the Mine Act requires each operator of a coal or other mine to file with the Secretary of Labor (Secretary), the name and address of such mine, the name and address of the person who controls or operates the mine, and any revisions in such names and addresses.
MSHA's regulations in 30 CFR part 41 provides for the mandatory use of MSHA Form 2000-7, Legal Identity Report, for notifying MSHA of the legal identity of the mine operator. The legal identity of a mine operator is fundamental to enable the Secretary to properly ascertain the identity of persons and entities charged with violations of mandatory standards. It is also used in the assessment of civil penalties. Because of turnover in mining company ownership, and because of the statutory considerations regarding penalty assessments, the operator is required to file information regarding ownership interest in other mines held by the operator and relevant persons in a partnership, corporation, or other organization. This information is also necessary to the Office of the Solicitor in determining proper parties to actions arising under the Mine Act.
Additionally, MSHA Form 7000-51, Mine Operator Identification Request, is used to allow mine operators to request an MSHA mine identification number for each mine. Mine operators request mine identification numbers prior to completing and submitting the required MSHA Form 2000-7. Therefore, allowing mine operators to submit MSHA Form 7000-51 electronically facilitates this process.
Notification of Commencement of Operations and Closing of Mines: Under 30 CFR 56.1000 and 57.1000, operators of metal and nonmetal mines must notify MSHA when the operation of a mine will commence or when a mine is closed. Openings and closings of mines are dictated by the economic strength of the mined commodity, and by weather conditions prevailing at the mine site during various seasons.
MSHA must be aware of mine openings and closings so that its resources can be used efficiently in achieving the requirements of the Mine Act. Section 103(a) of the Mine Act requires that each underground mine be inspected in its entirety at least four times a year, and each surface mine at least two times per year. Mines that operate only during warmer weather must be scheduled for inspection during the spring, summer, and autumn seasons. Mines are sometimes located a great distance from MSHA field offices and the notification required by this standard can prevent wasted time and trips.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Representative of Miners, Notification of Legal Identity, and Notification of Commencement of Operations and Closing of Mines. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Representative of Miners, Notification of Legal Identity, and Notification of Commencement of Operations and Closing of Mines. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Respirator Program Records.
All comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 101(a), 30 U.S.C. 811(a), allows MSHA to promulgate standards that would require operators to make and retain records from which MSHA would then be allowed to collect information. Section 103(h), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 801
Title 30 CFR 56.5005 and 57.5005 require, whenever respiratory equipment is used, that metal and nonmetal mine operators institute a respirator program governing selection, maintenance, training, fitting, supervision, cleaning, and use of respirators. These standards seek to control miner exposure to harmful airborne contaminants by using engineering controls to prevent contamination and vent or dilute the contaminated air. However, where accepted engineering control measures have not been developed or when necessary by the nature of work involved (for example, while establishing controls or occasional entry into hazardous atmospheres to perform maintenance or investigation), employees may work for reasonable periods of time in concentrations of airborne contaminants exceeding permissible levels if they are protected by appropriate respiratory protective equipment.
Sections 56.5005 and 57.5005 incorporate by reference, requirements of the American National Standards Institute's Practices for Respiratory Protection (ANSI Z88.2-1969). These incorporated requirements mandate that miners who must wear respirators be fit-tested to the respirators that they will use. Certain records are also required to be kept in connection with respirators, including: Written standard operating procedures governing the selection and use of respirators; records of the date of issuance of the respirator; and fit-test results.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Respirator Program Records. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Respirator Program Records. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Human Exploration and Operations Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017, 9:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.; and Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 8:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. All times are Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Glennan Conference Center (Room 1Q39), 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Dr. Bette Siegel, Executive Secretary, NAC Human Exploration and Operations Committee, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2245, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may call the USA toll-free conference number 1-844-467-6272, and then the numeric participant passcode: 270812 followed by the # sign. To join via WebEx, link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with driver's licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, and Washington. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees that are U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to provide full name and citizenship status 3 working days in advance. Information should be sent to Dr. Bette Siegel via email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 59 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on December 16, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16315A426.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16315A139 and ML16315A140, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16315A145 and ML16315A416, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated May 17, 2016, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, as part of license amendment request 16-003, “Column Line N Wall ITAAC Dimension Change.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16315A426, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility Combined License as described in the licensee's request dated May 17, 2016. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 59, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16315A426), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated May 17, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16138A431), the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this
The Commission has determined for 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 COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
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.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on May 17, 2016. The exemption and amendment were issued on December 16, 2016, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML16315A113).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Update of export license application and extension of comment period; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
The correction is effective March 7, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0167 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrea Jones, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9072, email:
In the
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 8, 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.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Under Section 2 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), sickness benefits are payable to qualified railroad employees who are unable to work because of illness or injury. In addition, sickness benefits are payable to qualified female employees if they are unable to work, or if working would be injurious, because of pregnancy, miscarriage, or childbirth. Under Section 1(k) of the RUIA a statement of sickness, with respect to days of sickness of an employee, is to be filed with the RRB within a 10-day period from the first day claimed as a day of sickness. The Railroad Retirement Board's (RRB) authority for requesting supplemental medical information is Section 12(i) and 12(n) of the RUIA. The procedures for claiming sickness benefits and for the RRB to obtain supplemental medical information needed to determine a claimant's eligibility for such benefits are prescribed in 20 CFR part 335.
The forms currently used by the RRB to obtain information needed to determine eligibility for, and the amount of, sickness benefits due a claimant follow: Form SI-1a, Application for Sickness Benefits; Form SI-1b, Statement of Sickness; Form SI-3, Claim for Sickness Benefits; Form SI-7, Supplemental Doctor's Statement; Form SI-8, Verification of Medical Information; and Form ID-11A, Requesting Reason for Late Filing of Sickness Benefit. Completion is required to obtain or retain benefits. One response is requested of each respondent. The RRB proposes no changes to any of the forms in the information collection.
2.
To determine an occupational disability, the RRB must obtain the employee's work history and establish if the employee is precluded from performing his or her regular railroad occupation. This is accomplished by comparing the restrictions caused by the impairment(s) against the employee's ability to perform his or her job duties.
To collect the information needed to determine the effect of a disability on an employee applicant's ability to work, the RRB utilizes Form G-251,
Form G-251A, Railroad Job Information, requests railroad employers to provide information regarding whether the employee has been medically disqualified from their railroad occupation; a summary of the employee's duties; the machinery, tools and equipment used by the employee; the environmental conditions under which the employee performs their duties; all sensory requirements (vision, hearing, speech) needed to perform the employee's duties; the physical actions and amount of time (frequency) allotted for those actions that may be required by the employee to perform their duties during a typical work day; any permanent working accommodations an employer may have made due to the employee's disability; as well as any other relevant information they may choose to include. Completion is voluntary. The RRB proposes minor editorial changes to Form G-251A.
