| Page Range | 13549-13740 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 13659 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13702 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13676 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 13599 - Filing Dates for the Montana Special Congressional Election | |
| 82 FR 13600 - Filing Dates for the South Carolina Special Elections in the 5th Congressional District | |
| 82 FR 13717 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13720 - Approved Agency Information Collection Activities | |
| 82 FR 13722 - Proposed Renewal of Agency Information Collection Activities | |
| 82 FR 13736 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): War Risk Insurance, Applications and Related Information | |
| 82 FR 13730 - Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 13737 - Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 13711 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13722 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13714 - Proposed Renewal of Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13593 - Credit Union Advisory Council Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13579 - Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC) Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13730 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SLO GIN; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13731 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SWEPTAWAY; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13728 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SAILOR'S DELIGHT; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13737 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CAROUSEL; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13735 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CLUELESS; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13727 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ESCAPE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13732 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FAST MOVING DIME; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13728 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FINN WAY; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13732 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel GREYHOUND; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13739 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LATITUDE ADJUSTMENT; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13733 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LOTUS; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13651 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document | |
| 82 FR 13736 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MEET VIRGINIA; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13734 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MOTIVATION; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13735 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel NAUTI MERMAID; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13598 - Next Meeting of the North American Numbering Council | |
| 82 FR 13738 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel NOMADE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13731 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PACIFIC RAIDER; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13727 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel P-SQUARED; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13738 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SAPPHIRE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13733 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BORNEO PRINCESS; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13729 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BLACKBIRD VII; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 13650 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, Form I-864; Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member, Form I-864A; EZ Affidavit of Support Under Section 213 of the Act, I-864EZ; Intending Immigrant's Affidavit of Support Exemption, I-864W | |
| 82 FR 13652 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service | |
| 82 FR 13710 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Representatives of the Administrator | |
| 82 FR 13708 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate Application | |
| 82 FR 13709 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at Tallahassee International Airport | |
| 82 FR 13710 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft | |
| 82 FR 13709 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification and Operation FAR 125 | |
| 82 FR 13709 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Domestic and International Flight Plans | |
| 82 FR 13724 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 13726 - Notice of Request for the Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 13725 - Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 13723 - Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 13638 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13640 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13638 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13707 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Safety, Awareness, Feedback, and Evaluation (SAFE) Program | |
| 82 FR 13708 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 13706 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Service Difficulty Reporting System | |
| 82 FR 13707 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Scholes International Airport, Galveston, Texas | |
| 82 FR 13706 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Surplus Property Release at the Valdosta Regional Airport, Valdosta, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 13581 - Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; Deep-Set Tuna Longline Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 13653 - Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
| 82 FR 13654 - Certain Electrical Connectors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 13740 - Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms | |
| 82 FR 13677 - Report on Changes to Low-Level Waste Burial Charges | |
| 82 FR 13662 - Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on NuScale; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13636 - 60-Day Notice Template for Request for Generic Clearance for the Collection of Routine Customer Feedback on HHS Communications | |
| 82 FR 13643 - Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) Recertification | |
| 82 FR 13642 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for Gunderson Marine LLC HULL 115 | |
| 82 FR 13643 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for Conrad Industries HULL C-1148 | |
| 82 FR 13643 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for JT Marine Shipyard Hull #005 | |
| 82 FR 13608 - Joint Meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 13632 - Enhancing Patient Engagement Efforts Across the Food and Drug Administration; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 13634 - Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012; Regulatory Science Initiatives; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 13739 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13572 - Safety Zone; United Illuminating Company Housatonic River Crossing Project; Housatonic River; Milford and Stratford, CT | |
| 82 FR 13648 - Enforcement Actions Summary | |
| 82 FR 13575 - Surface Transportation Vulnerability Assessments and Security Plans (VASP); Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 13635 - National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps | |
| 82 FR 13579 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38-Spartanburg County, South Carolina, Authorization of Production Activity, ZF Transmissions Gray Court, LLC, (Automatic Transmission and Powertrain Subassemblies and Parts, Transmission Shafts and Cranks), Gray Court, South Carolina | |
| 82 FR 13578 - Foreign-Trade Zone 43-Battle Creek, Michigan, Application for Subzone Expansion, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, Zeeland, Michigan | |
