| Page Range | 12921-13058 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 13011 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 12946 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13010 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Steens Mountain Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 13009 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council, Lands With Wilderness Characteristics Subcommittee | |
| 82 FR 13010 - Notice of Public Meeting; Western Montana Resource Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 12922 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2016 Tribal Fishery Allocations for Pacific Whiting; Reapportionment Between Tribal and Non-Tribal Sectors | |
| 82 FR 12922 - Radio Broadcasting Services; Red Lake, Minnesota | |
| 82 FR 12961 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 12947 - Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13056 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Conflicting Interests Certification for Proprietary Schools Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13057 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Police Officer Pre-Employment Screening Checklist | |
| 82 FR 13057 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: uSPEQ Consumer Survey Experience (Rehabilitation) | |
| 82 FR 13041 - 60-Day Notice of Intent To Seek Extension of Approval: Information Collection Activities (Report of Fuel Cost, Consumption, and Surcharge Revenue) | |
| 82 FR 13039 - 30-day Notice of Intent To Seek Extension of Approval: Information Collection Activities (Complaints, Petitions for Declaratory Orders, and Petitions for Relief Not Otherwise Specified) | |
| 82 FR 12957 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 12922 - Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services; Correction | |
| 82 FR 12958 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 12958 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 12959 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 12928 - Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 12948 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12926 - Notice of Intent To Request Approval To Establish a New Information Collection and Record Keeping Requirement | |
| 82 FR 12986 - Indian Child Welfare Act; Designated Tribal Agents for Service of Notice | |
| 82 FR 12925 - Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection for Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico (Marketing Order No. 983) | |
| 82 FR 12955 - Bard College; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 12930 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Exempted Fishing Permit | |
| 82 FR 13015 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station | |
| 82 FR 13026 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12949 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; EDGAR Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements | |
| 82 FR 12950 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; ED-524 Budget Information Non-Construction Programs Form and Instructions | |
| 82 FR 12944 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0103, Ownership and Control Reports, Forms 102/102S, 40/40S, and 71 (Trader and Account Identification Reports) | |
| 82 FR 13018 - In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and Exelon Generation Company, LLC; James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant | |
| 82 FR 12954 - Monument Valley Solar Lessee, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 12955 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 12956 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 12947 - Change to the Military Freight Carrier Registration Program (FCRP) Open Season | |
| 82 FR 13012 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Reinstatement to a Previously Approved Collection: State and Local Justice Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (SLJASTL): Survey of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (SSLLEASTL) | |
| 82 FR 13012 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; New Collection; State and Local Justice Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (SLJASTL): Survey of State and Local Prosecutor Offices Serving Tribal Lands (SSLPOSTL) | |
| 82 FR 12968 - Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice | |
| 82 FR 13042 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 13043 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 13048 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 13045 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 13050 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 12968 - Notice To Propose the Re-Designation of the Service Delivery Area for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township | |
| 82 FR 12943 - Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council: Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12953 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site | |
| 82 FR 12953 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
| 82 FR 12954 - Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 12952 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; U.S. Department of Education Grant Performance Report Form (ED 524B) | |
| 82 FR 12946 - Notice of Intent To Grant [An Exclusive] [A Partially Exclusive] Patent License | |
| 82 FR 12961 - Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment; Hangzhou Qianwang Dress Co., Ltd. V. RDD Freight International Inc. | |
| 82 FR 12966 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 12963 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 12965 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 12962 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 13013 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Employer's First Report of Injury or Occupational Disease, Employer's Supplementary Report of Accident or Occupational Illness | |
| 82 FR 13019 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information | |
| 82 FR 12976 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 82 FR 12977 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 12978 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13036 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection To Advance Notice Filing Concerning the Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Coverage During Times of Increased Volatility | |
| 82 FR 12984 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12960 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10394, Patriot Bank of Georgia, Cumming, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 12981 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12982 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12979 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12984 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant, Form I-929; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 12978 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 12975 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 12975 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 12976 - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request, Form G-639; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 12921 - Conforming Amendments Concerning the Production or Disclosure of Material or Information | |
| 82 FR 13034 - Order Granting Limited Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to Rule 608(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, From the Clock Synchronization Compliance Deadline Specified in Section 6.7(a)(ii) of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail | |
| 82 FR 13031 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Renaming NYSE OptX | |
| 82 FR 13033 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Renaming NYSE OptX | |
| 82 FR 13026 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice To (1) Implement the Margin Proxy and (2) Modify the Calculation of the Coverage Charge in Circumstances Where the Margin Proxy Applies | |
| 82 FR 12950 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) | |
| 82 FR 12951 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; IDEA Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) | |
| 82 FR 12951 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Rehabilitation Services Administration Grant Re-Allotment Form | |
| 82 FR 13040 - Delmarva Central Railroad Company-Lease and Operation Exemption With Interchange Commitment-Norfolk Southern Railway Company | |
| 82 FR 12924 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; Correction | |
| 82 FR 13011 - Artists' Canvas From China | |
| 82 FR 13015 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12931 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Gull Monitoring and Research in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 13014 - NASA Advisory Council; Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12961 - Health Information Technology Advisory Committee Nominations; Request for Letters of Nomination and Resumes | |
| 82 FR 12924 - Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); Extension of Comment Period |
Agricultural Marketing Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending its regulations to make technical and conforming edits following changes to the Postal Service's regulations concerning the Freedom of Information Act.
These regulations are effective March 8, 2017.
Natalie A. Bonanno, Chief Counsel, Federal Compliance,
The Postal Service amended its regulations concerning compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) effective December 27, 2016 (81 FR 86270). The Postal Service responded to comments and made one additional change to these regulations on January 10, 2017 (82 FR 2896). The Postal Service is now amending its regulations to update cross references that are affected by these amendments, correct the cited fee for duplication, and correct a cross reference in subsection 265.14(e)(1) concerning lists of names and addresses.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees.
Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR chapter I as follows:
39 U.S.C. 501.
(g)
5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. App. 3; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 410, 1001, 2601; Pub. L. 114-185.
(c) * * *
(2)
(e) * * *
(1) The Postal Service and its officers and employees shall not make available to the public by any means or for any purpose any mailing list or other list of names and addresses (past or present) of postal patrons or other persons in response to a request under this part except that, upon a request in accordance with the procedures of § 265.3, the Postal Service will, to the extent required by law, provide a listing of postal employees working at a particular postal facility.
39 U.S.C. 401; 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(b) * * *
(3)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of OMB approval; correction.
This document corrects the date for filing responses to the one-time mandatory data collection published in the
This correction is effective March 8, 2017.
Gil Strobel, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7084 or email:
In FR Doc. 2017-03900, published on March 1, 2017 (82 FR 12182), make the following correction:
On page 12183, in the third column, in last sentence of the first full paragraph, correct the date “March 1, 2017” to “March 1, 2019.”
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
At the request of Red Lake Nation, the Audio Division amends the FM Table of Allotments by allotting FM Channel 287C1 at Red Lake, Minnesota, as a Tribal Allotment and a first local Tribal-owned service to the community. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 287C1 can be allotted at Red Lake, Minnesota, as proposed, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules with a site restriction 42.4 km (25.34 miles) northwest of the community. The reference coordinates are 47-59-00 NL and 95-33-33 WL.
Effective April 8, 2017.
Adrienne Y. Denysyk, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
(b)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Reapportionment of tribal Pacific whiting allocation.
This document announces the reapportionment of 34,000 metric tons (mt) of Pacific whiting from the tribal allocation to the non-tribal commercial fishery sectors via automatic action on September 15, 2016, in order to allow full utilization of the Pacific whiting resource.
The reapportionment of Pacific whiting was applicable from 12 noon local time, September 15, 2016, until December 31, 2016. Comments will be accepted through March 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0009 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Miako Ushio (West Coast Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-4644 or email:
This document is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at
Pacific whiting (
This document announces the reapportionment of 34,000 mt of Pacific whiting from the tribal allocation to the non-tribal commercial sectors, which was applicable on September 15, 2016. Regulations at § 660.131(h) contain provisions that allow the Regional Administrator to reapportion Pacific whiting from the tribal allocation, specified at § 660.50, that will not be harvested by the end of the fishing year to other sectors.
For 2016, the Pacific Coast treaty tribes were allocated 64,322 mt of Pacific whiting. The best available information at the time, indicated that there had been no harvest by the tribes to date, and at least 34,000 mt of the tribal allocation would not be harvested by December 31, 2016. To allow for full utilization of the resource, NMFS reapportioned 34,000 mt to the Shorebased IFQ Program, C/P Coop and MS Coop in proportion to each sector's original allocation on that date. Reapportioning this amount was expected to allow for greater attainment of the TAC while not limiting tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of the year. On September 15, 2016, emails sent directly to fishing businesses and individuals, and postings on the West Coast Region's internet site were used to provide actual notice to the affected fishers. Reapportionment was effective the same day as the notice. NMFS waited to publish this
Amounts of Pacific whiting available for 2016 before and after the reapportionment were:
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), found that good cause exists for reapportionment of whiting without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. NMFS had insufficient time to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the information about the progress of the fishery needed to make this determination became available and the time at which fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish during the remainder of the fishing season. For the same reasons, the AA also found good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for these actions, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
These actions are authorized by §§ 660.55(i), 660.60(d) and 660.131(h) and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
EPA issued a proposed rule in the
The comment period on the proposed rule published January 6, 2016 (82 FR 1651, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-TRI-2016-0390, is extended to May 6, 2017.
Follow the detailed instructions provided under
This document extends the public comment period established in the
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration; correction.
This document corrects the date for filing of Replies to an opposition published in the
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before March 6, 2017. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 16, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Sherwin Siy, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2783 or email:
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) intent to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, pursuant to Federal Marketing Order No. 983.
Comments on this notice must be received by May 8, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Fiona Pexton, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8139; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Email:
Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC, 20250-0237; Telephone (202) 720-2491; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Email:
The Specialty Crops Program is part of the larger AMS, and is responsible for overseeing Federal marketing order operations. The Specialty Crops Program was formerly named the Fruit and Vegetable Program. Among other modifications described below to the pistachio marketing order forms is the change of certain form numbers from “FV” to “SC.”
This notice pertains to the Federal marketing order regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico (7 CFR part 983), hereinafter referred to as the “marketing order.” The marketing order authorizes grade and size requirements, as well as a requirement for aflatoxin testing on domestic shipments only.
The Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee) locally administers the marketing order. The marketing order requires handlers to submit certain information to the Committee to effectively implement the requirements of the marketing order, fulfill the intent of the AMAA, and assist the industry in carrying out marketing decisions. Only authorized employees of the Committee, and authorized representatives of the USDA have access to information provided on the forms.
Requesting public comments on the forms described below is part of the process to obtain approval through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The forms needing OMB approval are contained in OMB No. 0581-0215 and include Committee nominations and ballots for producers (SC-245 and SC-246) and handlers (SC-245A and SC-244); background statements for Committee nominees (SC-243); marketing agreement (SC-242); and referendum (SC-240A) and continuance ballots (SC-240). There are also forms to report assessment receipts (ACP-1), minimal testing for aflatoxins (ACP-5), inter-handler transfer (ACP-6), inventory shipments (ACP-7), producer delivery (ACP-8), exemptions for handlers (ACP-4), and failed lot notifications (ACP-2) and failed lot dispositions (ACP-3).
In this renewal, AMS has identified modifications to the forms to meet the pistachio industry's evolving needs. Forms noted with “FV” have been revised to “SC” due to the change in the agency's name. AMS submitted a justification of change to OMB to convert the Imported Pistachios—Failed Lot Notification Report (SC-249) into an electronic form as a result of the International Trade Data System initiative. The Import Pistachios—Rework and Failed Lot Disposition Report (SC-251) has become obsolete, since the information collected on this form can now be obtained from other sources. This form is being removed and is not included in the OMB No. 0581-0215 renewal package.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to request approval to establish a new information collection and record keeping requirement for the National 4-H Conference (N4HC).
Written comments on this notice must be received by May 8, 2017, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email:
Robert Martin, Records Officer; Email:
In 1958, the event name was changed to National 4-H Conference and, in 1959, the meeting moved from the National Mall to the newly founded National 4-H Center in Chevy Chase, MD, where it is still held today.
Currently, the annual National 4-H Conference brings youth delegates together to accomplish three goals:
(1) Learn—Provide youth a broad- based learning experience in which they will acquire practical knowledge and skills to reinforce the attitudes and motivation that will give them a heightened sense of responsibility and capacity to connect as active members of their communities, nation and world.
(2) Practice—Engage youth in hands-on educational activities in which they explore, practice and master existing and newly developed skills/knowledge in civic engagement, civic education and personal development.
(3) Apply—Facilitate direct opportunities for youth to apply what was learned in real world experiences in which they develop leadership skills using their voices, work, ideas and/or behavior to make a difference in their community, country and world.
The National 4-H Conference organizers propose an information collection and record keeping requirement for adult and youth conference leadership team applicants, program evaluation of conference participants, and health forms for youth delegates. The records to be maintained and the information collected will allow for better oversight and assessment of the program. Each new requirement is described in detail below.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the
Effective March 8, 2017.
James Terpstra or Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
On January 6, 2017, the Department published the
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the
The Department determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
Additionally, consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy cases, because the Department determined that TMI and TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR from these companies will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including TMM, which claimed no shipments, but has not been found to be separate from the PRC-wide entity), the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from the South Carolina Aquarium. If granted, the EFP would authorize the South Carolina Aquarium to collect, with certain conditions, various species of snapper-grouper, dolphin, wahoo, cobia, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, golden crab, shrimp, and spiny lobster in the Federal waters off South Carolina and North Carolina in the South Atlantic. The specimens would be used in educational exhibits displaying native marine species at the South Carolina Aquarium located in Charleston, SC.
Written comments must be received on or before April 7, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0008”, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Nikhil Mehta, 727-824-5305; email
The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C 1801
The proposed specimen collection involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) including snapper-grouper, golden crab, coastal migratory pelagics, dolphin, wahoo, spiny lobster, and shrimp. The applicant requires authorization to collect 1,799 live fish, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp in the Federal waters off South Carolina, and sporadically off North Carolina. The federally-managed species to be collected by the applicant per year, over a 5-year period, listed by common name with the collection total, are: Black snapper (10); cobia (6); coney (10); dolphin (50); golden crab (5); graysby (10); groupers (
The project would use vertical hook-and-line gear with artificial and natural baits, black sea bass pots, spiny lobster traps, golden crab traps, habitat traps, octopus traps, hand nets, dip nets, and bait traps. Bait traps and minnow traps would be deployed by hand by divers using SCUBA gear. Most of the sample collection would be done in less than 300 ft (91 m) of water. No more than 5 each, black sea bass pots, lobster pots, golden crab traps, minnow traps, and bait traps would be deployed with a soak time of no more than 5 hours at a time, and will not be tied together on a groundline. Up to 10 habitat traps will also be utilized with a soak time of 7 days up to no more than 30 days. All trap and pot gear will be deployed either by hand by divers using SCUBA or through using individual nylon lines with buoys. All gear types would be utilized for the collection of requested species. This EFP would authorize sampling operations to be conducted on three vessels designated by the South Carolina Aquarium including: F/V REEL SCIENCE SC-9152-DE; F/V CUB SCOUT SC-9288-BF; and F/V MISTRESS SC-5326-BS.
All attempts would be made (venting, controlled ascent and descent, etc.) to release all non-targeted bycatch species alive. During each year of sampling requested through this EFP, there would be no traps or pots deployed from November 1 through April 30, to avoid interactions with North Atlantic right
The overall intent of the project is to incorporate native species into educational exhibits at the South Carolina Aquarium. The aquarium uses these displays of native South Carolina species to teach the public about stewardship and habitat preservation.
NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of collection of specimens within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, special management zones, or artificial reefs without additional authorization. Currently, NMFS prohibits the possession of Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, speckled hind, warsaw grouper, and red snapper but intends to authorize collection of red snapper as requested in the application. NMFS would require any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities to be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water.
A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from the National Park Service (NPS) at Glacier Bay National Park (Glacier Bay NP) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting proposed gull monitoring and research activities within Glacier Bay NP from May through September, 2017. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to the NPS at Glacier Bay NP to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 7, 2017.
Submit your comments on the application by either of the following methods:
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be allowed if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking, as well as the other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat (
Where there is the potential for serious injury or death, the allowance of incidental taking requires promulgation of regulations under section 101(a)(5)(A). Subsequently, a Letter (or Letters) of Authorization may be issued as governed by the prescriptions established in such regulations, provided that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize incidental taking by harassment only (
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, we adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity:
(1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing
(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On November 22, 2016, NMFS received an application from Glacier Bay NP requesting taking by harassment of marine mammals, incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucous-winged gulls (
For the 2017 research season, Glacier Bay NP again proposes to conduct ground-based and vessel-based surveys to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting gulls within six study sites in Glacier Bay, AK. Marine mammals have only been observed at four of the six study sites. The proposed activities would occur over the course of five months, from May through September, 2017.
The following aspects of the proposed gull research activities have the potential to take marine mammals: Noise generated by motorboat approaches and departures; noise generated by researchers while conducting ground surveys; and human presence (visual disturbance) during the monitoring and research activities. Harbor seals hauled out at the study sites may flush into the water or exhibit temporary modification in behavior (Level B harassment). Thus, Glacier Bay NP has requested an authorization to take harbor seals by Level B harassment only. Although Steller sea lions (
Glacier Bay NP proposes to identify the onset of gull nesting; conduct mid-season surveys of adult gulls, and locate and document gull nest sites within the following study areas: Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Each of these study sites contains harbor seal haulout sites and Glacier Bay NP proposes to visit each study site up to five times during the research season. Glacier Bay NP also proposes to conduct studies at South Marble Island and Tlingit Point Islet; however, there are no reported pinniped haulouts at those locations.
Glacier Bay NP must conduct the gull monitoring studies to meet the requirements of a 2010 Record of Decision for a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) (NPS, 2010) which states that Glacier Bay NP must initiate a monitoring program for the gulls to inform future native egg harvests by the Hoonah Tlingit in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP also actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting sites to assess population trends over time (
From May 1 through September 30, 2017, Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct a maximum of three ground-based surveys per each study site and a maximum of two vessel-based surveys per each study site. Duration of surveys would be 30 minutes (min) to two hours (hr) each.
The proposed study sites would occur in the vicinity of the following locations: Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Glacier Bay NP will also conduct studies at South Marble Island and Tlingit Point Islet (see Figure 1); however, there are no reported pinniped haulout sites at those locations.
Glaucous-winged gulls are common inshore residents along the northwestern coast of North America (Hayward and Verbeek, 2008). These gulls nest colonially in small and large aggregations, often on islands. Glaucous-winged gulls are abundant in Southeast AK throughout the year and nest colonially on islands in Glacier Bay from mid-May to August (Patten, 1974). Traditionally the Hoonah Tlingit, whose ancestral homeland encompasses Glacier Bay NP, harvested gull eggs annually during the spring and early summer months (Hunn, 2002). This historic egg harvest in Glacier Bay was an important activity both for cultural and nutritional purposes. Legislation is currently underway (Hoonah Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act: S. 156 and H. R. 3110) to allow native subsistence harvest of glaucous-winged gulls at up to 15 locations in Glacier Bay NP. An LEIS for gull egg harvest was developed and finalized in 2010 (NPS, 2010). The LEIS Record of Decision mandates that the NPS develop a monitoring program to inform a yearly traditional harvest plan and ensure that harvest activities do not impact park purposes and values (NPS, 2010). Annual monitoring requirements outlined in the LEIS include: Identify the onset of gull nesting, conduct mid-season adult counts, count number of eggs in nests during harvest, conduct complete nest surveys just before hatch on harvested islands, and document other bird and marine mammal species (pinnipeds present onshore) that may be impacted by harvest activities. Harvest sites will be selected based on several characteristics including size of colony; population parameters including productivity, population status, recent harvest, age of colony; and minimizing disturbance to other species present.
The goal of this project is to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting glaucous-winged gulls to fulfill the mandates of the LEIS Record of Decision and to inform the annual gull egg harvest. Gull monitoring will be conducted using a combination of ground and vessel surveys by landing at specific access points on the islands. Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct: (1) Ground-based surveys at a maximum frequency of three visits per site; and (2) vessel-based surveys at a maximum frequency of two visits per site from the period of May 1 through September 30, 2017. Surveys can be from 30 min to two hours.
The observers would access each island using a kayak, a 32.8 to 39.4-foot (ft) (10 to 12 meter (m)) motorboat, or a 12 ft (4 m) inflatable rowing dinghy. The landing craft's transit speed would not exceed 4 knots (kn) (4.6 miles per hour (mph)). Ground surveys generally last 30 min to two hrs each depending on the size of the island and the number of nesting gulls.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in the document (Mitigation section and Monitoring and Reporting section).
Sections 3 and 4 of the NPS' application and the 2015 and 2016 monitoring reports contain detailed information on the abundance, status, and distribution of the species at the study sites from ground and vessel surveys that NPS has conducted as well as information from harbor seal monitoring aerial surveys conducted between 2007-2015 (Womble unpublished data). This information is summarized below and may be viewed in detail at
Marine mammals under NMFS' jurisdiction that occur in the vicinity of the study sites in Glacier Bay NP include the harbor seal and Steller sea lion (Table 1). Both are protected under the MMPA and the Steller sea lion is listed as endangered (Western Distinct Population Segment) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Northern sea otters (Southeast Alaska stock) (
Harbor seals are the most abundant marine mammal species found within the action area and present year-round. Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the Pribilof Islands. The current statewide abundance estimate for Alaskan harbor seals is 205,090 (Boveng
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice (Allen and Angliss, 2014). They are non-migratory; their local movements are associated with tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction, as well as sex and age class (Allen and Angliss, 2014; Boveng
Harbor seals of Glacier Bay are considered part of the Glacier Bay/Icy
Harbor seals from the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock can be found hauled-out at four of the gull monitoring study sites (Table 3). Seal counts from gull monitoring surveys likely represent a minimum estimate due to difficulty observing marine mammals from a vessel. Counts from gull monitoring surveys are also conducted during high tide so fewer seals may be present.
It was determined that take will not occur for Steller sea lions based on survey data available. A total of five Steller sea lions have been observed during the 2015 and 2016 survey seasons, but were observed outside the study area. Although Steller sea lions may be present in the action area, Glacier Bay NP has proposed to avoid any sites used by Steller sea lions. Therefore, Steller sea lions are not discussed further in this proposed authorization.
The only marine mammals anticipated to be affected by the specified activities and proposed as take for Level B harassment are harbor seals hauled out at the study sites in Glacier Bay and therefore they are the only marine mammal discussed further in this proposed authorization.
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact
In the following discussion, we provide general background information on sound and marine mammal hearing. Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Motorboat operations; and (2) the appearance of researchers may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of any pinnipeds hauled out on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock.
Harbor seals may potentially experience behavioral disruption rising to the level of harassment from monitoring and research activities, which may include airborne noise during the brief periods from research vessels and visual disturbance due to the presence and activity of the researchers on land. Disturbed seals are likely to experience any or all of these stimuli, and take may occur due to any of these in isolation or in combination with the others. Due to the likely constant combination of visual and acoustic stimuli resulting from the presence and vessels and researchers, we assume that harbor seals present may be disturbed and do not consider acoustic effects separately from the effects of potential disturbance due to visual stimuli.
Visual stimuli due to the presence of research activities during the project have the potential to result in take of harbor seals at nearby haul out sites through behavioral disturbance. Harbor seals can exhibit a behavioral response to visual stimuli (
Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf
Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush pinnipeds off haul-out sites and beaches (Kenyon, 1972; Allen
In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haul-out sites on Yellow Island, Washington state. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances, which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haul-out site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007).
The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (
During the harbor seal breeding (May-June) and molting (August) periods, ~66 percent of seals in Glacier Bay inhabit the primary glacial ice site and ~22 percent of seals are found in and
The main impact associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and human disturbance and the associated direct effects on marine mammals (
Based on the available data, previous monitoring reports from Glacier Bay NP, and studies described here, we anticipate that any pinnipeds found in the vicinity of the proposed project could have short-term behavioral reactions (
NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of pinnipeds. NMFS does not anticipate that strikes or collisions would result from the movement of the motorboat. The proposed activities will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including prey species and foraging habitat. The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section of the document do not take into consideration the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting” sections).
This section includes an estimate of the number of incidental “takes” proposed for authorization pursuant to this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Take in the form of harassment is expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
As described previously in the Effects section, Level B Harassment is expected to occur and is proposed to be authorized in the numbers identified below. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures, Level A Harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. The death of a marine mammal is also a type of incidental take. However, as described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized to result from this activity.
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. NMFS expects that the presence of Glacier Bay NP personnel could disturb animals hauled out and that the animals may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the researchers.
Harbor seals may be disturbed when vessels approach or researchers go ashore for the purpose of monitoring gull colonies. Harbor seals tend to haul out in small numbers at study sites (2015-2016): Boulder Island—average 4.85 seals, Flapjack Island—average 11.22 seals, Geikie Rock—average 10.25 seals, and Lone Island average of 17.22 seals (see raw data from Tables 1 of the 2016 and 2015 Monitoring Report). Based on previous pinniped observations during gull monitoring (2015 and 2016) conducted by Glacier Bay NP, NMFS estimates that the research activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral harassment 218 incidents of harassment to harbor seals over the course of the Authorization. This number was calculated by multiplying the average number of seals observed at each site
There can be greater numbers of seals on the survey islands then what is detected by the NPS during the gull surveys. Aerial survey maximum counts show that harbor seals sometimes haul out in large numbers at all four locations (see Table 1 of the application). However, harbor seals hauled out at Flapjack Island are generally on the southern end whereas the gull colony is on the northern end. Similarly, harbor seals on Boulder Island tend to haul out on the southern end while the gull colony is located and can be accessed on the northern end without disturbance. Aerial survey counts for harbor seals are conducted during low tide while ground and vessel surveys are conducted during high tide, which along with greater visibility during aerial surveys, may also contribute to why there are greater numbers of seals observed during the aerial surveys.
Subsistence harvest of harbor seals by Alaska Natives is exempted from the MMPA's take prohibition (16 U.S.C. 1371(b)(1)); however, subsistence harvest of harbor seals has not been permitted in Glacier Bay NP since 1974 (Catton, 1995). The extensive post-breeding seasonal distribution of seals from Glacier Bay (Womble and Gende, 2013b) may expose seals to subsistence harvest outside of the park. Subsistence surveys and anthropological studies demonstrate that harbor seals may be harvested during all months; however, there are typically two distinct seasonal peaks for harvest of seals, which occur during spring and in autumn/early winter (de Laguna, 1972; Emmons, 1991). These time periods co-occur with the time period during which seals travel beyond the boundaries of Glacier Bay (Womble and Gende, 2013b). The level of subsistence harvest on seals from Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock has not been quantified; however, subsistence reports from nearby communities have documented subsistence harvest (
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, we must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
Glacier Bay NP has based the mitigation measures which they propose to implement during the proposed research, on the following: (1) Protocols used during previous gull research activities as required by our previous authorizations for these activities; and (2) recommended best practices in Womble
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with the activities Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
• Perform pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site;
• Avoid accessing a site where Steller sea lions are present;
• Perform controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent flushing harbor seals and select a pathway of approach to minimize the number of marine mammals harassed;
• Monitor for offshore predators at study sites. Avoid approaching the study site if killer whales (
• Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual presence of pinnipeds.
Prior to deciding to land onshore to conduct the study, the researchers would use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars from the watercraft to document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals at each island. The vessels would maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the shoreline to allow the researchers to conduct pre-survey monitoring
If there are Steller sea lions are present, the researchers would not approach the island and would not conduct gull monitoring research.
The researchers would determine whether to approach the island based on type of animals present. Researchers would approach the island by motorboat at a speed of approximately 2 to 3 kns (2.3 to 3.4 mph). This would provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic (flushing). The researchers would also select a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.
If the researchers visually observe marine predators (
While onshore at study sites, the researchers would remain vigilant for hauled out marine mammals. If marine mammals are present, the researchers would move slowly and use quiet voices to minimize disturbance to the animals present.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of affecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act states that we must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The Act's implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for an incidental take authorization must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the action area.
Glacier Bay NP submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 13 of their Authorization application. NMFS may modify or supplement the plan based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period. Any monitoring requirement NMFS prescribes should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological);
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals; and
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
As part of its application, Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct marine mammal monitoring during the present project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring. The researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide dates, location, species, the researcher's activity, behavioral state, numbers of animals that were alert or moved greater than one meter, and numbers of pinnipeds that flushed into the water.
The method for recording disturbances follows those in Mortenson (1996). Glacier Bay NP would record disturbances on a three-point scale that represents an increasing seal response to the disturbance (Table 6). Glacier Bay will record the time, source, and duration of the disturbance, as well as an estimated distance between the source and haul-out. NMFS would consider only responses falling into Levels 2 and 3 as harassment under the MMPA, under the terms of this proposed authorization.
Glacier Bay NP has complied with the monitoring requirements under the previous authorizations. NMFS posted the 2016 report on our Web site at
Glacier Bay NP can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in the proposed action area by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up. Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting haul out locations to assess trends over time (
Glacier Bay NP will submit a draft monitoring report to us no later than 90 days after the expiration of the Incidental Harassment Authorization, if issued. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the Authorization. Glacier Bay NP will submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments on the draft report. If Glacier Bay NP receives no comments from NMFS on the report, NMFS will consider the draft report to be the final report.
The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:
1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities.
2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities.
3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities.
4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Glacier Bay
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:
• The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;
• The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment;
• The context in which the takes occur (
• The status of stock or species of marine mammals (
• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
• The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, NMFS does not expect Glacier Bay NP's specified activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, abandonment of the haul-out area, injury, serious injury, or mortality:
1. The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance. The effects of the research activities would be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities.
2. The availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid disturbances from research operations. Anecdotal observations and results from previous monitoring reports also show that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not permanently abandon haul-out sites after Glacier Bay NP conducted their research activities.
3. There is little potential for stampeding events or large-scale flushing events leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality. Researchers would not access the survey sites if Steller sea lions are present. Harbor seals are a species that do not stampede, but flush, and injury or mortality is not anticipated from flushing events. Researchers would approach study sites slowly to provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic.
We do not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities would occur as a result of Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities and we do not propose to authorize injury, serious injury, or mortality. Harbor seals may exhibit behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the proposed gull research activities to avoid human disturbance. Further, these proposed activities would not take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or pupping and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat. Due to the nature, degree, and context of the behavioral harassment anticipated, we do not expect the activities to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.