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's Office of the Investor Advocate will host a public conference,
On February 24, 2017, the Commission issued notice of the conference (Release No. 33-10312), indicating that the conference is open to the public. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend.
The agenda for the conference includes: Opening remarks by Acting Chairman Michael S. Piwowar; plenary remarks by panelists Brigitte Madrian and Terry Odean; a panel discussion exploring how investors think and act; a keynote address by panelist George Loewenstein; a panel discussion addressing ways in which the Commission's disclosure regime can facilitate disclosure in the most effective manner for a wide variety of users; remarks from Commissioner Kara M. Stein; a panel discussion regarding ways in which to improve the disclosure of fees, strategies/risks, and performance; and a nonpublic networking session for panelists during lunch.
For further information, 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade shares of the Amplify YieldShares Oil Hedged MLP Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Amplify ETF Trust (the “Trust”), under Rule 14.11(i) (“Managed Fund Shares”). The shares of the Fund are referred to herein as the “Shares.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
The Shares are offered by the Trust, which was established as a Massachusetts business trust on January 6, 2015.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has recently adopted substantial amendments to CFTC Rule 4.5 relating to the permissible exemptions and conditions for reliance on exemptions from registration as a commodity pool operator. The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has filed a notice of eligibility for exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” in accordance with CFTC Rule 4.5, and, therefore, the Fund would not be subject to registration or regulation as a commodity pool operator under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) to the extent that it complies with the requirements of the rule. To the extent that the Fund makes investments regulated by the CFTC, it will do so in accordance with Rule 4.5 under the CEA.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will be an actively managed exchange-traded fund that invests in equity securities of MLPs and will selectively hedge these positions to limit the correlation of its performance to the price of WTI Crude Oil. WTI Crude Oil, also known as Texas light sweet, is a grade of crude oil used as a benchmark in oil futures contracts pricing. The Fund will use a benchmark, the Oil Hedged MLP Index (the “Benchmark”), which is developed, maintained and sponsored by ETP Ventures LLC. The Fund will seek to exceed the performance of the Benchmark by actively selecting investments for the Fund from the underlying components of the Benchmark. The Fund is not an index tracking exchange-traded fund and is not required to invest in all of the components of the Benchmark. However, the Fund will generally seek to hold similar instruments to those included in the Benchmark with investments in MLPs and short exposure oil futures contracts included in the Benchmark.
In order to achieve its investment objective, under Normal Market Conditions,
The Exchange notes that the Fund may also hold certain fixed income securities and cash and cash equivalents in compliance with Rules 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii) and (iii) in order to collateralize its derivatives positions.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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 in that the Shares will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(i) with the exception Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(b), which requires that the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any five or fewer underlying reference assets shall not exceed 65% of the weight of the portfolio (including gross notional exposures), and the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any single underlying reference asset shall not exceed 30% of the weight of the portfolio (including gross notional exposures). The Exchange believes that the liquidity in the WTI Crude Oil Futures markets mitigates the concerns that Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(b) is intended to address and that such liquidity would prevent the Shares from being susceptible to manipulation.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Victory Portfolios, Victory Portfolios II, Victory Institutional Funds and Victory Variable Insurance Funds (each a “Trust”), each a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series,
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 27, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Victory Portfolios, Victory Portfolios II, Victory Institutional Funds, Victory Variable Insurance Funds and Victory Capital Management Inc., 4900 Tiedeman Road, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, Ohio 44144.
Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6876 or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Among others, the Adviser, through a designated committee, would administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management and administrative agreements with the Funds and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the facility. The facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds.
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the open-end Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of the open-end Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under 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 Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Thursday, March 9, 2017, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 8:30 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
On February 13, 2017, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10306), indicating that the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion regarding SEC investor research initiatives, the FINRA 2016 Financial Capability Study, and academic research on financial literacy; a discussion regarding unequal voting rights of common stock; a report on the nonpublic administrative work session; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
For further information, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
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 9, 2017 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On November 16, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the “Exchange” or “BOX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons and to institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
The Exchange proposes to adopt rules to establish an open-outcry trading floor.
Under the proposed rules, upon receipt of an order, a Floor Broker
Prior to execution, the Floor Broker would be required to represent the order in the specific Crowd Area
After the market probe, the Floor Broker would submit the QOO Order through the BOX Order Gateway (“BOG”).
The executing Floor Broker would also be responsible for ensuring that any Floor Participant
Proposed BOX Rule 8500(a) would require market makers on the BOX Floor to also be registered with BOX as a market maker on its electronic trading platform. As market makers on BOX's electronic trading platform, Floor Market Makers would have a continuous electronic quoting obligation pursuant to proposed BOX Rule 8510(c)(1), which would require Floor Market Makers to quote electronically in all classes that they quote on the trading floor.
In addition, proposed BOX Rule 100(b)(5) would require a Floor Market Maker to be considered “in” on a bid or offer only if the Floor Market Maker makes an affirmative assertion that he is “in.”
The BOX proposal would not impose a requirement on market makers to be present in the trading crowd before a Floor Broker may represent an order to the trading crowd.
As previously noted, the Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule change, and one response letter from BOX. All three commenters raised specific concerns with respect to the proposed rule change,
Commenters raised concerns about the following aspects of the proposal, each of which is discussed in greater detail below: (1) Whether the proposal would impede opportunities for price improvement; (2) the requirement that Floor Market Makers quote electronically in all classes offered on the proposed BOX trading floor; (3) the ability for a Floor Broker to execute a trade in the absence of any Floor Market Maker; (4) the restriction of Floor Market Makers to a “single crowd area at a time;” (5) the book sweep size feature; (6) the lack of clarity regarding compliance with trade-through and priority rules; (7) the lack of a single-sided order type on the proposed floor; and (8) the potential impact on options market structure.
Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule change would negatively impact opportunities for orders to receive price improvement.
Two commenters expressed concern with the proposed requirement that Floor Market Makers would have to quote electronically in all classes offered on the proposed trading floor.
In response to the commenter's suggestion that the requirement to quote electronically would discourage market makers from establishing a presence on the BOX floor, BOX stated that to the contrary, it believes the proposed rule change will ensure that electronic quoting keeps pace with the robust level of activity anticipated on the trading floor.
One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule change would allow a Floor Broker to execute crossing orders on the BOX Floor when no Floor Market Makers are present.
In response to the commenter's concern regarding the absence of a requirement that Floor Market Makers be present when an order is represented, BOX stated that allowing a Floor Broker to execute an order when no Floor Market Maker is present is “simply a safeguard to ensure that the trading floor operates efficiently and without undue delays or interruptions.”
Two commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed rule change's description and application of physical boundary requirements.
In response, BOX stated that the ability to divide the trading floor into multiple pits or crowd areas would aid BOX in monitoring trading activity and ensuring the trading floor operates in an orderly manner.