| 82 FR 13578 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7-Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Pharma, Ltd.; (Pharmaceuticals); Manati, Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 13576 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13597 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 13595 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 13596 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 13580 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13602 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension | |
| 82 FR 13706 - Proposal To Extend Cultural Property Agreement Between the United States and Mali | |
| 82 FR 13705 - Proposal To Extend Cultural Property Agreement Between the United States and Guatemala | |
| 82 FR 13705 - Proposal To Extend Cultural Property Agreement Between the United States and Belize | |
| 82 FR 13562 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Adjustment of Georges Bank and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder Annual Catch Limits | |
| 82 FR 13658 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Periodic Medical Surveillance Examinations for Coal Miners | |
| 82 FR 13570 - Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines AG Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 13594 - U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13660 - Final Notice of Research Terms and Conditions (RTC) To Address and Implement the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards Issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) | |
| 82 FR 13644 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Data Storage Products | |
| 82 FR 13656 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer of Firearm and Registration to Special Occupational Taxpayer, ATF Form 3 (5320.3) | |
| 82 FR 13655 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection; Relief of Disabilities and Application for Restoration of Explosives Privileges (ATF Form 5400.29) | |
| 82 FR 13655 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act Registration Form, ATF F 5070.1 | |
| 82 FR 13657 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection; Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy, ATF F 6330.1 | |
| 82 FR 13658 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges, ATF F 3210.1 | |
| 82 FR 13576 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 13581 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Breakwater Replacement Project in Eastport, Maine | |
| 82 FR 13607 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations: Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Safety and Health Practices; Extension of Public Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 13551 - Medical Devices; Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices; Classification of the High Throughput Genomic Sequence Analyzer for Clinical Use | |
| 82 FR 13549 - Medical Devices; Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices; Classification of the Continuous Glucose Monitor Secondary Display | |
| 82 FR 13553 - Medical Devices; Neurological Devices, Classification of the Vibratory Counter-Stimulation Device | |
| 82 FR 13609 - Medical Devices; Exemptions From Premarket Notification: Class II Devices; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 13607 - Notice of Proposed Subaward Under a Council-Selected Restoration Component Award | |
| 82 FR 13661 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13677 - Submission for Review: Self-Certification of Full-Time School Attendance for the School Year, RI 25-14 and Information and Instructions for Completing the Self-Certification of Full-Time School Attendance for the School Year, RI 25-14A | |
| 82 FR 13564 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex; Adjustment to the Skate Wing and Skate Bait Inseason Possession Limits | |
| 82 FR 13579 - Request for Public Comments on Strategic Plan for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program | |
| 82 FR 13605 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13678 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Order Price Protections | |
| 82 FR 13702 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the USCF Canadian Crude Oil Index Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 | |
| 82 FR 13698 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6191 To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web Site Data Publication Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 13700 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 67 To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web Site Data Publication Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 13688 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 7.46 To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web site Data Publication Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 13702 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule | |
| 82 FR 13685 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 67 To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web Site Data Publication Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 13690 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Concerning Enhancements to OCC's Stock Loan Programs | |
| 82 FR 13704 - Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule | |
| 82 FR 13604 - Block Division, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
| 82 FR 13639 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13637 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13639 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13640 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13641 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13641 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13577 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the South Dakota Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 13578 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 283 (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; West Tennessee Area | |
| 82 FR 13662 - Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 82 FR 13565 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters | |
| 82 FR 13567 - Airworthiness Directives; Various Model 234 and Model CH-47D Helicopters | |
| 82 FR 13572 - Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees | |
| 82 FR 13554 - Revision of Regulations Governing Freedom of Information Act Requests |
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime 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.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the continuous glucose monitor secondary display into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the continuous glucose monitor secondary display's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective March 14, 2017. The classification was applicable on January 23, 2015.
Ryan Lubert, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4545, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6357,
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, also known as De Novo classification, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.
On December 15, 2014, Dexcom Inc., submitted a request for classification of the Dexcom Share Direct Secondary Displays under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on January 23, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 862.1350.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a continuous glucose monitor secondary display will need to comply with the special controls named in this final administrative order. A De Novo classification decreases regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device type as class I or II via the De Novo pathway, other manufacturers do not have to submit a De Novo request or PMA in order to market the same type of device, unless the device has a new intended use or technological characteristics that raise different questions of safety or effectiveness. Instead, manufacturers can use the less burdensome pathway of 510(k), when necessary, to market their device, and the device that was the subject of the original De Novo classification can serve as a predicate device for additional 510(k)s from other manufacturers.