NMFS does not expect pinnipeds to permanently abandon any area surveyed by researchers, as is evidenced by continued presence of pinnipeds at the sites during annual gull monitoring. In summary, NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out harbor seals during Glacier Bay NP's research activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that Glacier Bay NP's activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For harbor seals, this estimate is small (3 percent) relative of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seals (7,210 seals, see Table 2).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA also requires us to determine that the taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Glacier Bay NP prohibits subsistence harvest of harbor seals within the Park (Catton, 1995). Thus, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA. No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
In compliance with NOAA policy, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the NPS Glacier Bay NP for conducting gull monitoring and research activities from May 1 through September 30, 2017, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees (holders of the Authorization) are hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucous-winged gulls (
1. This Authorization is valid from May 1 through September 30, 2017.
2. This Authorization is valid only for research activities that occur at the following locations: Boulder (58°33′18.08″ N.; 136°1′13.36″ W.); Lone (58°43′17.67″ N.; 136°17′41.32″ W.), and Flapjack (58°35′10.19″ N.; 135°58′50.78″ W.) Islands, and Geikie Rock (58°41′39.75″ N.; 136°18′39.06″ W.) in Glacier Bay, Alaska.
3. Species Authorized and Level of Takes.
a. The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to 218 takes of the Pacific harbor seal (
b. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.
c. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS.
4. General Conditions
A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of Glacier Bay NP, its designees, and field crew personnel (including research collaborators) operating under the authority of this Authorization at all times.
5. Mitigation Measures
The Holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
a. Conduct pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site. Prior to deciding to land onshore of Boulder, Lone, or Flapjack Islands or Geikie Rock, the Holder of this Authorization shall use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars before approaching at distances of greater than 500 m (1,640 ft) to determine and document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals. The vessels shall maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the shoreline. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that any Steller sea lions (
b. Minimize the potential for disturbance by: (1) Performing controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent a flushing; and (2) selecting a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.
c. Monitor for offshore predators at the study sites and shall avoid research activities when killer whales (
d. Maintain a quiet working atmosphere, avoid loud noises, and shall use hushed voices in the presence of hauled out pinnipeds.
6. Monitoring
a. NPS and/or its designees shall record the following:
i. Species counts (with numbers of adults/juveniles); and:
ii. Numbers of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of intensity (Table 7) including:
iii. Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility.
b. The observer shall note observations of marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammal.
c. The observer shall note the presence of any offshore predators (date, time, number, and species).
7. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
a. Draft Report: Submit a draft monitoring report to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS within 90 days after the Authorization expires. NMFS shall review the Draft Report which is subject to review and comment by NMFS. Glacier Bay NP must address any recommendations made by NMFS in the Final Report prior to submission to NMFS.
b. Final Report: Glacier Bay shall prepare and submit a Final Report to NMFS within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report from NMFS.
8. Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Glacier Bay NP to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the marine mammal observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (
NMFS requests comments on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for Glacier Bay's project activities in AK. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the NPS request for an MMPA authorization.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (council). The meeting is open to the public, and participants may provide comments at the appropriate time during the meeting.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 14, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, and an opportunity for public comment will be provided around 3:45 p.m. ET. Both these times and agenda topics are subject to change.
The meeting will be held at the Hall of the States located at 444 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Kate Spidalieri, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (Phone: 240-533-0679; Fax: 301-713-0404; Email:
ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national
16 U.S.C. Sections 1431,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of the collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0103, by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
Joseph Otchin, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, at 202-418-5623 or
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
• Pursuant to § 17.01(a), futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), clearing members, and foreign brokers shall identify new special accounts to the Commission on Form 102A;
• pursuant to § 17.01(b), clearing members shall identify volume threshold accounts to the Commission on Form 102B; and
• pursuant to § 17.01(c), omnibus volume threshold account originators and omnibus reportable sub-account originators shall identify reportable sub-accounts to the Commission on Form 71 when requested via a special call by the Commission or its designee.
Additional reporting requirements arise from § 18.04, which results in the collection of information via Form 40 from and regarding traders who own, hold, or control reportable positions; volume threshold account controllers; persons who own volume threshold accounts; reportable sub-account controllers; and persons who own reportable sub-accounts.
Reporting requirements also arise from § 20.5(a), which requires all reporting entities to submit Form 102S for swap counterparty or customer consolidated accounts with reportable positions. In addition, § 20.5(b) requires every person subject to books or records under current § 20.6 to complete a 40S filing after a special call upon such person by the Commission.
In addition to the reporting requirements summarized above, § 18.05 imposes recordkeeping requirements upon: (1) Traders who own, hold, or control a reportable futures or options on futures position; (2) volume threshold account controllers; (3) persons who own volume threshold accounts; (4) reportable sub-account controllers; and (5) persons who own reportable sub-accounts.
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
82 FR 12348, March 2, 2017.
11:00 a.m., Thursday, March 9, 2017.
The meeting has been cancelled.
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license agreement to SP Global, Incorporated, a corporation of the State of Virginia, having a place of business at 14800 Conference Center Drive, Suite 300, Chantilly, VA 20151.
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.
Submit written objections to the Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Room 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; or Email:
Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email:
The Department of the Air Force intends to grant the exclusive patent license agreement for the invention described in:
Department of the Army, DOD
Notice.
The Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) is providing notice that it will, effective 01 Mar 17, no longer accept domestic motor transportation service provider (TSP) registrations until further notice. This will affect domestic motor TSPs only (common, contract, logistics management, freight forwarders, and brokers). This does not apply to registration of air, rail, ocean, pipeline, and barge TSPs. This information is included in the Military Freight Traffic Unified Rules Publication-1 (MFTURP-1). There is not a timeframe currently scheduled for the next Open Season. Any future proposed Open Seasons will be advertised on the SDDC's public Web site at
Submit comments to Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, ATTN: Domestic Freight Services Branch, 1 Soldier Way, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5006. Request for additional information may be sent by email to:
Freight Carrier Registration Team, (618) 220-6470.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services will take place.
The address of the open meeting is the Hilton Alexandria—Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Rd., Alexandria, VA 22311.
Aimee Kominiak, (703) 697-2122 (Voice), 703-614-6233 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140.
Thursday, March 23, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Department of Defense Education Activity, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 8, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of Defense Education Activity, ATTN: Kathleen Facon, 4800 Mark Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22350-1400 or call 571-372-5834.
The data collection consists of an application and signature sheet that must be submitted by email or fax with the original signature clearly visible on the document. The application is identified as Secretary of Defense Form 816 (SD 816), with SD Form 816C to be used as a continuation page if necessary. In order for DoD to compute the maximum payment amount, the LEA will need to determine and provide the following information in its application. First, the LEA must provide the special education costs of individual military dependent children who have severe disabilities and meet the threshold for payments (at least two military dependents with severe disabilities and the cost per student must be at least five times the national average or three times the state average for students with disabilities, whichever is lower). These averages are provided to the LEAs by DoD in the application guidelines and acknowledged by the LEA in the application. Second, LEAs are required to identify the number of eligible children who were residing on-base or off-base during the previous school year.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness OUSD (P&R), Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 8, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Federal Voting Assistance Program, ATTN: Scott Wiedmann, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox 10, Alexandria, VA 22350-5000.
The authority for the States to collect personal information comes from UOCAVA. The burden for collecting this information resides in the States. The Federal government neither collects nor retains any personal information associated with these forms. The collected information will be used by election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote, receive an absentee ballot or cast a write-in ballot. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law. No information from the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) is collected or retained by the Federal government. The applicant is required to update and resubmit the information annually, whenever they change their mailing address or as otherwise required by State law. If the information is not submitted annually or whenever they change their mailing address, the applicant may not receive ballots for elections for Federal office in that calendar year.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 8, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6110.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 8, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 8, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6110.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 8, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 7, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact David Steele, 202-245-6520.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 8, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6110.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, March 29, 2017—1:00 p.m.-5:15 p.m.
Buffalo Thunder Conference Center, 20 Buffalo Thunder Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87566.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, March 27, 2017—1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 28, 2017—9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Applied Research Center, 301 Gateway Drive, Aiken, SC 29803.
Susan Clizbe, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952-8281.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee under Section 9008(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish these notices in the
March 30, 2017—8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., March 31, 2017—8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.
Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Dr. Mark Elless, Designated Federal Official for the Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Email:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Monument Valley Solar Lessee, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 22, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 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
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections.
The reporting requirement contained in Section 95.1015 is necessary to ensure that television stations that may be affected by harmful interference from Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) operations are notified. Manufacturers of LPRS equipment are required to include a statement regarding the use of the equipment. Additionally, prior to operating a LPRS transmitter for AMTS purposes, an AMTS licensee must notify, in writing, each television station that may be affected by such operations, as defined in Section 80.215(h). The notification provided with the station's license application is sufficient to satisfy this requirement if no new television stations would be affected.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before April 7, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general
Satellite and broadcast industries making field strength measurements for formal submission to the Commission in rulemaking proceedings, or making such measurements upon the request of the Commission, shall follow the procedure for making and reporting such measurements which shall be included in a report to the Commission and submitted in affidavit form, in triplicate. The report shall contain the following information:
(a) Tables of field strength measurements, which for each measuring location; (b) U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps; (c) All information necessary to determine the pertinent characteristics of the transmitting installation; (d) A list of calibrated equipment used in the field strength survey; (e) A detailed description of the calibration of the measuring equipment, and (f) Terrain profiles in each direction in which measurements were made.
The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.686 also requires satellite and broadcast companies to maintain a written record describing, for each location, factors which may affect the recorded field (
The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.686(e) describes the procedures for measuring the field strength of digital television signals. These procedures will be used to determine whether a household is eligible to receive a distant digital network signal from a satellite television provider, largely rely on existing, proven methods the Commission has already established for measuring analog television signal strength at any individual location, as set forth in Section 73.686(d) of the existing rules, but include modifications as necessary to accommodate the inherent differences between analog and digital TV signals. The new digital signal measurement procedures include provisions for the location of the measurement antenna, antenna height, signal measurement method, antenna orientation and polarization, and data recording.
Therefore, satellite and broadcast industries making field strength measurements shall maintain written records and include the following information: (a) A list of calibrated equipment used in the field strength survey, which for each instrument specifies the manufacturer, type, serial number and rated accuracy, and the date of the most recent calibration by the manufacturer or by a laboratory. Include complete details of any instrument not of standard manufacture; (b) A detailed description of the calibration of the measuring equipment, including field strength meters, measuring antenna, and connecting cable; (c) For each spot at the measuring site, all factors which may affect the recorded field, such as topography, height and types of vegetation, buildings, obstacles, weather, and other local features; (d) A description of where the cluster measurements were made; (e) Time and date of the measurements and signature of the person making the measurements; (f) For each channel being measured, a list of the measured value of field strength (in units of dBμ after adjustment for line loss and antenna factor) of the five readings made during the cluster measurement process, with the median value highlighted.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by Hangzhou Qianwang Dress Co. Ltd., hereinafter “Complainant,” against RDD Freight International Inc., hereinafter “Respondent.” Complainant states it is a People's Republic of China Corporation that “manufactures apparel, including hats and gloves, and sells it to retailers in the United States.” Complainant alleges that Respondent is a Commission licensed non-vessel operating common carrier, an international freight forwarder (“FF”) and a New York corporation.
Complainant alleges that Respondent failed to wait for receipt of the original Bills of Lading or to get the Complainant's consent before releasing certain shipments of merchandise to the consignee. The consignee had not paid the Complainant for the merchandise at the time of release nor have they paid as of the date of this filing. By releasing the goods to the consignee, Complainant alleges that the Respondent “fail[ed] to establish, observe and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property” which violates 46 U.S.C. 41102(c).
Complainant seeks reparations in the amount of $134,207.70, and other relief. The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at
This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by March 2, 2018, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by September 17, 2018.
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 23, 2017.
1.
Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Request for letters of nomination and resumes.
The 21st Century Cures Act established the Health Information Technology Advisory Committee to provide recommendations to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on policies, standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria relating to the implementation of a health information technology infrastructure that advances the electronic access, exchange, and use of health information. The Act gave the Comptroller General responsibility for appointing 14 of the committee's members. The Act requires that members at least reflect providers, ancillary health care workers, consumers, purchasers, health plans, health information technology developers, researchers, patients, relevant Federal agencies, and individuals with technical expertise on health care quality, system functions, privacy, security, and on the electronic exchange and use of health information, including the use standards for such activity. GAO is accepting nominations of individuals for this committee. Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted by April 14, 2017 for appointments that will be made in July 2017. Acknowledgement of submissions will be provided within a week of submission. Please contact Will
GAO Office of Public Affairs, (202) 512-4800.
Pub. L. 114-255, § 3002(d) (2016).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a revision request for the information collection titled “Requirements for the Importation of Nonhuman Primates into the United States.” This information collection contains the reporting and documentation requirements for registered importers of nonhuman primates.
Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0021 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Requirements for the Importation of Nonhuman Primates into the United States (OMB Control No. 0920-0263, Expiration Date, 09/30/2017)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Under the 42 CFR 71.53, CDC collects information pertaining to importers and imported nonhuman primates. This information collection enables CDC to evaluate compliance with pre-arrival of shipment notification requirements and to investigate the number and species of imported nonhuman primates. Also, it enables CDC to determine if adequate measures are being taken for the prevention of exposure to persons and animals during importation.
Since May 1990, CDC has monitored the arrival and/or uncrating of certain shipments of non-human primates imported into the United States. In February 2013, CDC promulgated two regulations pertaining to the importation of nonhuman primates. The first rule, Establishment of User Fees for Filovirus Testing of Nonhuman Primate Liver Samples, outlines a process by which importers can send liver tissues to CDC from primates that die during importation from reasons other than trauma (2/12/2013, Vol.78, No. 29, p. 9828). CDC performs these tests due to the absence of a private sector option. The second rule, Requirements for Importers of Nonhuman Primates, consolidates into 42 CFR 71.53 the requirements previously found in 42 CFR part 71.53 with those found in the Special Permit to Import Cynomolgus, African Green, or Rhesus Monkeys into the United States (2/15/2013, Vol. 78, No. 32/p. 11522). It also rescinded the six-month special-permit requirements for cynomolgus, African green, and rhesus monkeys and extended the time period for registration/permit renewal from 180 days to 2 years, reducing much of the respondent burden. CDC feels these regulatory changes and reporting
All registered importers of non-human primates are required by 42 CFR part 71.53 to maintain certain disease control procedures and keep certain records. Standard business practices likely dictate that importers already keep records on the origin, transportation, and disposition of the nonhuman primates. Thus, CDC asks for information which should already be maintained by the importers and need only be assembled and reported. The estimate of burden hours and costs reflects assembling and reporting only.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the Customer Surveys Generic Clearance for the National Center for Health Statistics. The surveys are used to assess National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) customer satisfaction with the content, quality and relevance of the information NCHS produces.
Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0023 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Customer Surveys Generic Clearance for the National Center for Health Statistics (OMB Control No. 0920-0729, Expiration Date 05/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States.” This is a revision request for a generic approval from OMB to conduct customer surveys over the next three years at an overall burden rate of 4000 hours.
As part of a comprehensive program, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) plans to continue to assess its customers' satisfaction with the content, quality and relevance of the information it produces. NCHS will conduct voluntary customer surveys to assess strengths in agency products and services and to evaluate how well it addresses the emerging needs of its data users. Results of these surveys will be used in future planning initiatives.
The data will be collected using a combination of methodologies appropriate to each survey. These may include: Evaluation forms, mail surveys, focus groups, automated and electronic technology (
In order to capture anticipated additional feedback opportunities, this revision request allows for the potential increase in both respondents and time per response for a total estimated annual burden total of 4,000 hours.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate in the survey. The resulting information will be for NCHS internal use.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Developmental Studies to improve the National Health Care Surveys—Generic (OMB Control No. 0920-1030, expires 10/31/2017)—Extension—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through the Division of Health Care Statistics (DHCS) within NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States.
The DHCS conducts the National Health Care Surveys, a family of nationally representative surveys of encounters and health care providers in inpatient, outpatient, and long-term care settings. This information collection request is for the extension of a generic clearance to conduct developmental studies to improve this family of surveys. This three year clearance period will include studies to evaluate and improve upon existing survey design and operations, as well as to examine the feasibility of, and address challenges that may arise with, future expansions of the National Health Care Surveys.