One commenter expressed concern about the proposed “book sweep size” mechanism in the proposed rule change.
In response to the commenter's concerns regarding the book sweep size aspect of the proposal, BOX stated that the book sweep size is a tool that will aid Floor Brokers in satisfying duties owed to their customers, such as best execution.
One commenter stated that the proposed rule change is unclear regarding whether or not the proposed BOG trading system would systematically prevent violations of priority and trade-through requirements.
In response to the commenter's concern that the proposed rule change is unclear about whether the BOG would systematically prevent violations of priority and trade-through requirements, BOX stated that the method by which trades are received and processed by the Trading Host serves as a safeguard to prevent violations of the priority and trade-through requirements.
One commenter raised concerns about the inability of floor participants to represent single sided orders on the proposed BOX Floor.
Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule change would increase fragmentation of the options market.
In response, BOX argued that concerns about the general success of options trading floors is beyond the scope of its proposal.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Specifically, the Commission notes that aspects of the proposed rule change may not be consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that they could effectively limit the exposure of floor orders to a bona fide open outcry auction process, which could lead to, among other things, inefficient pricing for crossing transactions executed on the proposed BOX floor. In addition, the Commission notes that the impediments to becoming, and restrictions on, Floor Market Makers may impose a burden on competition that is inconsistent with 6(b)(8) of the Act. The Commission also notes that the proposed rule change raises questions regarding the ability of the Exchange and participants on the BOX trading floor to comply with the Act, Commission and/or Exchange rules regarding intramarket priority and intermarket trade-through.
Finally, under the Commission's rules of procedure, a self-regulatory organization that proposes to amend its rules bears the burden of demonstrating that its proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Sections
• Commenters' views on the proposed requirement that a Floor Market Maker may only quote in classes on the trading floor which the market maker is already quoting electronically;
• Commenters' views on the aspect of the proposal that would allow a BOX Floor Broker to execute a crossing transaction without first exposing the order to any other Floor Participant;
• Commenters' views on whether a minimum number of Floor Market Makers should be required to be present when an order is represented to the trading crowd, and if so, how many Floor Market Makers in each class should be required;
• Commenters' views on the proposed book sweep size feature;
• Commenters' views on the aspect of the proposal that would require a Floor Market Maker to be physically located in a specific Crowd Area to be deemed participating in the crowd;
• Commenters' views on the Exchange's argument that requiring “an affirmative response by a Floor Market Maker will allow for a more efficient process for executing orders on the Trading Floor” and that requiring a Floor Market Maker to affirmatively be “out” on every order “will lead to unnecessary delays on the Trading Floor and has the potential to cause disruptions.”
• Commenters' views on whether the provision allowing the Exchange the discretion to determine whether a Floor Broker examination could be required as a prerequisite to becoming a Floor Broker is consistent with the Act;
• Whether the Exchange adequately describes how it will validate a trade for purposes of compliance with trade-through, priority and other Exchange rules; and
• Whether the Exchange adequately describes the mechanics of how orders will be received and executed on the proposed BOX trading floor.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 1 and regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by March 28, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 11, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 14, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
NYSE Arca Rule 6.91 governs the trading of ECOs in NYSE Arca's Complex Matching Engine (“CME”). As described more fully in the Notice, NYSE Arca proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 6.91 to provide additional specificity, transparency, and clarity to its processing of ECOs. The proposal also corrects inaccuracies in NYSE Arca Rule 6.91.
The proposals makes several changes to NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2), “Execution of Electronic Complex Orders.” The proposal amends NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2) to indicate that ECOs may be executed not only without consideration of prices of the same complex order that might be available on other exchanges, as the rule currently provides, but also without consideration of prices of single-legged orders that might be available on other exchanges. The proposal revises and reorganizes current NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2) by replacing current text and adding new paragraphs (ii), “Execution of Electronic Complex Orders During Core Trading,” and (iii), “Electronic Complex Orders in the Consolidated Book.”
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2)(iii), which incorporates existing paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) and renumbers them as (iii)(A) and (B), addresses incoming ECOs that are not marketable. Incoming ECOs that are not marketable are routed to the Consolidated Book.
Because NYSE Arca proposes to make extensive changes to the description of the Complex Order Auction (“COA”) process in NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c), the proposal deletes existing NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c), “Electronic Complex Order Auction (“COA”) Process,” in its entirety and replaces it with new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c), which, according to the Exchange, is designed to describe the COA process more clearly, accurately, and logically.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(2) provides that, upon entry into the System, a COA-eligible order will trade immediately, in full or in a permissible ratio, with any ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book that are priced better than the contra-side Complex BBO.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(3) provides that NYSE Arca will initiate a COA by sending a request for response (“RFR) message to all OTP Holders that subscribe to RFR messages. RFR messages will identify the component series, the size and side of the market of the order and any contingencies.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(4) defines the “Response Time Interval” (“RTI”) as the period of time during which RFR Responses may be entered. The rule further provides that NYSE Arca will determine the length of the RTI, provided, however, that the duration will not be less than 500 milliseconds and will not exceed one second. These provisions are consistent with current NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(3), except that the new language indicating that the RTI “will not be less than 500 milliseconds” corrects a typographical error in the current rule text, which states that the duration of the RTI “shall be less than 500 milliseconds.”
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(5), which describes the characteristics of RFR Responses, retains some provisions of current NYSE Arca Rules 6.91 6.91(c)(4) and (c)(7) and modifies other aspects of those rules.
New NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(c)(6)(A) and (B) replace existing NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(8), and new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(C) replaces existing NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(9). The new rules introduce and incorporate the concept of the initial Complex BBO—the BBO for a given complex order strategy derived from the best bid (“BB”) and best offer (“BO”) on NYSE Arca's OX system for each individual component series of a complex order as recorded at the start of the RTI—as a benchmark against which incoming interest is measured to determine whether a COA should end early.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(A)(i) provides that incoming opposite-side ECOs or COA-eligible orders that lock or cross the initial Complex BBO will cause the COA to end early. If the incoming ECO or COA-eligible order is also executable against the limit price of the initiating COA-eligible order, it will be ranked with RFR Responses to execute with the COA-eligible order pursuant to new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(7).
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(A)(ii) provides that incoming opposite-side ECOs or COA-eligible orders that are executable against the limit price of the COA-eligible order, but do not lock or cross the initial Complex BBO, will not cause the COA to end early and will be ranked with RFR Responses to execute with the COA-eligible order pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(7). NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(A)(iii) provides that incoming opposite-side ECOs or COA-eligible orders that are either not executable on arrival against the limit price of the initiating COA-eligible order or do not lock or cross the initial Complex BBO will not cause the COA to end early.
New NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(c)(6)(A)(iv) and (v) describe the treatment of incoming opposite-side ECOs and COA-eligible orders that do not execute with the initiating COA-eligible order or were not executable on arrival. An incoming opposite-side ECO will trade pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2)(ii) or (iii).
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(B)(i) indicates that an incoming ECO or COA-eligible order on the same side of the market as the initiating COA-eligible order that is priced higher (lower) than the initiating COA-eligible order to buy (sell) will cause the COA to end early.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(B)(iii) states that an incoming same-side ECO or COA-eligible order that is priced equal to, or lower (higher) than the initiating COA-eligible order to buy (sell), but does not lock or cross the contra-side initial Complex BBO, will not cause the COA to end early.
New NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(c)(6)(B)(iii), (iv), and (v) further describe the treatment of incoming same-side COA-eligible orders or ECOs received during the RTI. An incoming ECO or COA-eligible order that caused a COA to end early, if executable, will trade against any RFR Responses and/or ECOs received during the RTI that did not trade with the initiating COA-eligible order.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(C)(i) provides that updates to the leg markets that cause the same-side Complex BBO to lock or cross any RFR Response(s) and/or ECOs received during the RTI, or ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book, will cause the COA to end early.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(7), which describes the allocation of COA-eligible orders at the conclusion of a COA, will replace current NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6) in its entirety.
After careful review of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2) currently provides that ECOs submitted to NYSE Arca may be executed without consideration of prices of the same complex order that might be available on other exchanges. The proposal revises NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2) to state that ECOs submitted to the System may be executed without consideration not only of the prices of the same complex order strategy that might be available on other exchanges, but also of the prices of other single-legged orders that might be available on other exchanges. The Commission believes that expanding NYSE Arca Rule
The Commission believes that the proposal to add new NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), and the accompanying changes to delete certain existing rule text, will benefit market participants by more clearly describing, respectively, the treatment of incoming marketable ECOs (which are executed immediately) and incoming non-marketable ECOs (which are routed to the Consolidated Book) during Core Trading Hours. In particular, new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2)(ii) specifies that an incoming marketable ECO would trade against the best-priced contra-side interest resting in the Consolidated Book.
The Commission believes that new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2)(iii)(A) adds clarifying detail to NYSE Arca's rules by indicating that an ECO or portion of an ECO that is not executed on arrival will be ranked in the Consolidated Book, thereby providing market participants with more precise information concerning NYSE Arca's handling of these orders.
The Commission believes that the introductory language in new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c) is similar to the text of current NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c), but provides additional clarity by indicating that an incoming ECO could execute immediately against interest resting in the Consolidate Book pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2), or be subject to a COA.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(2) provides that, upon entry into the System, a COA-eligible order will trade immediately, in full or in a permissible ratio, with any ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book that are priced better than the contra-side Complex BBO. NYSE Arca believes that the immediate price improvement opportunity for an incoming COA-eligible order from ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book obviates the need to start a COA.
The Commission believes that new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(3)(i) could enhance competition by encouraging market participants to submit aggressively priced COA-eligible orders, because only COA-eligible orders priced better than the same-side leg market and ECO interest would be able to initiate a COA. The Commission believes that new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(3)(ii) will provide NYSE Arca with flexibility to determine when the price of a COA-eligible order, based on the number of ticks away from the current contra-side market, warrants the initiation of a COA. The Commission believes that permitting only one COA at a time for any complex order strategy will help to provide for the orderly processing of trading interest on NYSE Arca. The Commission notes that although a COA could be initiated even if the limit price of the COA-eligible order is not at or within the NYSE Arca best bid/offer for each leg of the order, the COA-eligible order must execute at a price that is at or within the NYSE Arca best bid/offer for each leg of the order, consistent with NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2).
As noted above,
As discussed more fully above, new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(5), which describes the characteristics of RFR Responses, retains features of the current provisions addressing RFR Responses,
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(A)(i) provides that incoming opposite-side ECOs or COA-eligible orders that lock or cross the initial Complex BBO will cause the COA to end early.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(A)(ii) provides that incoming opposite-side ECO or COA-eligible orders that are executable against the limit price of the COA-eligible order, but do not lock or cross the initial Complex BBO, will not cause the COA to end early and will be ranked with RFR Responses to execute with the COA-eligible order pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(7). The Commission believes that allowing the COA to continue under these circumstances could provide the potential for the COA-eligible order to receive price improvement as the auction continues. The Commission notes that, in this case, the incoming contra-side interest does not raise leg market priority concerns that would require an early termination of the COA because the incoming contra-side interest does not lock or cross the initial Complex BBO.
NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(A)(iii) provides that incoming opposite-side ECOs or COA-eligible orders that are either not executable on arrival against the limit price of the initiating COA-eligible order or do not lock or cross the initial Complex BBO will not cause the COA to end early. The Commission believes that because the incoming contra-side interest does not lock or cross the initial Complex BBO, it is not necessary to end the COA early to protect the priority of interest in the leg market.
New NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(c)(6)(A)(iv) and (v) describe the treatment of incoming opposite-side ECOs and COA-eligible orders that did not execute with the initiating COA-eligible order or were not executable on arrival. Such an incoming opposite-side ECO would trade pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2)(ii) or (iii), and an incoming opposite-side COA-eligible order would initiate a subsequent COA. The Commission believes that allowing these incoming ECOs and COA-eligible orders to trade with interest resting in the Consolidated Book, or to initiate a new COA, as applicable, will allow NYSE Arca to provide additional execution opportunities for these orders. In addition, the Commission believes that new NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(c)(6)(A)(iv) and (v) will enhance the transparency of NYSE Arca's rules by providing additional detail regarding the treatment of incoming opposite-side ECOs and COA-eligible orders that did not trade with the initiating COA-eligible order or were not executable on arrival.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(B) states that when a COA ends early, or at the end of the RTI, the initiating COA-eligible order will execute pursuant to new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(7) ahead of any interest that arrived during the COA. The Commission believes that this provision establishes the priority of the initiating COA-eligible order to trade before trading interest that arrives during the auction. The Commission notes that the rules of another options exchange similarly establish the priority of the auctioned order to trade prior to interest that arrives during the auction.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(B)(i) indicates that an incoming ECO or COA-eligible order on the same side of the market as the initiating COA-eligible order that is priced higher (lower) than the initiating COA-eligible order to buy (sell) will cause the COA to end early.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(B)(ii) states that an incoming same-side ECO or COA-eligible order that is priced equal to or lower (higher) than the initiating COA-eligible order to buy (sell), and that also locks or crosses the contra-side initial Complex BBO, will cause the COA to end early. NYSE Arca states that ending the COA early under these circumstances will allow the COA-eligible order to execute, ahead of the incoming order, against RFR Responses or ECOs received during the RTI until the point, while preserving the priority of the incoming order to trade with the resting leg markets.