The device is assigned the generic name continuous glucose monitor secondary display, and it is identified as
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks:
FDA believes that the special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness.
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the continuous glucose monitor secondary display they intend to market.
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 862 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Devices being marketed must include appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to data and unauthorized modification of data.
(2) The labeling must prominently and conspicuously display a warning that states “Dosing decisions should not be made based on this device. The user should follow instructions on the continuous glucose monitoring system.”
(3) The labeling for the device must include a statement that reads “This device is not intended to replace self-monitoring practices as advised by a physician.”
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the high throughput genomic sequence analyzer for clinical use into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the classification of the high throughput genomic sequence analyzer for clinical use device. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective March 14, 2017. The classification was applicable on November 19, 2013.
Steven Tjoe, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4550, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002, 301-796-5866,
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, also known as De Novo classification, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA issued an order on September 13, 2013, classifying the Illumina MiSeqDx Platform into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II.
On September 23, 2013, FDA received from Illumina, Inc., a request for classification of the Illumina MiSeqDx Platform submitted under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on November 19, 2013, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 862.2265.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm intending to market a high throughput genomic sequence analyzer for clinical use will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. A De Novo classification decreases regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device type as class I or II via the De Novo pathway, other manufacturers do not have to submit a De Novo request or PMA in order to market the same type of device, unless the device has a new intended use or technological characteristics that raise different questions of safety or effectiveness. Instead, manufacturers can use the less burdensome pathway of 510(k), when necessary, to market their device, and the device that was the subject of the original De Novo classification can serve as a predicate device for additional 510(k)s from other manufacturers.
The device is assigned the generic name high throughput genomic sequence analyzer for clinical use, and it is identified as an analytical instrument system intended to generate, measure and sort signals in order to analyze nucleic acid sequences in a clinical sample. The device may include a signal reader unit; reagent handling, dedicated instrument control, and other hardware components; raw data storage mechanisms; data acquisition software; and software to process detected signals.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks:
FDA believes that the special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness. The special controls for a high throughput genomic sequence analyzer for clinical use include a detailed outline of analytical performance information that must be generated for the instrument system (
The validation testing, as required by the special controls, only establishes the instrument's general capabilities and does not establish the instrument's capabilities or suitability with respect to any specific claims. Instruments indicated for a specific diagnostic test, including those that make claims for a specific test, (
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA believes premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device type and, therefore, is planning to exempt the device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. Once finalized, persons who intend to market this device type need not submit a 510(k) premarket notification containing information on the high throughput genomic sequence analyzer for clinical use prior to marketing the device.
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 862 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) The labeling for the instrument system must reference legally marketed pre-analytical and analytical reagents to be used with the instrument system and include or reference legally marketed analytical software that includes sequence alignment and variant calling functions, to be used with the instrument system.
(2) The labeling for the instrument system must include a description of the following information:
(i) The specimen type(s) validated as an appropriate source of nucleic acid for this instrument.
(ii) The type(s) of nucleic acids (
(iii) The type(s) of sequence variations (
(iv) The type(s) of sequencing (
(v) The appropriate read depth for the sensitivity claimed and validation information supporting those claims.
(vi) The nucleic acid extraction method(s) validated for use with the instrument system.
(vii) Limitations must specify the types of sequence variations that the instrument cannot detect with the claimed accuracy and precision (
(viii) Performance characteristics of the instrument system must include:
(A) Reproducibility data generated using multiple instruments and multiple operators, and at multiple sites. Samples tested must include all claimed specimen types, nucleic acid types, sequence variation types, and types of sequencing. Variants queried shall be located in varying sequence context (
(B) Accuracy data for all claimed specimen types and nucleic acid types generated by testing a panel of well characterized samples to query all claimed sequence variation types, types of sequencing, and sequences located in varying sequence context (
(C) If applicable, data describing endogenous or exogenous substances that may interfere with the instrument system.
(D) If applicable, data demonstrating the ability of the system to consistently generate an accurate result for a given sample across different indexing primer combinations.