Specifically, this request covers developmental research with the following aims: (1) To explore ways to refine and improve upon existing survey designs and procedures; and (2) to explore and evaluate proposed survey designs and alternative approaches to data collection. The goal of these research studies is to further enhance DHCS existing and future data collection protocols to increase research capacity and improve health care data quality for the purpose of monitoring public health and well-being at the national, state and local levels, thereby informing the health policy decision-making process. The information collected through will not be used to make generalizable statements about the population of interest or to inform public policy; however, methodological findings may be reported.
This generic information collection would include studies conducted in person, via the telephone or internet, and by postal or electronic mail. Methods covered would include qualitative (
To explore and evaluate proposed survey designs and alternative approaches to collecting data, especially with the nationwide adoption of electronic health records, studies may expand the evaluation of data extraction
Specific motivations for conducting developmental studies include: (1) Within the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), new clinical groups may be expanded to include dentists, psychologists, podiatrists, chiropractors, optometrists), mid-level providers (
The National Health Care Surveys collect critical, accurate data that are used to produce reliable national estimates—and in recent years (when budget allows), state-level estimates—of clinical services and of the providers who delivered those services in inpatient, outpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care settings. The data from these surveys are used by providers, policy makers and researchers to address important topics of interest, including the quality and disparities of care among populations, epidemiology of medical conditions, diffusion of technologies, effects of policies and practice guidelines, and changes in health care over time. Research studies need to be conducted to improve existing and proposed survey design and procedures of the National Health Care Surveys, as well as to evaluate alternative data collection approaches particularly due to the expansion of electronic health record use, and to develop new sample frames of currently out-of-scope providers and settings of care. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate. Average burdens are designed to cover 15-40 min interviews as well as 90 minute focus groups, longer on-site visits, and situations where organizations may be preparing electronic data files. The total estimated annualized burden is 7,085 hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the proposal to revise the generic information collection plan titled “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (NCHHSTP).”
Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0020 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (OMB Control Number 0920-1027, Expiration Date, 8/31/2017)—Revision—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP).
The information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Federal government's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.
This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
CDC/ATSDR will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
This is a revision to the previously approved collection to reduce the burden hours from 12,400 to 9,690 hours as a result of the previous usage and anticipated future usage of this Generic Information Collection. Respondents will be screened and selected from Individuals and Households, Businesses, Organizations, and/or State, Local or Tribal Government. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection activity are 9,690.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of the joint meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the
Stephanie L. Begansky, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, email:
In the
The meeting will be held at the Tommy Douglas Conference Center, 10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903. The conference center's telephone number is 240-645-4000.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the Indian Health Service (IHS) proposes to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) Service Delivery Area (SDA) for the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservation at Indian Township (Passamaquoddy at Indian Township or Tribe) in Maine. This notice does not propose to change or expand the PRC SDA for the Tribe's Pleasant Point reservation. This notice only relates to the expansion of the Tribe's PRC SDA for the Indian Township reservation.
Comments must be submitted April 7, 2017.
You may submit comments in one of four ways detailed below. However, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission due to staff and resource limitations. Please choose one method below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Comments will be made available for public inspection at the Rockville address from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, two weeks after publication of this notice.
Terri Schmidt, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Telephone 301/443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).
The IHS currently provides services under regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A through C. Subpart C defines a Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) Service Delivery Area (SDA), formerly referred to as a Contract Health Service Delivery Area, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the area. Residence in a PRC SDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for services. Services needed but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the person's relative medical priority, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.
As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRC SDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRC SDA, the Secretary may from time to time, re-designate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRC SDA. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any re-designation is made. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC. 42 CFR 136.22(b).
Additionally, the regulations require that any re-designation of a PRC SDA must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
The Passamaquoddy Tribe is a federally recognized tribe with two separate reservations, Indian Township and Pleasant Point, located approximately 50 miles apart. Each respective reservation elects its own governing body and each reservation has a separate PRC SDA. The Indian Township reservation of the Passamaquoddy Tribe has a PRC SDA consisting of Aroostook and Washington Counties in the State of Maine. The PRC SDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservation at Pleasant Point is Washington County, Maine, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, Maine. IHS adopted a PRC SDA for each of the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservations for the purposes of administering benefits under the IHS PRC program. Thus, members of the Tribe who reside outside of Aroostook and Washington Counties do not reside within the PRC SDA of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and they are currently not eligible for PRC services from the Tribe.
The Passamaquoddy Tribe has a significant number of members who are not residents of Aroostook and Washington Counties. According to Tribal estimates, 257 enrolled Passamaquoddy members reside in Hancock County in the State of Maine and remain actively involved with the Tribe, but they are not currently eligible for PRC care. The Tribe provides direct services to its members by operating a clinic in Washington County.
Under 42 CFR 136.23, those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation but reside within a PRC service delivery area must be either members of the Tribe or maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, in applying the aforementioned PRC service delivery area re-designation criteria required by operative regulations (43 FR 34654), the following findings are made:
1. By expanding, the Tribe estimates the current eligible population will be increased by 257.
2. The Tribe has determined that these 257 individuals are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.
3. The expanded area, Hancock County, ME, maintains a common boundary with Washington County, ME, the county in which the Tribe's Indian Township reservation is located.
4. The Tribe will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated by IHS to the Tribe to provide services to Tribal members residing in Hancock County.
Accordingly, the purpose of this
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the patent applications listed below may be obtained by communicating with the indicated licensing contact at the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852; tel. 301-496-2644. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of unpublished patent applications.
Technology description follows.
This technology relates to a malaria vaccine composed of a protein complex of Apical Membrane Antigen (AMA1) and rhoptry neck protein 2 (RON2) with an adjuvant. AMA1 is a crucial component of the Plasmodium invasion machinery and is a leading candidate for antimalarial vaccine development. AMA1-based vaccines have shown ability to block red cell invasion in in vitro assays, but protection has so far not translated to in vivo human infections. NIAID investigators have demonstrated that interaction between AMA1 and RON2 (or peptide thereof) is essential for malaria parasites to successfully enter human red blood cells (RBCs). Vaccination with un-complexed AMA1 and RON2 did not protect against lethal malaria. However, vaccination with a pre-formed AMA1-RON2 complex, highlighted in this technology, produced antibodies that protected against lethal malaria in an in vivo mouse model (P. yoelli) and blocked the entry of human malaria parasites into RBCs in vitro. Additionally, the inhibitory antibody response induced by the AMA1-RON2 complex was greater than AMA1 alone or when AMA1 and RON2 proteins were administered in a un-complexed form.
Immunization using the AMA1-RON2 complex of this technology represents a candidate for an effective malaria vaccine against multiple Plasmodium species.
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.
Lower-cost malarial prevention for developing/developed countries.
• Early-stage.
• In vitro data available.
• In vivo data available (animal).
1.
2. Srinivasan P, et al. Disrupting malaria parasite AMA1-RON2 interaction with a small molecule prevents erythrocyte invasion. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2261. [PMID 23907321].
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications 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.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is requesting an extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of the Notification of Intent to Use Schedule III, IV, or V Opioid Drugs for the Maintenance and Detoxification Treatment of Opiate Addiction by a “Qualifying Other Practitioner. The Notification of Intent would allow SAMHSA to determine whether other practitioners are eligible to prescribe certain approved narcotic treatment medications for the maintenance or detoxification treatment of opioid addiction.
This Notification of Intent is a result of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (PL 114-198), which was signed into law on July 22, 2016. The law establishes criteria for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) to qualify for a waiver to prescribe covered medications. To be eligible for a waiver, the NP or PA must: Be licensed under State law to prescribe schedule III, IV, or V medications for the treatment of pain; fulfill qualification requirements in the law for training and experience; and fulfill qualification requirements in the law for appropriate supervision by a qualifying physician. SAMHSA has the responsibility to receive, review, approve, or deny waiver requests.
Practitioners who meet the statutory requirements will be eligible to prescribe only those opioid treatment medications that are controlled in Schedules III, IV, or V, under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), that are specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of opioid addiction, and are not the subject of an “adverse determination.” The only medications that currently fulfill these requirements are ones that contain the active ingredient buprenorphine.
The following table is the estimated hour burden:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, Maryland 20857,
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the new collection of data for the Children's Mental Health Initiative (CMHI) National Evaluation.
Data collection activities will occur through four evaluation components. Each component includes data collection activities and analyses involving similar topics. Each component has one or more instruments that will be used to address various aspects. The four components with their corresponding data collection activities are as follows:
(1) The Implementation Assessment is designed using a strategic framework that provides five analytic dimensions: (1) Policies, (2) services/supports, (3) financing, (4) training/workforce, and (5) strategic communications. These dimensions cut across the State System, Local System and Service Delivery levels and together link to a range of proximal and distal outcomes. The evaluation will identify and assess the mechanisms and strategies employed to implement and expand systems of care, and explore the impact on system performance and child and family outcomes. Evaluation activities are framed by the five strategic areas to examine whether specific mechanisms and strategies lead to proximal and distal outcomes. System of care principles are woven throughout the framework at both the State and Local levels. Data collection activities include: (A)
(2) The Network and Geographic Analysis Component will use
(3) The Financial Component involves the review of implementation grantees' progress in developing financial sustainability and expansion plans. The
(4) The Child and Family Outcome Component will collect longitudinal data on child clinical and functional outcomes, family outcomes, and child and family background. Data will be collected at intake, 6-months, and 12-months post service entry (as long as the child/youth is still receiving services). Data will also be collected at discharge if the child/youth leaves services before the 12-month data collection point. Data will be collected using the following scales for youth age five and older: (A) a shortened version of the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire, (B) the Columbia Impairment Scale, (C) the Pediatric Symptom Checklist-17, and (D) background information gathered through SAMHSA National Outcomes Measures (NOMS). Data for youth age 0-4 will be collected using the: (A) Baby Pediatric Symptom Checklist; (B) Brief
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 7, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
In 2009 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services created a Technical Assistance Center to assist in the implementation of the SSI/SSDI Outreach Access and Recovery (SOAR) effort in all states. The primary objective of SOAR is to improve the allowance rate for Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits for people who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and who have serious mental illnesses.
During the SOAR training, the importance of keeping track of SSI/SSDI applications through the process is stressed. In response to requests from states implementing SOAR, the Technical Assistance Center under SAMHSA's direction developed a web-based data form that case managers can use to track the progress of submitted applications, including decisions received from SSA either on initial application or on appeal. This password-protected web-based data form is hosted on the SOAR Web site (
In addition, data from Part I of the web-based form can be compiled into reports on decision results and the use of SOAR core components, such as the SSA-1696 Appointment of Representative, which allows SSA to communicate directly with the case manager assisting with the application. These reports will be reviewed by agency directors, SOAR state-level leads, and the national SOAR Technical Assistance Center to quantify the success of the effort overall and to identify areas where additional technical assistance is needed. There are no proposed changes to Part I of this form.
The proposed additions to create a new Part II of this form include qualitative (open-ended) questions on annual SOAR accomplishments, identified challenges and collaborations. There are 8 new questions that represent new initiatives, challenges, funding sources, steering committees and training. There is also an additional open-ended question on collaborations with 8 potentially applicable areas (
The estimated response burden is as follows:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 7, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years old or older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources.
Methodological tests will continue to be designed to examine the feasibility, quality, and efficiency of new procedures or revisions to existing survey protocol. Specifically, the tests will measure the reliability and validity of certain questionnaire sections and items through multiple measurements on a set of respondents; assess new methods for gaining cooperation and participation of respondents with the goal of increasing response and decreasing potential bias in the survey estimates; and assess the impact of new sampling techniques and technologies on respondent behavior and reporting. Research will involve focus groups, cognitive laboratory testing, customer satisfaction surveys, and field tests.
These methodological tests will continue to examine ways to increase data quality, lower operating costs, and gain a better understanding of sources and effects of nonsampling error on NSDUH estimates. Particular attention will be given to minimizing the impact of design changes so survey data continue to remain comparable over time. If these tests provide successful results, current procedures or data collection instruments may be revised.
The number of respondents to be included in each field test will vary, depending on the nature of the subject being tested and the target population. However, the total estimated response burden is 8,225 hours. The exact number of subjects and burden hours for each test are unknown at this time, but will be clearly outlined in each individual submission. These estimated burden hours are distributed over three years as follows:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 7, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) will conduct an annual assessment of the performance of the National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention (NRC). The NRC will collect the information needed to conduct the annual assessment of NRC training and technical assistance activities for the SS/HS and Project LAUNCH programs, as well as the field-at-large. There are four instruments included in this package for approval: (1) Needs Assessment, (2) Site Visit Assessment, (3) Annual Performance Assessment, and Case Study Interview. The NRC is required contractually to report its performance to SAMHSA on an annual basis.
Through a cooperative agreement, SAMHSA is funding the NRC to support the training and technical assistance (T/TA) needs of two SAMHSA grant programs: The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program (SS/HS) and Project LAUNCH (Linking Actions for Unmet Needs in Children's Health). In addition, the NRC is funded to disseminate resources and provide
As a condition of its cooperative agreements with SS/HS and Project LAUNCH, the NRC is required to collect and report on its performance to SAMHSA on an annual basis, using measures that document its T/TA activities, its outputs, and changes in grantee capacity. For SAMHSA to meet its obligations under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA), the NRC is also required to collect and report on three national outcome measures: (1) The number of individuals who have received training in prevention or mental health promotion; (2) the number and percent of individuals who have demonstrated improvement in their knowledge, attitudes, and/or beliefs, related to prevention or mental health promotion; and (3) the number of individuals contacted through NRC outreach requirements.
Data collection efforts will focus on two groups: (a) Project LAUNCH grantees (project directors) and their local community partners and (b) SS/HS grantees (state project coordinators) and their local education agency representatives. Assessment data will be collected through four methods: Annual grantee needs assessments, assessments of annual grantee site visits, an annual performance assessment survey, and annual case studies interviews of grantees and their local partners.
The average annual respondent burden for the proposed data collection is estimated below. The estimates reflect the average number of respondents, the average annual number of responses, the time it will take for each response, and the average annual burden.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 7, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is requesting a revision from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the SF-5161-Checklist. SAMHSA is requesting approval to only collect information on the Checklist and not the Narrative. The Checklist assists applicants and recipients to ensure that they have included all required information necessary to process new and continuation applications as well as the name, title, and phone number of the current business official and project director responsible for carrying out the project. Checklist information concerning the type of application is also needed since new, competing continuation; noncompeting continuation and supplemental applications are separated and reviewed differently. The checklist data helps to reduce the time required to process and review grant applications, expediting the issuance of grant awards as well as ensure collection of essential recipient contact information that is not collected elsewhere.
This data collection has been transferred from HHS to SAMHSA.
The checklist is part of the standard application (SF-5161) for State and local governments and for private non-profit and for-profit organizations when applying for health services projects. Below is the burden table.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, Maryland 20857,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 7, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 7, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Indians Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act provide that Indian Tribes may designate an agent other than the Tribal chairman for service of notice of proceedings under the Act. This notice includes the current list of designated Tribal agents for service of notice.
Evangeline Campbell, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Human Services, 1849 C Street NW., MS-4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Phone: (202) 513-7642.
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901
In any involuntary proceeding in a State court where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, and where the identity and location of the child's parent or Indian custodian or Tribe is known, the party seeking the foster-care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must directly notify the parents, the Indian custodians, and the child's Tribe by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, of the pending child-custody proceedings and their right of intervention. Copies of these notices must be sent to the appropriate Regional Director by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal delivery.