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(B)(iii) states that an incoming same-side ECO or COA-eligible order that is priced equal to, or lower (higher) than the initiating COA-eligible order to buy (sell), but does not lock or cross the contra-side initial Complex BBO, will not cause the COA to end early. The Commission believes that, under these circumstances, the incoming same-side interest does not raise leg market priority concerns that would require an early termination of the COA because the incoming interest does not lock or cross the contra-side initial Complex BBO.
New NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(c)(6)(B)(iv), (v), and (vi) further describe the treatment of incoming same-side COA-eligible orders or ECOs received during the RTI. An incoming same-side ECO or COA-eligible order that caused a COA to end early, if executable, will trade against any RFR Responses and/or ECOs received during the RTI that did not trade with the initiating COA-eligible order.
The Commission believes that new NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(C) will provide greater clarity and specificity regarding the impact of leg market updates on the COA. The Commission believes that providing for an early end to the COA when the leg market updates cause the same-side Complex BBO to lock or cross RFR Responses or ECOs received during the RTI, or ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book,
New NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(7), which describes the allocation of COA-eligible orders at the conclusion of a COA, will replace current NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6) in its entirety.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of the amended proposal in the
Amendment No. 2 revises proposed NYSE Rule 6.91(c)(3) to delete proposed paragraph (iii), which would have required that the limit price of a COA-eligible order be at or within the NYSE Arca best bid/offer for each leg of the order to initiate a COA. NYSE Arca states that, because a COA-eligible order may be a certain number of ticks away from the current market, it is possible that a COA could be initiated even if the limit price of the COA-eligible order is not at or within the NYSE Arca best bid/offer for each leg of the order. NYSE Arca notes, however, that a COA-eligible order must execute at a price that is at or within the NYSE Arca best bid/offer for each leg of the order, consistent with NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2). In addition, Amendment No. 2 revises proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(C)(i) to indicate that any updates to the leg markets that cause the same-side Complex BBO to lock or cross ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book will cause the COA to end early. NYSE Arca states that providing for the early termination of the COA under these circumstances will allow a COA-eligible order to execute against RFR Responses or ECOs received during the RTI until that point, while preserving the priority of the updated leg markets to trade with the ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book. Amendment No. 2 also revises proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(6)(C)(ii) to provide that updates to the leg markets that cause the same-side BBO to be priced higher (lower) than the COA-eligible order to buy (sell), but do not lock or cross ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book, will not cause the COA to end early. NYSE Arca states that accelerated approval of Amendment No. 2 will allow NYSE Arca to implement the changes proposed in Amendment No. 2 at the same time that the filing goes into effect, which would improve the rule by adding more specificity and transparency. NYSE Arca believes that the filing, as amended, clarifies how ECOs and COA-eligible orders are handled on NYSE Arca, both during Core Trading Hours and when there is a COA in progress.
As described above, Amendment No. 1 removes an incorrect cross-reference and adds several clarifying details to the proposal, thereby providing additional information concerning the manner in which NYSE Arca processes ECOs. Amendment No. 2 helps to assure the accuracy of the proposed rules by removing a provision that indicated, incorrectly, that the limit price of a COA-eligible order would have to be executable at a price at or within the NYSE Arca best bid/offer for each leg of the order to initiate a COA, and by adding references to ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book to NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(c)(6)(C)(i) and (ii) to provide a more complete description of the circumstances under which leg market updates would, or would not, cause a COA to end early. The Commission believes that Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 provide additional details and make corrections to the text of the proposed rules, thereby helping to assure the accuracy of the proposed rules. The Commission also believes that the changes in Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 do not introduce material, new, or novel concepts. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions 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.
Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, Email address:
Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-966-2830, Email address:
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 8, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1. Representative Payee Report-Adult, Representative Payee Report-Child, Representative Payee Report-Organizational Representative Payees—20 CFR 404.635, 404.2035, 404.2065, and 416.665—0960-0068. When SSA determines it is not in an Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipient's best interest to receive Social Security payments directly, the agency will designate a representative payee for the recipient. The representative payee can be: (1) A family member; (2) a non-family member who is a private citizen and is acquainted with the beneficiary; (3) an organization; (4) a state or local government agency; or (5) a business. In the capacity of representative payee, the person or organization receives the SSA recipient's payments directly and manages these payments. As part of its stewardship mandate, SSA must ensure the representative payees are properly using the payments they receive for the recipients they represent. The agency annually collects the information necessary to make this assessment using the SSA-623, Representative Payee Report-Adult; SSA-6230, Representative Payee Report-Child; SSA-6234, Representative Payee Report-Organizational Representative Payees; and through the electronic internet application Internet Representative Payee Accounting (iRPA). The respondents are representative payees of OASDI and SSI recipients.
2. Annual Earnings Test Direct Mail Follow-Up Program Notices—20 CFR 404.452-404.455—0960-0369. SSA developed the Annual Earnings Test Direct Mail Follow-up Program to improve beneficiary reporting on work and earnings during the year and earnings information at the end of the year. SSA may reduce benefits payable under the Social Security Act (Act) when an individual has wages or self-employment income exceeding the annual exempt amount. SSA identifies beneficiaries likely to receive more than the annual exempt amount, and requests more frequent estimates of earnings from them. When applicable, SSA also requests a future year estimate to reduce overpayments due to earnings. SSA sends letters (SSA-L9778, SSA-L9779, SSA-L9781, SSA-L9784, SSA-L9785, and SSA-L9790) to beneficiaries requesting earnings information the month prior to their attainment of full retirement age. We send each beneficiary a tailored letter that includes relevant earnings data from SSA records. The Annual Earnings Test Direct Mail Follow-up Program helps to ensure Social Security payments are correct, and enables us to prevent earnings-related overpayments, and avoid erroneous withholding. The respondents are working Social Security beneficiaries with earnings over the exempt amount.
3. Request for Social Security Earnings Information—20 CFR 401.100 and 404.810—0960-0525. The Social Security Act permits wage earners, or their authorized representatives, to request Social Security earnings information from SSA using Form SSA-7050-F4. SSA uses the information the respondent provides on Form SSA-7050-F4 to verify the wage earner has: (1) Earnings; (2) the right to access the correct Social Security Record; and (3) the right to request the earnings statement. If we verify all three items, SSA produces an Itemized Statement of Earnings (Form SSA-1826) and sends it to the requestor. Respondents are wage earners and their authorized representatives who are requesting Itemized Statement of Earnings records.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than April 6, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance package by writing to
Questionnaire About Employment or Self-Employment Outside the United States—20 CFR 404.401(b)(1), 404.415 & 404.417—0960-0050. When a Social Security beneficiary or claimant reports work outside the United States (U.S.), SSA uses Form SSA-7163 to determine if foreign work deductions are applicable. Specifically, SSA uses Form SSA-7163 to determine: (1) Whether work the beneficiaries performed outside the United States (U.S.) is cause for deductions from their monthly benefits; (2) which of two work tests (foreign or regular test) is applicable; and (3) the number of months, if any, for SSA-imposed deductions. SSA determines whether the annual earnings test applies to all earnings from work covered by the Social Security Act, including earnings from covered work performed outside the U.S. However, because of the differences in foreign currency values, it is administratively impractical to apply this test to earnings from non-covered work performed outside the U.S. and base it on U.S. dollars. Accordingly, the 45-hour work test provides for deductions from the benefits of employees under full retirement age who engage in non-covered remunerative activity for more than 45 hours in a calendar month. SSA asks beneficiaries working outside the U.S. to complete this form annually or every other year (depending on the country of residence). Respondents are beneficiaries or claimants for Social Security benefits who are engaged in work outside the United States.