(ix) The upper and lower limit of input nucleic acid that will achieve the claimed accuracy and reproducibility. Data supporting such claims must also be summarized.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the vibratory counter-stimulation device into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the vibratory counter-stimulation device's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective March 14, 2017. The classification was applicable on December 18, 2013.
Michael Hoffmann, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2640, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6476,
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, also known as De Novo classification, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA issued an order on June 14, 2011, classifying the Symphony Device into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II.
On July 13, 2011, Sensory Medical, Inc. submitted a request for classification of the Symphony Device under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on December 18, 2013, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 882.5895.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a vibratory counter-stimulation device will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. A De Novo classification decreases regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device type as class I or II via the De Novo pathway, other manufacturers do not have to submit a De Novo request or PMA in order to market the same type of device, unless the device has a new intended use or technological characteristics that raise different questions of safety or effectiveness. Instead, manufacturers can use the less burdensome pathway of 510(k), when necessary, to market their device, and the device that was the subject of the original De Novo
The device is assigned the generic name vibratory counter-stimulation device, and it is identified as a prescription device that provides electrically powered mechanical vibration to improve the quality of sleep in patients with primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA believes that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness.
Vibratory counter-stimulation devices are not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to direct the use of the device. As such, the device is a prescription device and must satisfy prescription labeling requirements (see 21 CFR 801.109,
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that the device is not exempt from the premarket notification requirements of the FD&C Act. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit a premarket notification (510(k)), prior to marketing the device, which contains information on the vibratory counter-stimulation device they intend to market.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Neurological devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) Appropriate analysis/testing must demonstrate electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), electrical safety, and thermal safety.
(2) If the device contains software or firmware, appropriate verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
(3) The elements of the device that contact the patient must be assessed to be biocompatible.
(4) Non-clinical testing data (including vibration frequency, amplitude, and acceleration) must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.
(5) Labeling must include:
(i) Specific information pertinent to use of the device by the intended patient population and the treatment regimen;
(ii) Warning to only use the device on normal, intact, clean, healthy skin;
(iii) Warning to not use the device if the user has leg skin disorders, such as eczema, psoriasis, cellulitis, non-healing wounds;
(iv) Warning to discontinue use if Restless Leg Syndrome symptoms worsen; and
(v) Instructions for end users to contact the device manufacturer and MedWatch in case they experience any adverse events when using this device.
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia.
Interim final rule.
This interim final rule updates and clarifies the procedures for submitting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests as required under the
Congress mandated that agencies make changes to their regulations within 180 days of the law taking effect. Because the changes are mandated by Congress and are non-controversial, CSOSA is publishing this rule as an interim final rule.
This interim final rule is effective March 14, 2017.
Sheila Stokes, General Counsel, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, 633 Indiana Ave. NW., Room 1380, Washington, DC 20004; telephone: 202-220-5797; email:
The 2016 Act (Pub. L. 114-185) required agencies to update their regulations on FOIA compliance. The 2016 Act addresses procedural issues to help improve the FOIA process across all Federal agencies. It requires agencies to establish a minimum of 90 days for requesters to file administrative appeals, to establish additional dispute resolution services, and to codify the Department of Justice's “foreseeable harm” standard, which only allows agencies to withhold information if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption or the disclosure is prohibited by law.
CSOSA was established within the Executive Branch of the Federal Government by the
CSOSA is amending its regulations on the process for requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act to comply with the 2016 Act. This includes the process for requests to the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (“PSA”), an independent entity within CSOSA. CSOSA provides supervisory and treatment services to individuals on probation, parole, and supervised release for District of Columbia Code violations. CSOSA also provides supervisory and treatment services to offenders from other jurisdictions in accordance with the Interstate Parole and Probation Compact. PSA supervises, monitors, and provides treatment services to defendants in the U.S. District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and to individuals on pretrial release for District of Columbia Code violations.
CSOSA is revising its FOIA regulations to comply with the 2016 Act. The following is a description of the changes.
CSOSA has updated its regulations at § 802.1 to provide additional information about the FOIA process at CSOSA.
CSOSA has updated its regulations at § 802.2 to include a designation of its Chief FOIA Officer and statement that the Chief FOIA Officer will be responsible for naming the FOIA Public Liaison.