If the identity or location of the child's parents, the child's Indian custodian, or the Tribes in which the Indian child is a member or eligible for membership cannot be ascertained, but there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, notice of the child-custody proceeding must be sent to the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Regional Director (see
This notice presents, in two different formats, the names and addresses of current designated Tribal agents for service of notice, and includes each designated Tribal agent received by the Secretary of the Interior prior to the date of this publication. Part A, published in this notice, lists designated Tribal agents by region and alphabetically by Tribe within each region. Part A is also available electronically at:
Part B is a table that lists designated Tribal agents alphabetically by the Tribal affiliation (first listing American Indian Tribes, then listing Alaska Native Tribes). Part B is only available electronically at:
Each format also lists the BIA's contact(s) for each of the twelve regions.
Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 3601 C Street, Suite 1100 Anchorage, Alaska 99503; Phone: (907) 271-4111.
Eastern Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 545 Marriott Drive, Suite 700, Nashville, Tennessee 37214; Phone: (615) 564-6700; Fax: (615) 564-6701.
Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 8002, Muskogee, Oklahoma 74402-8002; Phone: (918) 781-4600; Fax: (918) 781-4604.
Great Plains Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 115 4th Avenue SE., Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401; Phone: (605) 226-7343; Fax: (605) 226-7446.
Midwest Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 5600 West American Blvd., Suite 500, Norman Pointe II Building, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437; Phone: (612) 725-4500; Fax: (612) 713-4401.
Navajo Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 1060, Gallup, New Mexico 87305; Phone: (505) 863-8314; Fax: (505) 863-8324.
Northwest Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232; Phone: (503) 231-6702; Fax: (503) 231-2201.
Pacific Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Federal Building, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820, Sacramento, California 95825; Phone: (916) 978-6000; Fax: (916) 978-6099.
Rocky Mountain Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2021 4th Avenue, Billings, Montana 59101; Phone: (406) 247-7943; Fax: (406) 247-7976.
Southern Plains Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 368, Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005; Phone: (405) 247-6673 Ext. 217; Fax: (405) 247-5611.
Southwest Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1001 Indian School Road, NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104; Phone: (505) 563-3103; Fax: (505) 563-3101.
Western Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2600 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004; Phone: (602) 379-6600; Fax: (602) 379-4413
See:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC), Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) Subcommittee will meet as indicated below.
The Southeast Oregon RAC, LWC Subcommittee will hold a public meeting via teleconference on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. The final agenda will be released online no later than March 7, 2017, at
Members of the public can call in to the meeting using the telephone conference line number 1-866-524-6456, Participant Code: 608605. They may also listen in at the Lakeview BLM District Office, 1301 S. G Street, Lakeview, OR 97630. Written comments should be addressed to Don
Larisa Bogardus, Public Affairs Officer, BLM Lakeview District Office, 1301 S. G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630, (541) 947-6237 or
The Southeast Oregon RAC consists of 15 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in southeast Oregon. This meeting will be open to the public. If you wish to distribute information to the LWC Subcommittee, please provide it in advance of the meeting to Mr. Gonzales at the address listed in the
Agenda items for this meeting include discussing possible management approaches for areas identified by the BLM as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics for a subsequent recommendation to the full Southeast Oregon RAC as part of the Vale and Lakeview districts' respective Resource Management Plan Amendment(s) process. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the Southeast Oregon RAC LWC Subcommittee may also be addressed.
A public comment period will be available during the meeting at a time to be posted in the final agenda. Unless otherwise approved by the Southeast Oregon RAC, LWC Subcommittee chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the Southeast Oregon RAC LWC Subcommittee for a maximum of 5 minutes. Meeting times and the duration scheduled for public comment periods may be extended or altered when the authorized representative considers it necessary to accommodate necessary business and all who seek to be heard regarding matters before the Southeast Oregon RAC, LWC Subcommittee.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please 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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) will host a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 16, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Friday, March 17, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The meeting may end early if all business items are accomplished ahead of schedule, or may be extended if discussions warrant more time.
The meeting will be held at the BLM's Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon.
Tara Thissell, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738, (541) 573-4519, or email
The SMAC was established on August 14, 2001, pursuant to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-399). The SMAC provides counsel and advice to the BLM regarding new and unique approaches to management of the land within the boundaries of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA), recommends cooperative programs and incentives for landscape management that meet human needs, and advises the BLM on maintenance and improvement of the ecological and economic integrity of the area.
Agenda items for the March 16-17, 2017, session include, but are not limited to: An update from the Designated Federal Official; discussion of access to private inholdings in the CMPA; presentations and discussion on prescribed fire and post-fire rehabilitation in the Steens Mountain area, the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project, and the Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan amendments; a subcommittee report and discussion on public access at Pike Creek Canyon; and regular business items, such as approving the previous meeting's minutes, a member round-table, and planning the next meeting's agenda. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the SMAC may also be included, such as program status updates and follow up items from previous meetings.
A public comment period will be available on both meeting days. Unless otherwise approved by the SMAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the SMAC for a maximum of five minutes.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Western Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Western Montana Resource Advisory Council meeting will be held on March 16, 2017, in Butte, Montana. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. in the BLM's Butte Field Office conference room. There will be a 30-minute public comment period starting at 11:30 a.m. The meeting will adjourn at 3 p.m.
The BLM's Butte Field Office is located at 106 N. Parkmont, Butte, MT 59701.
David Abrams, Western Montana Resource Advisory Council Coordinator, Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, MT 59701, 406-533-7617,
This 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of issues associated with public land management in Montana. During this meeting, the council will discuss several topics, including updates from the BLM's Butte, Missoula, and Dillon field offices. All RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. The RAC meeting will also allow time for oral public comments. Depending on the number of persons who wish to comment and the amount of time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please 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.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, instituted this review on October 3, 2016 (81 FR 68049) and determined on January 6, 2017 that it would conduct an expedited review (82 FR 8208, January 24, 2017).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on March 2, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4674 (March 2017), entitled
By Order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
March 10, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
March 15, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encourages and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until April 7, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Suzanne Strong, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh St. NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encourages and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until April 7, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Suzanne Strong, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh St. NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employer's First Report of Injury or Occupational Disease, Employer's Supplementary Report of Accident or Occupational Illness,” to the Office of
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 7, 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 Employer's First Report of Injury or Occupational Disease (Form LS-202), Employer's Supplementary Report of Accident or Occupational Illness (Form LS-210) information collection. Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (Longshore Act) section 30(a) provides that a covered employer having knowledge of a disease or injury related to an employee's employment must file a report of the disease or injury to the Secretary of Labor within 10 days after the date of injury or death. The employer would use Form LS-202 to make the initial report. Longshore Act section 30(b) requires the employer to furnish additional necessary reports regarding an employee's injury, and the employer would use Form LS-210 as a supplementary report after the employer's first report to report additional periods of lost-time from work. Proper filing of Forms LS-202 and LS-210 meets the statutory requirements. Longshore Act section 30 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on 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,
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 Technology, Innovation and Engineering (TI&E) Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This committee reports to the NAC.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room MIC 3A/B, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Mr. Mike Green, Executive Secretary, NAC
The meeting will be open to the public up to the 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 passcode: 102421 followed by the # sign. To join via WebEx, the 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 Ms. Anyah Dembling via email at
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is soliciting public comments on the proposed information collection described below. The proposed information collection will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments on this information collection must be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.
Submit electronic comments to Mr. Joel Schwartz, Chief Guidelines Officer at
The NEH will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 35). This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies. NEH is particularly interested in comments which help the agency to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of electronic submissions of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request. These comments will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the issuance of two exemptions in response to a January 6, 2015 request from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee), representing itself and the other owners of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY). The exemptions allow the licensee to use funds from the VY decommissioning funds trust (the Trust) for irradiated fuel management activities without prior notice to the NRC.
Submit comments by April 7, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jack D. Parrott, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6634; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0157 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0157 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
On June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35992), the NRC issued exemptions from §§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) of title 10 of the
At the time of issuance, the NRC's approval of the exemptions referenced the categorical exclusion criteria under § 51.22(c)(25). However, on November 4, 2015, the State of Vermont, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, and Green Mountain Power Corporation (together, Petitioners) filed a petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML16137A554) with the Commission that, in part, challenged that the NRC staff had not conducted a NEPA-compliant analysis in conjunction with the exemption request. The Commission directed, in their October 27, 2016 decision on the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML16301A083) that the staff conduct an EA to examine the environmental impacts, if any, associated with the exemptions. Therefore, consistent with Commission direction and with § 51.21, the NRC has prepared this draft EA to document its environmental review for the exemption requests. Based on the results of the EA, the NRC has determined it is not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement and is therefore issuing this draft FONSI.
The exemption request by Entergy on January 6, 2015, and granted by the NRC on June 23, 2015, exempts Entergy from the requirements set forth in §§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2). Specifically, the exemptions allow Entergy to use funds from the Trust for irradiated fuel management activities, not associated with radiological decontamination, and exempt Entergy from meeting the requirement for prior notification to the NRC for these disbursements.
By letter dated January 12, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15013A426), Entergy informed the NRC that it had permanently ceased power operations at VY and that the VY reactor vessel had been permanently defueled.
Entergy stated that it needed access to the funds in the Trust, in excess of those needed for radiological decontamination, to support irradiated fuel management activities not associated with radiological decontamination. As required by § 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), decommissioning trust funds may be used by the licensee if the withdrawals are for legitimate decommissioning activity expenses, consistent with the definition of decommissioning in § 50.2. This definition addresses radiological decontamination and does not include activities associated with irradiated fuel management. Similarly, the requirements of § 50.75(h)(2) restrict the use of decommissioning trust fund disbursements (other than for ordinary and incidental expenses) to decommissioning expenses until final decommissioning has been completed. Therefore, Entergy needed exemptions from §§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) to allow the use of funds from the Trust for irradiated fuel management activities without prior notice of disbursement.
Entergy stated that the Trust contains funds for decommissioning that are commingled with funds intended for irradiated fuel management activities not associated with radiological decontamination. The VY Annual Decommissioning Financial Status
The requirements of § 50.75(h)(2) further provide that, except for decommissioning withdrawals being made under § 50.82(a)(8), or for payments of ordinary administrative costs and other incidental expenses of the Trust, no disbursement may be made from the Trust until written notice of the intention to make a disbursement has been given to the NRC at least 30 working days in advance of the intended disbursement. Therefore, an exemption from § 50.75(h)(2) was needed to allow Entergy to use funds from the Trust for irradiated fuel management activities without prior NRC notification.
The exemptions from requirements related to use and notification of Trust funds are of a financial nature and allow Entergy to pay for irradiated fuel management activities with Trust funds. The exemptions do not authorize any additional regulatory or land-disturbing activities, but do allow Entergy to finance irradiated fuel management activities, which support decommissioning.
In granting the exemptions, the NRC completed its safety evaluation and concluded that there was reasonable assurance that adequate funds are available in the Trust to complete all activities associated with decommissioning and irradiated fuel management activities. There is no decrease in safety associated with the use of the Trust to fund activities associated with irradiated fuel management.
The licensee has a comprehensive, regulation-based decommissioning funding oversight program to provide reasonable assurance that sufficient funding will be available for radiological decommissioning. After submitting its site-specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate and until the licensee has completed its final radiation survey and demonstrated that residual radioactivity has been reduced to a level that permits termination of its license, § 50.82(a)(8)(v) requires a licensee to annually submit a financial assurance status report. The report must include, among other things, amounts spent on decommissioning, remaining Trust balance, and estimated costs to complete radiological decommissioning. If the remaining balance, plus expected rate of return, plus any other financial surety mechanism does not cover the estimated costs to complete the decommissioning, the § 50.82(a)(8)(vi) specifies that additional financial assurance must be provided. These annual reports provide a means for the NRC to monitor the adequacy of available funding.
Additionally, in accordance with the VY Renewed Facility Operating License (ADAMS Accession No. ML15117A551), Condition 3.J.a.(iii), the decommissioning trust agreement must provide that no disbursements or payments from the Trust, other than for ordinary administrative expenses, shall be made by the trustee until the trustee has first given thirty days prior written notice to the NRC. Article IV, Section 4.05 of the Master Decommissioning Trust Agreement (ADAMS Accession No. ML15111A086), by and between Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and The Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, provides that no disbursements or payments shall be made by the Trustee, other than administrative expenses, in accordance with Section 4.02 of the Master Trust Agreement, until the Trustee has first given the NRC 30 days prior written notice of payment; provided, however, that no disbursement or payment from the Trust shall be made if the Trustee receives prior written notice of objection from the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The second exemption, which was also granted, exempted Entergy from § 50.75(h)(2). This exemption did not apply to VY at the time of the request because license condition 3.J.a(iii) was still in effect. Section 50.75(h)(2) would have applied if Entergy's the September 2014 license amendment request to remove the license condition had been approved (ADAMS Accession No. ML14254A405). Entergy withdrew that license amendment request on September 22, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15267A074 and ML15265A583, respectively), therefore the second exemption request has not been implemented. License condition 3.J.a(iii) is still in effect and VY remains subject to the disbursement notification condition in the license.
The environmental impacts of decommissioning have been generically evaluated by the NRC and documented in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (Decommissioning Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS]). Entergy's Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activity Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML14357A110) stated that impacts from planned decommissioning activities at VY are less than and bounded by the impacts considered in the Decommissioning GEIS and NUREG-1496,
The exemptions do not authorize Entergy to perform new land-disturbing activities that could affect land use, soils and geology, water resources, ecological resources, or historic and cultural resources. The exemptions do not authorize Entergy to conduct additional regulatory activities, outside those already licensed by the NRC, therefore there are no incremental effects to air quality, traffic and transportation, socioeconomics, environmental justice, or accidents. The exemptions will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents. As a result of the exemptions, there are no changes in the types or amounts of effluents that are, or may be, released offsite. Entergy must continue to comply with all appropriate NRC regulations related to occupational and public radiation exposure and thus the exemptions will not result in an increase to occupational or public doses. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no potential environmental impacts as a result of the granted exemptions.
As an alternative to the action, the NRC staff could have denied Entergy's exemption request. Denial of the exemption request would have resulted in Entergy operating the facility as licensed, thus the environmental impacts would be the same as those already considered by the previous environmental review in NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 regarding renewal of VY's operating license.
On December 15, 2016, the NRC notified the State of Vermont of the draft EA and FONSI. The NRC staff has determined that the exemptions would have no impact on historic and cultural resources or ecological resources and therefore no consultations are necessary under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, respectively.
On November 4, 2015, the Petitioners filed a petition with the Commission
Entergy proposed exemptions from §§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) to allow the licensee to use funds from the Trust for irradiated fuel management activities, without prior written notification to the NRC. The NRC granted the exemptions on June 23, 2015.
Consistent with § 51.21, the NRC conducted the environmental assessment for the exemptions included in Section II of this document and incorporated by reference in this finding. On the basis of this environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the exemptions did not, and will not, have significant effects on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct transfer of license; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an order approving the transfer of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59, and the transfer of the generally licensed FitzPatrick Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation from Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Exelon Generation Company, LLC.
The Order was issued on March 1, 2017, and is effective for one year.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0195 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:
•
•
•
Dr. Diane L. Render, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3629; e-mail:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC (ENF) and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) (collectively, Entergy) are the owner and operator, respectively, of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick) and are the co-holders of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 and the general license for the FitzPatrick Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). FitzPatrick is a General Electric boiling-water reactor located in Oswego County, New York.
By application dated August 18, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated November 29, 2016, Entergy and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) jointly requested, pursuant to Title 10 of the
In response to the request by Entergy and Exelon for consent to the direct transfer of the FitzPatrick renewed facility operating license and the FitzPatrick ISFSI general license, the NRC published a notice entitled, “James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment,”
Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the NRC shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application, and other information before the NRC, and relying upon the representations and agreements contained in the application, the NRC staff has determined that Exelon is qualified to hold the FitzPatrick renewed facility operating license and the FitzPatrick ISFSI general license. The NRC staff has also determined that the transfer of these licenses is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC, pursuant thereto, subject to the condition set forth below.