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, at the offices of ABS Consulting, 1525 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 625, Arlington, Virginia 22209. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the forty-first session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Facilitation Committee to be held at the
The agenda items to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Upon request to the meeting coordinator, members of the public may also participate via teleconference, up to the capacity of the teleconference phone line. To access the teleconference line, participants should call (202) 475-4000 and use Participant Code: 887 809 72. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, Mr. James Bull, by email at
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 39 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on December 28, 2016. The exemptions expire on December 28, 2018.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On November 25, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 39 individuals and requested comments from the public (81 FR 85312). The public comment period closed on December 27, 2016, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 39 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 39 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 39 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 25, 2016,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 39 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR 391.64(b):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 28 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0385 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 28 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Acton, 58, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Acton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Acton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Bauer, 29, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bauer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bauer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class E CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Booth, 69, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Booth understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Booth meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Carpenter, 28, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carpenter understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carpenter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Alabama.
Mr. Carraway, 60, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carraway understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carraway meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Crites, 21, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Crites understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Crites meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Dennis, 49, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting
Mr. Dickinson, 37, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dickinson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dickinson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Edmiston, 41, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Edmiston understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Edmiston meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Ferriell, 66, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ferriell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ferriell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Gates, 59, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gates understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gates meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas.
Mr. Hare, 46, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hare understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hare meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Johnson, 65, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Johnson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Karr, 62, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Karr understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Karr meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Morrill, 68, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Morrill understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morrill meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist
Mr. Pearce, 27, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pearce understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pearce meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Ramsey, 59, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ramsey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ramsey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.
Mr. Routh, 67, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Routh understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Routh meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oklahoma.
Mr. Shakespeare, 23, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Shakespeare understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shakespeare meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nevada.
Mr. Silva, 27, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Silva understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Silva meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Smith, 59, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smith understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Smith, 23, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. [Name] understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Ms. Starr, 50, has had ITDM since 2014. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2016 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Starr understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Starr meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2016 and certified that she has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Weinheimer, 23, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more)
Mr. West, 59, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. West understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. West meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Windler, 62, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Windler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Windler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Ms. Wofford, 38, has had ITDM since 2001. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2016 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Wofford understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Wofford meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Wood, 44, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wood understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wood meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 152 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26321; FMCSA-2007-29286; FMCSA-2008-0341; FMCSA-2010-0414; FMCSA-2010-0427; FMCSA-2012-0349; FMCSA-2012-0350; FMCSA-2012-0351; FMCSA-2014-0312 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 152 individuals listed in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
This notice addresses 152 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 152 drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified according to the renewal date.
The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of February and are discussed below.
As of February 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 69280; 73 FR 6247):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2007-29286. Their exemptions are effective as of February 1, 2017, and will expire on February 1, 2019.
As of February 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 78271; 78 FR 7855):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0349. Their exemptions are effective as of February 4, 2017, and will expire on February 4, 2019.
As of February 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (71 FR 74986; 72 FR 5492):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26321. Their exemptions are effective as of February 6, 2017, and will expire on February 6, 2019.
As of February 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 33 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 75794; 74 FR 6451):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0341. Their exemptions are effective as of February 9, 2017, and will expire on February 9, 2019.
As of February 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 80889; 76 FR 7625):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0414. Their exemptions are effective as of February 10, 2017, and will expire on February 10, 2019.
As of February 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 1496; 76 FR 9867):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0427. Their exemptions are effective as of February 22, 2017, and will expire on February 22, 2019.
As of February 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 48 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 3724; 80 FR 19732):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0312. Their exemptions are effective as of February 24, 2017, and will expire on February 24, 2019.
As of February 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 1927; 78 FR 12819):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0351. Their exemptions are effective as of February 25, 2017, and will expire on February 25, 2019.
As of February 26, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 1923; 78 FR 12821):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0350. Their exemptions are effective as of February 26, 2017, and will expire on February 26, 2019.
Each of the 152 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the 152 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2006-26321; FMCSA-2007-29286; FMCSA-2008-0341; FMCSA-2010-0414; FMCSA-2010-0427; FMCSA-2012-0349; FMCSA-2012-0350; FMCSA-2012-0351; FMCSA-2014-0312.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by April 6, 2017.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 152 individuals from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 110 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 20, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 110 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 92941). The public comment period ended on January 19, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 110 renewal exemption applications and that no comments were received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
As of December 9, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 37 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 66451; 80 FR 2479):
The drivers were included in docket No: FMCSA-2014-0308. Their exemptions are effective as of December 9, 2016, and will expire on December 9, 2018.
As of December 14, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 63536; 75 FR 77952):
The drivers were included in docket No: FMCSA-2010-0328. Their exemptions are effective as of December 14, 2016, and will expire on December 14, 2018.
As of December 20, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 63411; 77 FR 64181; 77 FR 75492; 77 FR 75493):
The drivers were included in docket No: FMCSA-2012-0283. Their exemptions are effective as of December 20, 2016, and will expire on December 20, 2018.
As of December 29, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 45 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 70920; 80 FR 5613):
The drivers were included in docket No: FMCSA-2014-0309. Their exemptions are effective as of December 29, 2016, and will expire on December 29, 2018.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 52 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on December 24, 2016. The exemptions expire on December 24, 2018.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On November 23, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 52 individuals and requested comments from the public (81 FR 84677). The public comment period closed on December 23, 2016, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 52 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 52 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 24 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 23, 2016,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 52 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR 391.64(b):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 44 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0029 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 44 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Sr. Allen, 50, has had ITDM since 2016. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2016 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Sr. Allen understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Sr. Allen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Connecticut.
Mr. Anderson, 60, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Anderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Anderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Bernier, 66, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bernier understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bernier meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Bouknight, 33, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bouknight understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bouknight meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. Brashears, 55, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brashears understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brashears meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Brown, 50, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brown understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Browning, 43, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Browning understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Browning meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas.
Mr. Cardwell, 64, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cardwell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cardwell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.