CSOSA has updated its regulations by adding a new § 802.3 and renumbering the remaining sections. The new § 802.3 reinforces CSOSA's commitment to transparency and explains what information and records are available for public inspection. It also speaks to the preservation of records during a request, appeal, or lawsuit under FOIA and CSOSA's disposition and destruction schedule as allowed by the National Archives and Records Administration.
In the renumbered new § 802.4 CSOSA, which discusses the guidelines for disclosure, added information on the applicable exemptions and/or exclusions to disclosure.
In the renumbered new § 802.5 CSOSA added an additional definition.
In the renumbered new § 802.6 CSOSA inserted information about the new FOIA Public Liaison, its role, and the ability to seek dispute resolution from the Office of Government Information Services. In addition, CSOSA added directions for requesting information, the timelines for the release of information, and waiver of fee requests. CSOSA added information about requests for modifications, denials, and exceptional circumstances for agency non-compliance with deadlines set by law. CSOSA also added information about withholding information due to foreseeable harm, a standard that was codified by the 2016 Act. Finally, CSOSA added information about how requesters can file administrative appeals of agency decisions.
The old § 802.7 was deleted. In the new § 802.7 CSOSA inserted information of what occurs if the documents requested were created more than 25 years prior to the request for information and how CSOSA staff should handle requests for non-Federal agency records that are part of CSOSA records.
In § 802.8 CSOSA added information about expedited processing and how to determine if there is a compelling need for expediting processing.
The new fee provisions of the 2016 Act were incorporated into § 802.10, which include the inability of an agency to assign any search fees if it has failed to follow the deadlines set by the law. Unusual circumstances where more than 5,000 pages are required to comply with the request, fees may be charged by an agency if timely notice is supplied to the requestor. Any court actions may excuse any timeliness issues if a court sets its own time frames.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Privacy, Probation and parole.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia amends 28 CFR part 802 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, 712 (DC Code 24-1232, 24-1233); Pub. L. 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (Jun. 30, 2016).
(a) This part contains regulations of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (“CSOSA” or “Agency”) and the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (“PSA” or “Agency”), which implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Privacy Act (PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a. The Agency provides for the disclosure and production of records in response to FOIA/PA requests, a demand from a court, or other non-congressional authority in connection with a proceeding to which the Agency is not a party. Due to CSOSA's nature as a federal agency with a local mission connected to the District of Columbia, exemption protections, including exclusions, are allowed under the FOIA and other safeguard requirements may be applied under the PA.
(b) It is the policy of CSOSA that all employees of CSOSA and PSA (collectively the “Agency”) are to submit all FOIA/PA requests to the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”). The OGC shall make release determinations under either the FOIA/PA pursuant to the procedures set forth in sections §§ 802.6, 802.7, 802.8, 802.14, 802.15, and 802.16.
(a) The purpose of this subpart is to establish procedures for the release of records in the custody, possession or control of the Agency pursuant to the provisions of the FOIA as amended by the
(b) The Director of CSOSA has designated the General Counsel to be the Chief FOIA Officer as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(j).
(c) The Chief FOIA Officer shall designate at least one FOIA Public Liaison as defined in 5 U.S.C 552(j)(2)(H) and 552(l) for assisting in reducing delays, increasing transparency, understanding the status of requests, and assisting in the resolution of disputes.
(a)
(1) The Agency's publications in the
(2) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases.
(3) The Agency's policy statements that have been adopted by the Agency and are not published in the
(4) Administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public.
(5) Copies of all records, regardless of format, that have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records or have been requested three or more times; and these available records exclude first party requests.
(6) Reports available for public inspection shall be available:
(i) In a timely manner;
(ii) With raw statistical data in electronic format;
(iii) In a general index;
(iv) Without charge, license, or registration requirement;
(v) In an aggregated, searchable format;
(vi) In a format that may be downloaded in bulk; and
(vii) Which include, but are not limited to the:
(A) Chief FOIA Officer Report;
(B) Annual FOIA Report; and
(C) Quarterly FOIA Report.
(7) An index of all major information systems of the agency.
(8) A description of major information and record locator systems maintained by the agency.
(9) A handbook for obtaining various types of categories of public information from the Agency pursuant to chapter 35 of Title 44 of the United States Code, and under this section.