Upon review of the application for a conforming license amendment to reflect this transfer, the NRC staff has determined that the application for the conforming license amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR chapter I; the facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and the issuance of this amendment will be in accordance with 10 CFR part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements will have been satisfied.
The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC safety evaluation dated March 1, 2017, and available under Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML17041A196.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 USC §§ 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80,
For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated August 18, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16235A081), as supplemented by letter dated November 29, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16335A104), and the NRC's nonproprietary Safety Evaluation dated March 1, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17041A196), which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of March 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of three amendment requests. The amendment requests are for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no significant hazards consideration. Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation.
Comments must be filed by April 7, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 8, 2017. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0047, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0047, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by May 8, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve the reanalysis of the suppression pool swell phenomenon that results from the postulated DBA [design-basis accident] LOCA. The proposed changes resolve a non-conforming condition involving historical design analyses performed to demonstrate the adequacy of items subject to loads resulting from the suppression pool swell phenomena. The proposed changes do not affect plant operations or any design function. The probability of the DBA LOCA or any other accident occurring is not altered as the pool swell phenomenon occurs after a design basis accident or transient and therefore does not impact any accident initiators.
The changes revising the suppression pool swell design analysis will not affect radiological dose consequence analyses. The consequences of accidents previously evaluated will not be increased by the proposed changes. The consequences of the pool swell event remain within acceptable margins.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because they do not involve the addition of any new components or systems. The proposed changes do not alter the design function of components or systems that could initiate a new or different kind of accident. The proposed changes do not alter how components or systems are controlled or utilized.
The suppression pool swell phenomenon is one transient that results from the postulated LOCA event, which has previously been evaluated. The impact upon analyses is limited to those associated with the pool swell phenomena.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes revising the suppression pool swell design analysis do not represent a significant change in a margin of safety.
Following main vent clearing, an air/steam bubble forms at the vent exit. This causes a hydrostatic pressure increase in the pool water resulting in a loading condition on the pool boundaries. The steam condenses in the pool. However, the continued addition and expansion of the drywell air causes the pool
The proposed changes to the suppression pool swell design analysis do not alter any design basis or safety limit established in the license. The proposed changes to the suppression pool swell design analysis were evaluated to the NRC acceptance criteria, and the changes comply with established criteria and do not significantly reduce a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29.
The change of the design details for the shield building roof, tension ring, and air inlets and removal of the tie rods do not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures to safely shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions. The changes do not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is to revise design details for the shield building roof, tension ring, and air inlets and remove tie rods. The clarification and changes to the design details for the shield building roof, tension ring, and air inlets do not change the design requirements of the nuclear island structures. The changes do not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The changes do not result in a new failure mechanism for the nuclear island structures or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the nuclear island structures is not adversely affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, no margin of safety is reduced. The acceptance limits for the design of seismic Category I structures are included in the codes and standards used for the design, analysis, and construction of the structures. The two primary codes for the seismic Category I structures are American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 and American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349. The design of the shield building roof with the changes to the reinforcement and roof beams satisfies applicable provisions of AISC N690 and ACI 349. The welding of the plate girders used for roof beams meets the requirements of AISC N690 and [American Welding Society (AWS)] D1.1.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29. The change of the design details for the shield building roof, tension ring, and air inlets and removal of the tie rods do not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures to safely shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is to revise design details for the shield building roof, tension ring, and air inlets and remove tie rods. The clarification and changes to the design details for the shield building roof, tension ring, and air inlets do not change the design requirements of the nuclear island structures. The changes do not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The changes do not result in a new failure mechanism for the nuclear island structures or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the nuclear island structures is not adversely affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, no margin of safety is reduced. The acceptance limits for the design of seismic Category I structures are included in the codes and standards used for the design, analysis, and construction of the structures. The two primary codes for the seismic Category I structures are American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 and American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349. The design of the shield building roof with the changes to the reinforcement and roof beams satisfies applicable provisions of AISC N690 and ACI 349. The welding of the plate girders used for roof beams meets the requirements of AISC N690 and [American Welding Society (AWS)] D1.1.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400 will hold a meeting on March 21-23, 2017, 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the APR1400 Design Control Document and Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items Chapter 6 (“Engineered Safety Features”), Chapter 13 (“Conduct of Operations”), and Chapter 16 (“Technical Specifications”). The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This Advance Notice consists of amendments to the FICC Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (“GSD Rules”)
In order to effectuate the proposed rule changes described above, FICC proposes to (1) add a new defined term for Margin Proxy in Rule 1 (Definitions); (2) amend the definition of VaR Charge in Rule 1 to reference the Margin Proxy; and (3) amend Section 1b of Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation) to modify the calculation of the Coverage Charge when the Margin Proxy is applied.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In connection with this proposed rule change, FICC received a written letter from Ronin Capital LLC (“Ronin Capital”).
A. The new backup model is being rushed into production.
FICC believes that the Current Volatility Calculation did not respond effectively to volatile market conditions and that it must implement the proposed Margin Proxy as described in this proposed rule change as soon as possible to effectively mitigate the market price risk of each Netting Member's Margin Portfolio. As described in Item II(B) below, FICC believes that the proposed changes associated with the Margin Proxy and the Coverage Charge would help to ensure that each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit achieves a 99 percent confidence level and the proposed changes would mitigate potential losses to FICC and non-defaulting Netting Members associated with the liquidation of a defaulted Netting Member's portfolio. As described in Item II(B) below, the proposed changes would support FICC's compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4) because the Margin Proxy is designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage FICC's credit exposures to participants and those exposures arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes.
B. An abbreviated rule approval process may not be appropriate when there are known flaws with the Margin Proxy.
As described in II(B) below, FICC has identified a deficiency in the Current Volatility Calculation and FICC believes that it has a responsibility to rectify this deficiency as soon as possible. With this in mind, FICC is requesting that the Commission notify FICC that it has no objection to the proposed changes as expeditiously as possible in order to address the impact that market volatility has had on the GSD VaR Charge. FICC believes that this request is appropriate because the proposed changes associated with the Margin Proxy and the Coverage Charge would help to protect FICC and its Netting Members by ensuring that FICC collects sufficient Required Fund Deposits in the event that the Current Volatility Calculation does not perform as expected during volatile market conditions.
Ronin Capital's assertion that the Margin Proxy does not provide for risk offsets is incorrect. As described in Item II(B) below, the proposed Margin Proxy accounts for risk offsets by including a correlation adjustment to provide risk diversification across tenor buckets that have been historically observed across the U.S. Treasury benchmarks. The VaR Charge would preserve the same diversification between U.S. Treasury and MBS asset classes that is provided by the Current Volatility Calculation. FICC is not aware of any flaws with the proposed Margin Proxy and thus FICC believes that it is prudent to request that the Commission accelerate the effectiveness of the proposed change associated with the Margin Proxy and Coverage Charge.
C. The deployment of the Margin Proxy for an extended time may further burden competition.
FICC acknowledges that the proposed rule change associated with the Margin Proxy and Coverage Charge may burden competition, however, FICC believes that this burden would be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
The proposed rule change associated with the Margin Proxy and the Coverage Charge could burden competition because the proposed change would result in larger Required Fund Deposit amounts for Netting Members when the Margin Proxy calculates a VaR Charge that is greater than the amount calculated pursuant to the Current Volatility Calculation. When application of the Margin Proxy increases Required Fund Deposits for Netting Members that have lower operating margins or higher costs of capital compared to other Netting Members, the proposed rule change could burden competition. However, FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change associated with the Margin Proxy and Coverage Charge would impose a significant burden on competition because the increase in the Required Fund Deposit would be in direct relation to the market risk presented by each Netting Member's Margin Portfolio. Moreover, the Required Fund Deposit would be calculated with the same parameters and at the confidence level for all Netting Members. Therefore, Netting Members that present similar Margin Portfolios would have similar impacts on their Required Fund Deposit amounts.
FICC believes that the burden on competition would be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the Act because the proposed changes associated with the Margin Proxy and the Coverage Charge would support FICC's compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act. Specifically, the proposed changes would be reasonably designed to (x) measure FICC's credit exposures to its participants at least once a day and (y) limit FICC's exposures to potential losses from defaults by its participants under normal market conditions.
For these reason, FICC believes that any burden on competition as a result of the proposed changes associated with the Margin Proxy and Coverage Charge would be necessary in furtherance of the Act as cited above.
D. The Margin Proxy should be tested before filing a rule change and Netting Members should have the opportunity to prepare for the temporary model.
FICC believes that it conducted sufficient analysis prior to the submission of this proposed rule change to the Commission. FICC evaluated the sufficiency of the proposed changes for a period that exceeded 2 months. FICC's study included historical analysis of the backtesting sufficiency of the Margin Proxy. In addition, FICC reviewed the impact that the Margin Proxy would have on each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. In an effort to help Netting Members prepare for this proposed rule change, FICC outlined the rationale for the Margin Proxy and provided each Netting Member with reports that reflect the impact that the proposed change would have on such Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. Thus, FICC believes that it has provided Netting Members with sufficient information and advance notice regarding the proposed changes. FICC recognizes that Netting Members may have experience with the idiosyncrasies of the Current Volatility Calculation, FICC nonetheless believes that the proposed rule change must be employed to help ensure that FICC collects sufficient Required Fund Deposit amounts at all times, particularly during volatile market conditions.
A. Netting Members should have access to prospective rule changes before rules are filed.
In response to the above, FICC notes that it has and continues to engage in ongoing discussion with Netting Members about how proposals would impact them. With respect to this proposed change, FICC's outreach to Netting Members included discussions regarding GSD's Clearing Fund calculation as well as the VaR Charge methodology. As described above, in an effort to help Netting Members prepare for this proposed rule change, FICC outlined the rationale for the Margin Proxy and provided each Netting Member with reports that reflect the impact that the proposed change would have on such Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. FICC staff has always made itself available to answer all questions or concerns raised by Netting Members. FICC believes that it has provided Netting Members with an appropriate level of disclosure regarding this proposed rule change and such disclosure gives Netting Members the ability to manage their obligations under the proposed rule change.
B. FICC should provide Netting Members with the ability to conduct scenario analysis and FICC's inability to do so could be anticompetitive.
FICC does not have technology that would allow Netting Members to conduct margin based scenario analysis. While FICC recognizes that that there may be additional benefits that Netting Members could derive from the provision of such technology by FICC, FICC does not believe that the lack of availability of such technology is anticompetitive. FICC has provided sufficient disclosure regarding the proposed change to its Netting Members and each Netting Member has been provided with the same level of disclosure. In addition, FICC staff has made itself available to answer all questions regarding the proposed change. Thus, FICC believes that all Netting Members have the ability to manage their obligations based on the information that FICC has provided in connection with this proposed change. FICC recognizes there may be additional benefits that Netting Members could derive from margin based scenario analysis thus FICC will endeavor to explore the development of this technology in the future.
While FICC recognizes that that there may be additional benefits that Netting Members could derive from the provision of such technology by FICC, FICC does not believe that the lack of availability of such technology is anticompetitive.
FICC is proposing to introduce the Margin Proxy, which would constitute a Netting Member's daily VaR Charge in circumstances where the Margin Proxy would be greater than the Current Volatility Calculation. In circumstances where the Margin Proxy is applied by FICC, FICC also proposes to reduce the Coverage Charge by the amount that the Margin Proxy exceeds the sum of the Current Volatility Calculation and Coverage Charge, but not by an amount greater than the total Coverage Charge, as further described below.
A key tool that FICC uses to manage market risk is the daily calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposits from Netting Members. The objective of a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit is to mitigate potential losses to FICC associated with liquidation of such Netting Member's Margin Portfolio in the event that FICC ceases to act for such Netting Member (hereinafter referred to as a “default”).
A Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit consists of several components, including the VaR Charge and Coverage Charge. The VaR Charge comprises the largest portion of a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit amount. The VaR Charge is calculated using a risk-based margin methodology that is intended to cover the market price risk associated with the securities in a Netting Member's Margin Portfolio.
The Coverage Charge is calculated based on the Netting Member's daily backtesting results. FICC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. The backtesting compares the Required Fund Deposit for each Netting Member with actual price changes in the Netting Member's Margin Portfolio. The Margin Portfolio values are calculated using the actual positions in such Netting Member's Margin Portfolio on a given day and the observed security price changes over the following three days. These backtesting results are reviewed as part of FICC's VaR model performance monitoring and assessment of the adequacy of each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit.
The Coverage Charge is incorporated in the Required Fund Deposit for each Netting Member to increase the
During the fourth quarter of 2016, FICC's Current Volatility Calculation did not respond effectively to the level of market volatility at that time, and the VaR Charge amounts that were calculated using the profit and loss scenarios generated by the Current Volatility Calculation did not achieve backtesting coverage at a 99 percent confidence level. As a result, the Required Fund Deposit yielded backtesting deficiencies beyond FICC's risk tolerance. Therefore, FICC proposes to use the Margin Proxy as the VaR Charge when the Margin Proxy calculation would exceed the Current Volatility Calculation.
The Margin Proxy would cover circumstances where the Current Volatility Calculation is lower than market price volatility from corresponding U.S. Treasury and to-be-announced (“TBA”)
More specifically, the Margin Proxy would reflect separate calculations for U.S. Treasury securities and agency pass-through mortgage backed securities (“MBS”). The purpose of the separate calculations would be to cover the historical market prices of each of those asset classes to a 99 percent confidence level, on a standalone basis, because the historical price changes of the two asset classes are different due to market factors, such as credit spreads and prepayment risk. This separate calculation would also allow FICC to monitor the performance of each of those asset classes individually.
The Margin Proxy would be calculated per Netting Member. Each security in a Netting Member's Margin Portfolio would be mapped to a respective benchmark based on the security's asset class and maturity.
FICC believes that this proposal would provide the adequate Required Fund Deposit per Netting Member because the backtesting coverage including the Margin Proxy has been above the 99 percent confidence level for the past four years. Additionally, the Margin Proxy would be transparent to Netting Members because it would use industry standard benchmarks that can be observed by Netting Members.
The Margin Proxy methodology would be subject to performance reviews by FICC. Specifically, FICC would monitor each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit and the aggregate Clearing Fund requirements versus the requirements calculated by the Margin Proxy. Consistent with the current GSD Rules,
FICC also proposes to modify the calculation of the Coverage Charge when the Margin Proxy is applied as the VaR Charge. Specifically, FICC would reduce the Coverage Charge by the amount that the Margin Proxy exceeds the sum of the Current Volatility Calculation and Coverage Charge, but not by an amount greater than the total Coverage. FICC's backtesting analysis demonstrates that the proposed Margin Proxy would provide sufficient margin coverage without the addition of the Coverage Charge because FICC backtest results inclusive of the Margin Proxy achieve the 99 percent confidence level without the inclusion of the Coverage Charge.
FICC would not modify the Coverage Charge if the Margin Proxy is not applied as the VaR Charge.
FICC believes that the proposed changes to establish the Margin Proxy and to adjust the Coverage Charge when the Margin Proxy is applied would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members arising out of the activity in their Margin Portfolios.
The proposal to establish the Margin Proxy would affect FICC's management of risk because it would help to address deficiencies observed in the Current Volatility Calculation by establishing the Margin Proxy as a minimum volatility calculation for each Netting Member's Margin Portfolio based on historical price changes of a set of reference securities. The proposed methodology would enhance FICC's risk management capabilities by establishing a volatility floor based on the composition of each Netting Member's Margin Portfolio, enabling FICC to establish a VaR Charge that provides better backtesting coverage than the Current Volatility Calculation.