Mr. Chase, 52, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Chase understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Chase meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Chrisman, 65, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Chrisman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Chrisman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Czanstkowski, 52, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Czanstkowski understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Czanstkowski meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Durbin, 43, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Durbin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Durbin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Fennington, 59, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fennington understands
Mr. Furlough, 53, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Furlough understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Furlough meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Griffin, 50, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Griffin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Griffin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Grinkey, 56, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Grinkey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Grinkey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Irving, 74, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Irving understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Irving meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Maryland.
Mr. Jesness, 37, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jesness understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jesness meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Colorado.
Mr. Johnson, 44, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Johnson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. King, 55, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. King understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. King meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Lyons, 52, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lyons understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lyons meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Connecticut.
Mr. MacDonald, 64, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of
Mr. Martinez, 27, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martinez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martinez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Delaware.
Mr. Murray, 60, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Murray understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Murray meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Orcutt, 42, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe Orcutt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Orcutt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Idaho.
Mr. Oseguera, 43, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Oseguera understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oseguera meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Pereira, 61, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pereira understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pereira meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Repp, 32, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Repp understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Repp meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Robinson, 60, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Robinson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Robinson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Maryland.
Mr. Roman, 50, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Roman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
Mr. Rosen, 63, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rosen understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rosen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Schulte, 65, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schulte understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schulte meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Short, 51, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Short understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Short meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Colorado.
Mr. Sparrow, 58, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sparrow understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sparrow meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Rhode Island.
Mr. Stevens, 25, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stevens understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stevens meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Connecticut.
Mr. Tilghman, 53, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tilghman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tilghman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Tolman, 41, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tolman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tolman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.
Mr. Truitt, 21, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Truitt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Truitt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wyoming.
Mr. Volz, 56, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Volz understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Watson, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Watson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Watson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Florida.
Mr. Weinman, 51, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weinman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weinman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Williams, 55, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Williams understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Williams meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Williamson, 63, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Williamson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Williamson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Wisecarver, 46, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wisecarver understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wisecarver meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its denial of 74 applications from individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal diabetes standard applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the diabetes requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal diabetes standard for a renewable 2-year period if it finds “such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 74 individual exemption requests on their merits and made a determination that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 7 applicants met the diabetes requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and do not need an exemption:
The following 33 applicants were not operating CMVs in interstate commerce:
The following 8 applicants have had more than one hypoglycemic episode requiring hospitalization or the assistance of others, or has had one such episode but has not had one year of stability following the episode:
The following 3 applicants had other medical conditions making the applicant otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations:
The following applicant, Ray S. Justus (PA), did not have an endocrinologist willing to make a statement that he is able to operate a CMV from a diabetes standpoint.
The following 2 applicants are unable or have not demonstrated with willingness to properly monitor and manage his or her diabetes, whether by a personal decision or medical inability:
The following 2 applicants currently reside in Canada. They are not eligible because the Federal exemption is for drivers operating only in the United States:
The following applicant, Dale W. Perkins (MO), has peripheral neuropathy or circulatory insufficiency
The following 5 applicants did not meet the minimum age criteria outlined in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) which states that an individual must be at least 21 years old to operate a CMV in interstate commerce:
The following 12 applicants were exempt from the diabetes standard:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 97 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0188; FMCSA-2012-0164 FMCSA-2014-0019; FMCSA-2014-0020 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 97 individuals listed in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
This notice addresses 97 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 97 drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified according to the renewal date.
The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of September and are discussed below.
As of September 16, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 76 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 47702; 79 FR 47711; 79 FR 63210; 79 FR 63219):
The drivers were included in Docket Nos. FMCSA-2014-0019; FMCSA-2014-0020. Their exemptions are effective as of September 16, 2016, and will expire on September 16, 2018.
As of September 20, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 42477; 75 FR 57329):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0188. Their exemptions are effective as of September 20, 2016, and will expire on September 20, 2018.
As of September 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 46149; 77 FR 59450):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0164. Their exemptions are effective as of September 27, 2016, and will expire on September 27, 2018. Each of the 97 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the 97 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2010-0188; FMCSA-2012-0164 FMCSA-2014-0019; FMCSA-2014-0020.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by April 6, 2017.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 97 individuals from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 78 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 29, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 78 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 96176). The public comment period ended on January 30, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 78 renewal exemption applications and that no comments were received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
As of June 3, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2008-0071. Their exemptions are effective as of June 3, 2016, and will expire on June 3, 2018.
As of June 5, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 20876; 77 FR 33264):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2012-0044. Their exemptions are effective as of June 5, 2016, and will expire on June 5, 2018.
As of June 12, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, John C. Fisher, Jr. (PA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 22573; 79 FR 35855).
This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0015. His exemption was effective as of June 12, 2016, and will expire on June 12, 2018.
As of June 20, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
Gary R. Harper (IN) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 29484; 79 FR 42628).
This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0016. His exemption was effective as of June 20, 2016, and will expire on June 20, 2018.
As of June 24, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 46 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 22573; 79 FR 35855):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0015. Their exemptions are effective as of June 24, 2016, and will expire on June 24, 2018.
As of June 26, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Thomas R. Riley (IL) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 29484; 79 FR 42628).
This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0016. His exemption was effective as of June 26, 2016, and will expire on June 26, 2018.
As of June 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 27842; 77 FR 38383):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2012-0107. Their exemptions are effective as of June 27, 2016, and will expire on June 27, 2018.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 43 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on January 13, 2017. The exemptions expire on January 13, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 13, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 43 individuals and requested comments from the public (81 FR 90054.) The public comment period closed on January 12, 2017, and two comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 43 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 43 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 31 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the December 13, 2016,
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Alexandra Warburton stated that she believes all the drivers in this notice should receive the exemptions. John Jackson stated that he does not believe Marcus D. Wade should be given an exemption due to issues related to diabetes. FMCSA has reviewed Mr. Wade's application and determined that granting him an exemption would achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The Agency encourages Mr. Jackson, or any other party, to submit any additional information to FMCSA regarding Mr. Wade's condition that would substantiate the claims in the aforementioned comment.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 43 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR 391.64(b):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0248, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, mail stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0248, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The OCC requests that OMB extend approval of the following information collection.
Soliciting feedback targets areas such as timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues related to service delivery. The responses are used to inform and plan efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If the OCC does not collect this information, it will not have access to vital feedback from customers and stakeholders.
Under this generic ICR, the OCC will submit a specific information collection for approval only if the collection meets the following conditions:
• It is voluntary;
• It imposes a low burden on respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and a low cost on both respondents and the Federal government;
• It is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• It is targeted to solicit opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or will have such experience in the near future;
• It includes personally identifiable information (PII) only to the extent necessary, and the OCC does not retain the PII;
• It gathers information intended to be used internally only for general service improvement and program management purposes and not intended for release outside of the OCC (if released, the OCC must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• It does not gather information to be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• It gathers information that will yield qualitative information and will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used to reach general conclusions about the population of study.