(b)
(2) The agency will not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
(a) The authority to release, partially release, or deny access to records and information under the FOIA is limited to the Chief FOIA Officer, FOIA Public Liaison, and his or her designee.
(b) An Agency record will be released in response to a written request, unless a valid legal exemption and/or exclusion to disclosure is asserted.
(1) Any applicable exemption and/or exclusion to disclosure, which is provided under the FOIA in 5 U.S.C. 552, may be asserted. The applicable exemptions and/or exclusions to disclosure are as follows:
(i)
(B) Where there are informant records maintained by a criminal law enforcement agency and the individual's status as an informant is not known.
(C) Where there are classified FBI records pertaining to foreign intelligence, counterintelligence or international terrorism records.
(ii)
(B) Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
(C) Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
(D) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.
(E) Privileged communications within or between agencies, including:
(
(
(
(F) Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy.
(G) Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(H) Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.
(I) Geological information on wells.
(2) A record must exist and be in the possession and control of the Agency at the time of the request to be considered subject to this part and the FOIA. There is no obligation to create, compile, or obtain a record to satisfy a FOIA request.
As used in this subpart, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(a)
(2) Your request will be considered received as of the date it is received by CSOSA's FOIA Office.
(3) Generally, all FOIA requests will be processed in the approximate order of receipt, unless the requester shows exceptional circumstances exist to justify an expedited response (
(4) You must describe the records that you seek in enough detail to enable Agency personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, your request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient and subject matter of the record. As a general rule, the more specific you are about the records or type of records that you want, the more likely the Agency will be able to locate the records in response to your request. If a determination is made that your request does not reasonably describe records, the Agency will tell you either what additional information is needed or why your request is otherwise insufficient. You will be given the opportunity to discuss your request so that you may modify it to meet the requirements of this section.
(5)(i)
(B) To assist in properly identifying requested records, the OGC and/or FOIA Office may request that the offender/defendant provide his/her DCDC or PDID number.
(ii)
(B) To assist in properly identifying requested records, the OGC and/or FOIA Office may request that the offender/defendant provided his/her DCDC or PDID number.
(6) You must state in your request a firm agreement to pay the fees for search, duplication, and review as may ultimately be determined. The agreement may state the upper limit (but not less than $10.00) that the requester is willing to pay for processing the request. A request that fees be waived or reduced may accompany the agreement to pay fees and will be considered to the extent that such request is made in accordance with § 802.4(b) and provides supporting information to be measured against the fee waiver standard set forth in § 802.9(g). The requester shall be notified in writing of the decision to grant or deny the fee waiver. If a requester has an outstanding balance of search, review, or duplication fees due for FOIA request processing, the requirements of this paragraph (a)(6) are not met until the requester has remitted the outstanding balance due.
(b)
(i) The twenty (20) day period shall be tolled if:
(A) The Agency needs clarification and/or more information from the requester; or
(B) Clarification is needed with the requester regarding fee assessment.
(C) The agency's receipt of the requester's response to the agency's request for information or clarification ends the tolling period.
(ii) The twenty (20) day period shall be extended for ten (10) additional working days with written notice to the requester for unusual circumstances.
(A) Unusual circumstances means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of particular requests—
(
(
(
(B) The written notice to the requester for unusual circumstances shall:
(
(
(
(
(iii) When the Agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, if the Agency can show exceptional circumstances exist and that the Agency is exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the Agency may be allowed additional time to complete its review of the records.
(A) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(1)(iii), the term “exceptional circumstances” does not include a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests under this section, unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.
(B) Refusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request or arrange an alternative time frame for processing a request (or a modified request) after being given an opportunity to do so by the Agency to whom the person made the request shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist for purposes of this paragraph (b)(1)(iii).
(2)
(i) Be signed by the Chief FOIA Officer or his or her designee;
(ii) State the exemptions relied on to not release the information;
(A) Advise the requester of the reason of adverse determination and the right to administrative appeal in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section;
(B) Advise the right of such person to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison Officer of the agency; and
(C) Advise the right of such person to seek assistance from the Office of Government Information Services;
(iii) If technically feasible, indicate the amount of information deleted at the place in the record where such deletion is made (unless providing such indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption relied upon to deny such material);
(iv) If a document contains information exempt from disclosure, any reasonably segregable portion of the record will be provided to you after deletion of the exempt portions;
(v) An agency shall—
(A) Withhold information under this section only if—
(
(
(B) Partially withhold information under this section only if—
(
(
(vi) Nothing in this paragraph (b)(2) requires disclosure of information that is otherwise prohibited from disclosure by law, or otherwise exempted from disclosure by statute.