FICC's proposal to modify the calculation of the Coverage Charge would affect FICC's management of risk by removing unnecessary components from the Required Fund Deposit calculation. As described above, the Coverage Charge is based on historical portfolio activity, which may not be indicative of a Netting Member's current risk profile. As part of FICC's development of the Margin Proxy, FICC performed backtesting to validate model performance, and conducted analyses to determine the impact of the proposed changes to the Netting Members. Results of FICC's backtesting performance when
FICC has also managed the effect of the overall proposal by conducting outreach with Netting Members regarding the proposed changes and informing such Members as to the reasons for these proposed changes. FICC has provided each Netting Member with an individual impact study. In addition, FICC's Market Risk Management team and Relationship Management team have been available to answer all questions.
FICC believes the proposed changes, described above, are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act
In addition, FICC believes that the proposed changes associated with the Margin Proxy and Coverage Charge are consistent with the requirements of Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (b)(2) under the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act requires a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements and review such margin requirements and the related risk-based models and parameters at least monthly.
FICC also believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4) and (e)(6) of the Act, which were recently adopted by the Commission.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) will require FICC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and regularly reviewed, tested, and verified.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the Clearing Supervision Act,
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance Notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to rename NYSE OptX, an order entry platform that would allow for the submission of Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”)
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange recently introduced NYSE OptX,
The Exchange has not yet introduced the service established in the NYSE OptX Rule Filing to ATP Holders. As stated in the NYSE OptX Rule Filing, the Exchange will announce the effective date of the rebranded service in a Trader Update no later than 90 days following approval of the NYSE OptX Rule Filing. The NYSE OptX Rule Filing was approved on January 3, 2017. The Exchange notes it will publish the Trader Update announcing the effective date of the re-branded service, NYSE Options IMprint, no later than April 3, 2017. As represented in the NYSE OptX Rule Filing, the effective date of NYSE Options IMprint will be no later than 270 days following publication of the Trader Update.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
This filing is made pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
This filing relates solely to effecting a change in an existing order-entry or trading system of a self-regulatory organization that (i) does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition, and (iii) does not have the effect of limiting the access to or the availability of the system, and as such takes effect upon filing under Subsection (iii) of Paragraph (A).
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to rename NYSE OptX, an order entry platform that would allow for the submission of Qualified Contingent Cross orders (“QCC Orders”)
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange recently introduced NYSE OptX, an order entry platform that would allow for the submission of QCC Orders by OTP Holders
The Exchange has not yet introduced the service established in the NYSE OptX Rule Filing to OTPs. As stated in the NYSE OptX Rule Filing, the Exchange will announce the effective date of the rebranded service in a Trader Update no later than 90 days following approval of the NYSE OptX Rule Filing. The NYSE OptX Rule Filing was approved on January 3, 2017. The Exchange notes it will publish the Trader Update announcing the effective date of the re-branded service, NYSE Options IMprint, no later than April 3, 2017. As represented in the NYSE OptX Rule Filing, the effective date of NYSE Options IMprint will be no later than 270 days following publication of the Trader Update.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
This filing is made pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
This filing relates solely to effecting a change in an existing order-entry or trading system of a self-regulatory organization that (i) does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition, and (iii) does not have the effect of limiting the access to or the availability of the system, and as such takes effect upon filing under Subsection (iii) of Paragraph (A).
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
By letter dated January 17, 2017, Bats BYZ Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange, LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), International Securities Exchange, Inc., Investors' Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE MKT, LLC (collectively, the “Participants” to the National Market System (“NMS”) Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT NMS Plan”)) requested that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) grant limited exemptive relief to the Participants, pursuant to its authority under Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act (“Exchange Act”),
Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act requires that each self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) comply with and, absent reasonable justification or excuse, enforce compliance by its members with, the terms of any effective NMS plan of which it is a sponsor or a participant.
The Participants request that the Commission extend the clock synchronization compliance date set forth in Section 6.7(a)(ii) from within four months after the effective date of CAT NMS Plan, or March 15, 2017, to February 19, 2018 only with respect to Industry Members with Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds as of the date of this order. The Participants note that the existing clock synchronization compliance date under Section 6.7(a)(ii) of March 15, 2017 would remain in effect for those Industry Members with Business Clocks that capture time in milliseconds.
Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS provides that the Commission may exempt from the provisions of an NMS plan, either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any SRO or its members, if the Commission determines that such exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanisms of, a national market system.
The Commission finds that the requested exemption is consistent with the requirements set forth in Rule 608(e). The Commission notes that the Participants have narrowly tailored their exemptive request to seek such relief for a limited period of time and only with respect to those Industry Members with Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds. Given that these Industry Members' obligations to report to the Central Repository do not commence until November 2018 or November 2019 (depending on the size of the firm), the Commission believes that the requested exemption should not result in any adverse effect on the implementation or operation of the consolidated audit trail. In addition, because any changes to these Industry Members' current Business Clocks would require modifications to their firm's systems and processes, this exemption will allow those Industry Members with Business Clocks that do not already capture time in milliseconds additional time to identify and implement the most cost effective clock synchronization solution to achieve compliance with the new standard. Further, the Commission believes that allowing less automated Industry Members to synchronize their clocks by February 19, 2018 is also consistent with the phased implementation approach set forth by FINRA in its Rule 4590.
Therefore, the Commission believes that this exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and
Accordingly,
By the Commission.
The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed on January 4, 2017 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-OCC-2017-801 (“Advance Notice”) pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act”)
OCC protects itself against potential losses that could result from the default of a clearing member by requiring margin to be posted in connection with each member's positions. The amount of margin calculated and collected from OCC's clearing members, along with mutualized clearing-fund resources, is intended to make available to OCC sufficient financial resources for the orderly transfer or liquidation of a defaulting clearing member's positions. OCC's proprietary risk management system, the System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (“STANS”), calculates each clearing member's margin requirement by utilizing Monte Carlo simulations to forecast price movements related to the positions in each clearing member's portfolio. The STANS margin requirement is intended to be sufficient to collateralize the member's losses across its portfolio over a two-day period, under normal market conditions.
To determine margin requirements, STANS utilizes time-series data, including pricing data on assets underlying the options contracts that OCC clears, and performs calculations related to, among other things, the volatilities of these underliers. The margin amount collected from each clearing member also accounts for expected changes in the value of collateral posted in connection with that member's portfolio.
One of the primary risk drivers in the STANS methodology relates to the volatility of individual equity securities, which is derived from pricing data imported monthly into STANS. Between data feeds, the STANS margin methodology relies on a process that adjusts the individual volatility measures of equity-based option underliers (
OCC proposes a number of enhancements to its STANS margin methodology to more accurately compute its clearing member margin requirements. Specifically, OCC proposes the following: (1) )To change the length of time-series data used to calculate the uniform scale factor; (2) to introduce new equity index-based scale factors; (3) to anchor individual risk factor volatilities to longer-term averages; and (4) to implement daily data updates of risk factors in OCC's statistical models used to value U.S. Treasury securities for collateral and margin purposes. Each proposed change is discussed in greater detail below.
First, OCC proposes to change the time-series data period and thereby the data set used to calculate the uniform scale factor. One aspect of the uniform scale factor calculation relies on pricing information, or time-series data, relating to the individual components of the S&P 500 index dating back to 1946, which pre-dates the 1957 introduction of SPX. Because the time-series data pre-dates the SPX's publication, OCC's current practice is to supplement the published SPX data with additional pricing information that relies upon assumptions about what theoretically
Second, OCC proposes to introduce four new scale factors for equity-based options. As noted above, the uniform scale factor is derived from SPX pricing information and currently serves as OCC's sole volatility proxy applicable to equity-based option underliers. According to OCC, the new scale factors are based upon indices whose volatility characteristics more closely correlate with the volatility characteristics of the underliers to which they will be applied; thus the new scale factors will serve as more appropriate volatility proxies for those products. More specifically, OCC proposes to introduce new scale factors based upon the following indices: (1) The Russell 2000® Index (12/29/1978); (2) the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index (9/23/1997); (3) the NASDAQ-100 Index (2/4/1985); and (4) the S&P 100 Index (1/2/1976).
Third, OCC proposes to anchor risk factor volatilities to longer-term trends by applying either the uniform scale factor or the applicable proposed new scale factor, to the greater of two volatility estimates: (i) An observed, historical average; or (ii) a forecasted volatility measure. This proposal would modify the current practice of applying the uniform scale factor solely to the forecasted volatility measure for applicable underliers. OCC states that in those cases where observed, historical average volatilities exceed forecasted volatility measures, OCC's revised methodology would better ensure that short-term or temporary decreases in forecasted volatility do not result in significant margin reductions, thereby improving risk management.
Finally, OCC proposes to implement daily updates to risk factors used to construct the U.S. Treasury yield curve and value U.S. Treasury securities for collateral and margin purposes. According to OCC, daily updates to the U.S. Treasury yield curve would better ensure that the STANS margin calculations accurately reflect the current state of the U.S. Treasury market, particularly during periods of heightened volatility, which would lead to more accurate margin calculations.
Although the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act is instructive.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act (“Clearing Agency Standards”) and the Exchange Act.
The Commission finds the proposed change is consistent with the objectives and principles described in Section 805(b) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act, as described below.
The Commission finds that OCC's proposal is consistent with promoting robust risk management, promoting safety and soundness, reducing systemic risk, and supporting the stability of the broader financial system, and is therefore consistent with the objectives and principles described in Section 805(b) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act.
First, the Commission finds that the proposed change to the SPX time-series data period used in connection with the uniform scale factor is consistent with promoting robust risk management. As described above, OCC is changing the manner in which it calculates the uniform scale factor by limiting SPX time-series data to only those dates subsequent to the introduction of the SPX in 1957. According to OCC, by relying on the published index, instead of assumptions about the SPX's constituents prior to its publication, the proposed change would improve the quality of data used in the uniform scale factor calculation, which is critical to managing certain intra-month volatility risks through OCC's risk management system, STANS. The Commission finds that OCC's proposed reliance on published index data throughout the time-series data period rather than assumptions to calculate the uniform scale factor is an appropriate improvement to the process for performing intra-month volatility adjustments in STANS. The Commission therefore finds the proposed change is consistent with the objective of promoting robust risk management.
Second, the Commission finds that OCC's proposed change to introduce four new scale factors for exchange-traded funds and other equity-based option underliers that correlate more closely with the indices used in the proposed scale factor calculations is consistent with promoting robust risk
Third, the Commission finds that the proposed change to apply the uniform scale factor and each proposed scale factor to the greater of the historical and forecasted volatility measure for applicable instruments is consistent with promoting robust risk management. According to OCC, the proposed change to anchor volatilities in observed, historical averages mitigates procyclical reductions in margin requirements.
Lastly, the Commission finds that the proposed change to incorporate daily updates into time-series data used to construct the U.S. Treasury yield curve for collateral and margin purposes is consistent with promoting robust risk management. According to OCC, the proposed change is designed to better ensure that the STANS margin calculations accurately reflect the value of U.S. Treasuries posted as collateral, especially during periods of heightened volatility. This, in turn, would better ensure that clearing members post sufficient collateral in support of their options portfolios and remain within OCC's risk tolerance. More accurate valuation of U.S. Treasuries for collateral and margin purposes should improve OCC's ability to monitor and manage its risks and therefore is consistent with promoting robust risk management.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that OCC's proposal promotes robust risk management through improvements to the data, scale factors, and methodology used in STANS margin calculations. The Commission also finds that the proposal thereby promotes the safety and soundness of OCC and its members by better capturing volatility risks in margin requirements, which, in turn, should serve to reduce systemic risks and support the stability of the broader financial system. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the stated objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act.
The Commission finds that OCC's proposal is consistent with the Clearing Agency Standards, specifically Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (b)(2) under the Exchange Act.
The Commission finds that OCC's proposal is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (b)(2) under the Exchange Act. The proposal would better enable OCC to limit its potential losses from clearing-member defaults under normal market conditions by improving the data, scale factors, and methodology used to derive certain volatility and other estimates for purposes of margin calculations. By improving these estimates, the STANS margin requirements would better ensure that OCC's members post sufficient collateral in connection with their options positions, thereby protecting OCC against the potential losses from a clearing-member default. Furthermore, by limiting OCC's exposure to such losses, the proposal better ensures that OCC would continue operations without disruption and that non-defaulting clearing members would not be exposed to losses they cannot anticipate or control.
The proposal also would improve the risk-based models and parameters that OCC uses to set margin requirements and limit its credit exposures to clearing members under normal market conditions. STANS, as discussed above, is a risk-based, forecasting tool that OCC currently uses to calculate margin requirements that would be sufficient to collateralize each clearing member's losses over a two-day period under normal market conditions. The proposal incrementally enhances STANS by improving the data, scale factors, and methodology used to derive certain volatility and other estimates relevant to risk-based margin calculations. The proposal would improve the quality of data used to estimate risk drivers in the STANS margin calculations, for example, by relying solely on published index data throughout the uniform scale factor time-series data period. In addition, the four new scale factors would more accurately reflect intra-month volatility risks associated with applicable option underliers in the STANS margin calculations. The proposal also would better ensure that the STANS margin requirements remain anchored to historical average volatilities, and would thereby mitigate pro-cyclical reductions in margin requirements, by applying the uniform scale factor and each proposed scale factor to the greater of an observed, historical average and a forecasted volatility measure. Finally, incorporating daily updates into time-series data used to construct the U.S. Treasury yield curve would improve valuation of U.S. Treasury collateral and thereby the accuracy of STANS margin calculations, because margin requirements account for expected changes in the value of posted U.S. Treasury collateral.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that OCC's proposal is consistent with the Clearing Agency Standards, specifically Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (b)(2) under the Exchange Act.
By the Commission.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of an extension of the information collections required for (1) complaints filed under 49 U.S.C. 10701-10707, 11101-11103, 11701-11707 (rail), 14701-14707 (motor, water & intermediaries), and 15901-15906 (pipelines) and 49 CFR part 1111; (2) petitions for declaratory orders under 5 U.S.C. 554(e) and 49 U.S.C. 1321; and (3) catch-all petitions (for relief not otherwise specified) under 49 U.S.C. 1321 and 49 CFR part 1117. Under these statutory and regulatory sections, the Board provides procedures for persons to make a broad range of claims and to seek a broad range of remedies before the Board. The information collections relevant to these complaints and petitions are described separately below. The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by April 7, 2017.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board: Information Collection Activities.” These comments should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Chad Lallemand, Surface Transportation Board Desk Officer, by email at
For further information regarding this collection, contact Michael Higgins, Deputy Director, Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0284 or at
For each collection, comments are requested concerning: (1) The accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate; and (4) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility. Submitted comments will be summarized and included in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a Federal agency conducting or sponsoring a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
On November 17, 2016, Delmarva Central Railroad Company (DCR), at that time a noncarrier, filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease and operate approximately 161.59 miles of rail line (the Line) owned by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR). Notice of the exemption was served and published in the
On December 14, 2016, SMART/TD Delaware State Legislative Board (SMART/TD) petitioned the Board to revoke the lease and operation exemption.
SMART/TD also asserts that the lease will result in replacing a “qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable” labor force with “untrained and unfamiliar” employees, which, according to SMART/TD, raises safety concerns. According to SMART/TD, these concerns implicate the national rail transportation policy (RTP) goal of “operat[ing] transportation facilities and equipment without detriment to the public health and safety.” 49 U.S.C. 10101(8). Moreover, citing the RTP policy goal of “encourag[ing] fair wages and safe and suitable working conditions in the railroad industry,” 49 U.S.C. 10101(11), SMART/TD asserts that DCR will employ “an inferior, unqualified labor force that is willing to accept less money because they are less qualified,” and that DCR's employees' wages and benefits will be inferior to those of Class I railroad employees.