Feedback collected provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be attributed to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature.
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the information collection;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning carryover allocations and other rules relating to the low-income housing credit, and the section 42 utility allowance regulations concerning the low-income housing tax credit.
Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 13094, Recommendation for Juvenile Employment with the Internal Revenue Service.
Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Laurie Brimmer at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5756, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing data-driven satisfaction surveys to understand customer opinion.
Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the collection tools should be directed to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202)317-5756, or through the internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the statements to recipients of dividend payments.
Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5746, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8038-R, Request for Recovery of Overpayments Under Arbitrage Rebate Provisions.
Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6511, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8838, Consent To Extend the Time To Assess Tax Under Section 367-Gain Recognition Agreement.
Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8886-T, Disclosure by Tax-Exempt Entity Regarding Prohibited Tax Shelter Transaction.
Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, (202) 317-5746, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8941, Credit for Small Employer Health Insurance Premiums.
Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request(s) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on the collection(s) listed below.
Comments should be received on or before April 6, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for March 15, 2017.
Interested members of the public may either attend the meeting in person or dial in to listen to the meeting at (866) 564-9287/Access Code: 62956028.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6525.
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
Members of the public interested in attending the meeting in person will be admitted into the meeting room on a first-come, first-serve basis as space is limited. Conference Room A&B can accommodate up to 50 members of the public at any one time. In addition, all persons entering a United States Mint facility must adhere to building security protocol. This means they must consent to the search of their persons and objects in their possession while on government grounds and when they
Illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and contraband;
Weapons of any type.
The United States Mint Police Officer conducting the screening will evaluate whether an item may enter into or exit from a facility based upon federal law, Treasury policy, United States Mint Policy, and local operating procedure; and all prohibited and unauthorized items will be subject to confiscation and disposal.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0094.”
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Form 21-0960 series is used to gather necessary information from a claimant's treating physician regarding the results of medical examinations. VA gathers medical information related to the claimant that is necessary to adjudicate the claim for VA disability benefits. The Disability Benefit Questionnaire title will include the name of the specific disability for which it will gather information. VAF 21-0960M-7, Hand and Finger Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of a hand or finger condition.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Form 21-8940 is used by veterans to apply for increased VA disability compensation based on the inability to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due to service connected disabilities. Without the information, entitlement to individual unemployability benefits could not be determined.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by law, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is hereby giving notice of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in certain benefit rates and income limitations. These COLAs affect the pension, and parents' dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) programs. The rate of the adjustment is tied to the increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2016, as announced by the Social Security Administration (SSA). SSA has announced an increase of 0.3%.
The COLAs are effective December 1, 2016.
Daniel McCargar, Pension Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (612-713-8911).
Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5312 and section 306 of Public Law 95-588, VA is required to increase the benefit rates and income limitations in the pension and parents' DIC programs by the same percentage, and effective the same date, as increases in the benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act. The increased rates and income limitations are also required to be published in the
The Social Security Administration has announced that there will be a 0.3% COLA increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2016. Therefore, applying the same percentage and rounding in accordance with 38 CFR 3.29, the following increased rates and income limitations for the VA pension and parents' DIC programs will be effective December 1, 2016:
(1) Veterans permanently and totally disabled (38 U.S.C. 1521):
(2) Veterans in need of aid and attendance (38 U.S.C. 1521):
(3) Veterans who are housebound (38 U.S.C. 1521):
(4) Two veterans married to one another, combined rates (38 U.S.C. 1521):
(5) Surviving spouse alone and with a child or children of the deceased veteran in custody of the surviving spouse (38 U.S.C. 1541):
(6) Surviving spouses in need of aid and attendance (38 U.S.C. 1541):
(7) Surviving spouses who are housebound (38 U.S.C. 1541):
(8) Surviving child alone (38 U.S.C. 1542), $2,205
DIC shall be paid monthly to parents of a deceased veteran in the following amounts (38 U.S.C. 1315):
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $0.00 but not more than $800, the $622 monthly rate shall not be reduced.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $800 but not more than $8,512, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $8,512 but not more than $8,513, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.04.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $8,513, the monthly rate will not be reduced.
No Parents' DIC is payable under this table if annual income exceeds $14,680.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $0 but not more than $800, the $450 monthly rate shall not be reduced.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $800 but not more than $900, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.06.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $900 but not more than $1,100, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.07.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,100 but not more than $6,412, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income more than $6,412 but not more than $6,413, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.04.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $6,413, the monthly rate shall not be reduced.
No Parents' DIC is payable under this table if annual income exceeds $14,680.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $0 but not more than $1,000, the $423 monthly rate shall not be reduced.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,000 but not more than $1,500, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.03.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,500 but not more than $1,900, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.04.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,900 but not more than $2,400, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.05.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $2,400 but not more than $2,900, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.06.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $2,900 but not more than $3,200, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.07.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $3,200 but not more than $7,087, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $7,087 but not more than $7,088, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.04.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $7,088, the monthly rate shall not be reduced.
No Parents' DIC is payable if the annual income exceeds $19,733.
These rates are also applicable in the case of one surviving parent who has remarried, computed on the basis of the combined income of the parent and spouse, if this would be a greater benefit than that specified in Table 2 for one parent.
Veteran or surviving spouse with no dependents, $14,680 (Pub. L. 95-588, section 306(a))
Veteran in need of aid and attendance with no dependents, $15,208 (38 U.S.C. 1521(d) as in effect on December 31, 1978
Veteran or surviving spouse with one or more dependents, $19,733 (Pub. L. 95-588, section 306(a))
Veteran in need of aid and attendance with one or more dependents, $20,260 (38 U.S.C. 1521(d) as in effect on December 31, 1978)
Child (no entitled veteran or surviving spouse), $12,003 (Pub. L. 95-588, section 306(a))
Spouse income exclusion (38 CFR 3.262), $4,688 (Pub. L. 95-588, section 306(a)(2)(B))
Veteran or surviving spouse without dependents or an entitled child, $12,854 (Pub. L. 95-588, section 306(b))
Veteran or surviving spouse with one or more dependents, $18,528 (Pub. L. 95-588, section 306(b))
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 16, 2017, for publication.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Form 21-4170 is used to gather information that is necessary to determine whether a valid common law marriage was established. The form is used by persons claiming to be common law widows/widowers of deceased veterans and by veterans and their claimed common law spouses. Benefits cannot be authorized unless a valid marriage is established.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
VA Form Letter 21-863 is used to gather the necessary information to determine a schoolchild's continued eligibility to VA death benefits and eligibility to direct payment at the age of majority.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or FAX (202) 632-8925, or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) or 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
This notice solicits comments on information needed to exempt a veteran from paying a funding fee.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
| 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 |