DCR filed a reply on December 27, 2016. In response to SMART/TD's suggestion that DCR cannot safely operate the Line, DCR notes that it is under the control of Carload, a noncarrier holding company that owns and operates other Class III carriers.
DCR further explains that the concerns about bridge maintenance are unwarranted. DCR states that NSR has maintained the bridges in full compliance with FRA standards and safe operating practices. DCR notes that,
As to concerns about wages and benefits, DCR asserts that it offers some of the best wages and benefits of any employer on the Delmarva Peninsula. DCR notes that it received more applications for employment than there are available positions. It adds that it requires all its employees to abide by all applicable safety rules and offers suitable working conditions.
Because DCR's lease and operation exemption has gone into effect, SMART/TD's request will be treated as a petition to reopen and revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d).
Here, SMART/TD fails to establish that revocation of the exemption is necessary to carry out the RTP. Although SMART/TD has cited the RTP goals of operating without detriment to the public health and safety (49 U.S.C. 10101(8)) and encouraging fair wages and suitable working conditions (49 U.S.C. 10101(11)), it has not shown that regulation is necessary to carry out these goals.
The Board takes safety concerns seriously; however, SMART/TD's concerns here are vague and speculative and do not arise from any demonstrated shortcomings specific to DCR. DCR has expressed a commitment to abide by FRA regulations, and its parent, Carload, is familiar with FRA's requirements. As to maintenance, DCR states that it has already inspected the bridges and has explained the one extended bridge closure cited by SMART/TD. Furthermore, NSR's contract with DCR obligates DCR to comply with FRA standards of operation, to maintain the tracks at standards specified by NSR, and to carry certain insurance policies covering incidents that might occur while operating the Line.
SMART/TD's concern about DCR's having fewer resources than NSR, the Line's Class I owner, also does not warrant revocation. Class I carriers routinely spin-off lines to newly formed Class III carriers, and SMART/TD has not demonstrated that DCR will be any less prepared to assume the responsibility to maintain and operate the Line that any other new Class III carrier would be. Moreover, as DCR notes, its parent company, Carload, is an experienced shortline operator. DCR explains that Carload's railroads “have strong safety records and there have been no FRA or STB reported allegations that its shortline employees have been treated unfairly or required to operate in unsafe conditions;” SMART/TD has offered no evidence to the contrary. SMART/TD has also failed to show that the labor impact here is different from, or greater than, the impacts typically associated with the acquisition of a rail line by any new carrier.
For the foregoing reasons, SMART/TD has not shown that reopening and revocation are supported by material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances, or that applying the Board's regulation to the transaction is necessary to carry out the RTP. Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to revoke DCR's exemption or begin a revocation proceeding.
1. SMART/TD's petition to revoke DCR's exemption is denied.
2. This decision is effective on its date of service.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an extension of approval for the collection of the Report of Fuel Cost, Consumption, and Surcharge Revenue.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by May 8, 2017.
Direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
For further information regarding this collection, contact Michael Higgins, Deputy Director, Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0284 or at
For each collection, comments are requested concerning: (1) The accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate; and (4) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility. Submitted comments will be summarized and included in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), federal agencies are required to provide, prior to an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 60-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 47 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 November 25, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 47 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 85317). The public comment period ended on December 27, 2016, 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 47 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 April 1, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 24 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 6987; 79 FR 18388):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0194. Their exemptions are effective as of April 1, 2016, and will expire on April 1, 2018.
As of April 6, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0382. Their exemptions are effective as of April 6, 2016, and will expire on April 6, 2018.
As of April 15, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Maximo E. Gaytan (CO) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 14579; 79 FR 28590):
This driver was included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0013. The exemption is effective as of April 15, 2016, and will expire on April 15, 2018.
As of April 27, 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 13686; 77 FR 25227):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0383. Their exemptions are effective as of April 27, 2016, and will expire on April 27, 2018.
As of April 30, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 2 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 10612; 79 FR 14579; 79 FR 28590; 79 FR 27685):
The drivers were included in Docket Nos. FMCSA-2014-0012; FMCSA-2014-0013. Their exemptions are effective as of April 30, 2016, and will expire on April 30, 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 renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 62 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
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. Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0301 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years 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 two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 62 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period
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.
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. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 62 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement (65 FR 45817; 65 FR 66286; 65 FR 77066; 65 FR 78256; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 71610; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 10300; 68 FR 13360; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 70 FR 7545; 70 FR 7546; 70 FR 12265; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 55820; 71 FR 63379; 71 FR 63380; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 7111; 72 FR 7812; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 11426; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 74563; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 78422; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 6212; 74 FR 6689; 74 FR 8302; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 77949; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9859; 76 FR 9861; 76 FR 9865; 76 FR 11215; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 68199; 77 FR 68200; 77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 10250; 78 FR 11731; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR 12817; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR 797; 78 FR 1919; 78 FR 8689; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 14410; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 65760; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73397; 79 FR 73687; 80 FR 3305; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 6162; 80 FR 7678; 80 FR 7679; 80 FR 8751; 80 FR 9304; 80 FR 15859; 80 FR 20562). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. 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 renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and are discussed below:
As of March 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 55820; 71 FR 63379; 71 FR 63380; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 9397; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 74563; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 78422; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6211; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR 77949; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 9865; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 68199; 77 FR 68200; 77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 797; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 11731; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR 12817; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 65760; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73397; 79 FR 73687; 80 FR 3305; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 8751; 80 GT 9304):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket Nos. FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0299. Their exemptions are effective as of March 1, 2017, and will expire on March 1, 2019.
As of March 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066; 67 FR 71610; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 70 FR 7545; 72 FR 7812; 74 FR 6689; 76 FR 9859; 78 FR 8689; 80 FR 7678):
The drivers were included on the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-13411. Their exemptions are effective as of March 4, 2017, and will expire on March 4, 2019.
As of March 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 23 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 66286; 66 FR 13825; 68 FR 10300; 70 FR 7546; 72
The drivers were included on the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2014-0301. Their exemptions are effective as of March 7, 2017, and will expire on March 7, 2019.
As of March 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 15 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 66286; 65 FR 78256; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 13360; 70 FR 7545; 70 FR 12265; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 7812; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 11426; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 75803; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6689; 74 FR 8302; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 77949; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9859; 76 FR 9861; 76 FR 11215; 78 FR 8689; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR 14410; 80 FR 15859):
The drivers were included on the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0385. Their exemptions are effective as of March 23, 2017, and will expire on March 23, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (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.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 62 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 17 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2017. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0377 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.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 17 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Burnett, 41, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “After careful assessment of patient Chad Burnett for a complete eye vision and health exam on 5-3-2016, I feel Chad would be visually qualified to obtain his CMV license for driving.” Mr. Burnett reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 720,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Chubb, 68, has had a central retinal vein occlusion in his left eye since 2006. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated that Mr. Chubb does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a CMV. Mr. Chubb reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating 3.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Currie, 60, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1989. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Currie has operated a commercial vehicle with his prosthetic right eye for years. Nothing has changed in his vision or peripheral vision to indicate that he cannot continue to operate in the same capacity he has been operating for the past several years.” Mr. Currie reported that he has driven straight trucks for 26 years, accumulating 1.09 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, 72, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Fitzpatrick is able to recognize colors and has no visual deficiencies that would be any hazard to commercial driving.” Mr. Fitzpatrick reported that he has driven straight trucks for 41 years, accumulating 143,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 46 years, accumulating 253,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hattabaugh, 53, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2006. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated that Mr. Hattabaugh does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a CMV. Mr. Hattabaugh reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 90,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Higgins, 62, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “Patient has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks of commercial vehicle [
Mr. Holman, 46, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1997. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion Mr. Holman has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Holman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hood, 64, has had a corneal scar in his right eye since 1997. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion Mr [sic] hood has more than adequate VA [sic] to operate [sic] commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hood reported that he has driven straight trucks for 27 years,
Mr. Hummel, 66, has phthisis bulbi in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In summary, he has 20/20 uncorrected and corrected vision in his left eye and no vision in the right eye, a well-preserved visual field, and normal color testing that qualifies him to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hummel reported that he has driven straight trucks for 41 years, accumulating 410,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 6,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Martin, 63, has a cataract in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is count fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “Mr. Martin has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Martin reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 279,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Montgomery, 51, has a retinal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “From a visual standpoint, my medical opinion is that that [sic] he has the ability to sufficiently perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Montgomery reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 5,600 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating 16,800. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Pena Ortega, 32, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “It is my medical opinion that Huber Ortega has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Pena Ortega reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 200,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 110,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Perkins, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “It is in my professional opinion that due to the non-progressive congenital condition of refractive amblyopia in Mr. Perkins left eye and overall visual field status and corrected vision OD that there are no visual concerns for Mr. Perkins to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Perkins reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Reese, 31, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “I do believe that Mr. Reese has sufficient vision to drive and operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Reese reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 100,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Robinson, 60, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1975. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “Patient has sufficient vision to drive commercial truck.” Mr. Robinson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Test, 38, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Thomas R. Test has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Test reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 2.6 million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 10 MPH.
Mr. Tiefenthaler, 56, has a toxoplasmosis scar in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “I certify that, in my medical opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Tiefenthaler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 80,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 3.25 million miles, and buses for 2 years, accumulating 1,600 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
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. 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
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA 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 documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 81 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
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. Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12432; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2012-0040; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0159; FMCSA-2012-0214; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0298; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 81 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
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.
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. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 81 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement (67 FR 54525; 67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 8794; 69 FR 64806; 69 FR 71100; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 8659; 71 FR 5105; 71 FR 19600; 71 FR 63380; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 1054; 72 FR 1056; 72 FR 5489; 73 FR 11989; 73 FR 35194; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 76439; 74 FR 980; 74 FR 981; 74 FR 6207; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 9478; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 13653; 75 FR 34209; 75 FR 44050; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 47886; 75 FR 52062; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 63255; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 79083; 75 FR 79084; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 4414; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 8809; 76 FR 46793; 76 FR 59245; 77 FR 7234; 77 FR 17107; 77 FR 23799; 77 FR 27847; 77 FR 33558; 77 FR 36336; 77 FR 38386; 77 FR 46795; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 68200; 77 FR 68202; 77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74731; 77 FR 75496; 78 FR 797; 78 FR 798; 78 FR 1919; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR 12817; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 18391; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 29495; 79 FR 29498; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51642; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 59348; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 65759; 79 FR 69985; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73397; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 18693; 80 FR 3305; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 5615; 80 FR 8927; 80 FR 9304). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. 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 renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and are discussed below:
As of February 5, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 26 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (71 FR 5105; 71 FR 19600; 73 FR 11989; 73 FR 35194; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 73 FR 75803; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9478; 75 FR 13653; 75 FR 44050; 75 FR 52062; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 70078; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 46793; 76 FR 59245; 77 FR 7234; 77 FR 17107; 77 FR 27847; 77 FR 36336; 77 FR 38386; 77 FR 46795; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 68200; 77 FR 68202; 78 FR 797; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 18391; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 29495; 79 FR 29498; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51642; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 59348; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 65759; 79 FR 69985; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73397; 80 FR 3305; 80 FR 8927; 80 FR 9304):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket Nos. FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0159; FMCSA-2012-0214; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0298; FMCSA-2014-0299. Their exemptions are effective as of February 5, 2017 and will expire on February 5, 2019.
As of February 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Thomas J. Boss (IL) has satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 69 FR 71100; 72 FR 1054; 74 FR 980; 76 FR 4414; 78 FR 798; 80 FR 5615).
The driver was included in Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12844. The exemption is effective as of February 7, 2017, and will expire on February 7, 2019.
As of February 11, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 70534; 78 FR 9772; 80 FR 3308):
The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0337. Their exemptions are effective as of February 11, 2017, and will expire on February 11, 2019.
As of February 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 30 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR 2473; 80 FR 18693):
The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0300. Their exemptions are effective as of February 18, 2017, and will expire on February 18, 2019.
As of February 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (67 FR 54525; 68 FR 8794; 69 FR 64806; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 8659; 71 FR 63380; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 1056; 72 FR 5489; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 76439; 74 FR 981; 74 FR 6207; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 34209; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 47886; 75 FR 63255; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 79083; 75 FR 79084; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 4414; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 8809; 77 FR 23799; 77 FR 33558; 77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74731; 77 FR 75496; 78 FR 1919; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR 12817; 80 FR 3723):
The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12432; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2012-0040; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339. Their exemptions are effective as of February 25, 2017, and will expire on February 25, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (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.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 81 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 41 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 7, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0383 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 41 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. Akers, 24, 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. Akers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Akers 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 an operator's license from West Virginia.
Mr. Auger, 58, 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. Auger understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Auger 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. Banks, 32, 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. Banks understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Banks 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 South Dakota.
Mr. Beard, 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. Beard understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Beard 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 C CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Britnell, 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. Britnell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Britnell 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 North Carolina.
Mr. Capeder, 56, 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. Capeder understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
Mr. Carnazzo, 47, 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. Carnazzo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carnazzo 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 Massachusetts.
Mr. Coleman, 64, 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. Coleman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coleman 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 and stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Washington.
Mr. Coleman, 24, 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. Coleman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coleman 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 Carolina.
Mr. Cologne, 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. Cologne understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cologne 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 Louisiana.
Mr. Comstock, 28, 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. Comstock understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Comstock 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. Cromartie, 64, 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. Cromartie understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cromartie 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 Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dark, 36, 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. Dark understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dark 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. Dellavolpe, 67, 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. Dellavolpe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dellavolpe 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 New Jersey.
Mr. Durand, 28, 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
Mr. Farris, 55, has had ITDM since 1990. 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. Farris understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Farris 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. Fown, 58, 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. Fown understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fown 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 Ohio.
Mr. Gamache, 55, 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. Gamache understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gamache 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 Hampshire.
Mr. Glaeser, 48, 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. Glaeser understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Glaeser 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.
Mr. Gray, 58, 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. Gray understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gray 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 California.
Mr. Guthrie, 22, 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. Guthrie understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Guthrie 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 Kentucky.
Mr. Hamilton, 60, has had ITDM since 2009. 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. Hamilton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hamilton 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 South Dakota.
Mr. Hanson, 54, 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. Hanson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hanson 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 Minnesota.
Ms. Heck, 51, has had ITDM since 1999. 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. Heck understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Heck 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 an operator's license from Delaware.
Mr. Isom, 31, 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. Isom understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Isom 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. Johnson, 63, 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. 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 optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Johnson, 34, 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. 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 has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Luck, 67, 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. Luck understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Luck 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. Markin, 48, 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. Markin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Markin 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 Wisconsin.
Mr. May, 61, 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. May understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. May 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 Maryland.
Mr. Means, 65, 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. Means understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Means 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 South Carolina.
Mr. Meyer, 54, 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. Meyer understands
Mr. Morris, 24, 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. Morris understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morris 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 Washington.
Mr. Parks, 24, 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. Parks understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Parks 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. Pitt, 54, 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. Pitt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pitt 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 New York.
Mr. Ragin, 43, has had ITDM since 1997. 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. Ragin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ragin 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 Connecticut.
Mr. Reynolds, 54, 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. Reynolds understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reynolds 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 Pennsylvania.
Mr. Smith, 57, 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 Massachusetts.
Ms. Spurgeon, 63, 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. Spurgeon understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Spurgeon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2016 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class C CDL from New York.
Mr. Sypolt, 54, 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. Sypolt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sypolt 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 West Virginia.
Mr. Wedding, 32, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him
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
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
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 7, 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
By direction of the Secretary:
Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness (OSP), 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 also includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 7, 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
44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
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 Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), 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 also includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 7, 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
44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
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 |