(3)
(c)
(i) Access to records has been denied in whole or in part;
(ii) There has been an adverse determination of the requester's category as provided in § 802.10(d);
(iii) Inadequacy of the FOIA search;
(iv) A request for fee waiver or reduction has been denied; or
(v) It has been determined that no responsive records exist.
(2) Appeals must be made within ninety (90) days of the receipt of the letter with an adverse determination. Both the envelope and the letter of appeal should be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, 633 Indiana Avenue NW., 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 and must be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal.”
(3) The General Counsel will make an appeal determination within twenty (20) days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) from the date of receipt of the appeal. However, for a good reason, this time limit may be extended up to an additional ten (10) days. If, after review, the General Counsel determines that additional information should be released, it will accompany the appeal response. If, after review, the General Counsel determines to uphold the initial review, we will inform you.
(a)
(2) When a FOIA request is received for a record created by the Agency that includes information by another Federal agency, the record will be sent to the other Federal agency that has equities in the record. The consultation will request that the other Federal agency review and provide recommendations on disclosure. The Agency will not release any such record without prior consultation with the other Federal agency that has equities in the record.
(b)
(1) A release determination on the records from non-Federal agencies shall be analyzed on a case-by-case to determine if CSOSA or the non-Federal agency is best able to decide a record's sensitivity, and in turn its exemption status, in which case:
(i) The requester will be re-routed to submit a separate FOIA request to the non-Federal agency; or
(ii) CSOSA will consult with the non-Federal agency only if the non-Federal agency will provide a consultation within five (5) business days.
(2) [Reserved]
(a) Requests and appeals will be taken out of order and given expedited treatment whenever CSOSA's FOIA Office determines that they involve:
(1) Circumstances in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need.
(i) For purposes of this paragraph (a)(1), the term “compelling need” means—
(A) Failure to obtain requested records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(B) A person is primarily engaged in disseminating information and the urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity is a matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity.
(
(
(
(
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(b) If a requester seeks expedited processing, the requester must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief. The statement must be in the form prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 1746, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on [date].”
(c) The determination as to whether to grant or deny the request for expedited processing will be made, and the requester notified, within ten (10) days after the date of the request. Because a decision to take a FOIA request out of order delays other requests, simple fairness demands that such a decision be made by the FOIA Public Liaison Officer only upon careful scrutiny of truly exceptional circumstances. The decision will be made solely based on the information contained in the initial letter requesting expedited processing.
(d) Appeals of initial determinations to deny expedited processing must be made promptly. Both the envelope and the letter of appeal should be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, 633 Indiana Avenue NW., 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 and must be clearly marked “Expedited Processing Appeal.”
(e) The OGC or his or designee will make an appeal determination regarding expedited processing as soon as practicable.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The Agency shall provide a business submitter with notice of receipt of a request or appeal whenever:
(i) The business submitter has in good faith designated the information as commercially or financially sensitive information; or
(ii) The Agency has reason to believe that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competitive harm.
(d)
(2) When notice is given to a submitter under this section, the requester shall be advised that such notice has been given to the submitter. The requester shall be further advised that a delay in responding to the request may be considered a denial of access to records and that the requester may proceed with an administrative appeal or seek judicial review, if appropriate. However, the requester will be invited to agree to a voluntary extension of time so that staff may review the business submitter's objection to disclose.
(e)
(1) A statement of the reasons for which the business submitter's disclosure objections were not sustained;
(2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and
(3) A specified disclosure date which is not less than five (5) days (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the notice of the final decision to release the requested information has been mailed to the submitter.
(f)
(g)
(1) The Agency determines that the information shall not be disclosed;
(2) The information lawfully has been published or otherwise made available to the public; or
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by law (other than 5 U.S.C. 552).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Services were performed without charge; or
(2) The fees were waived or reduced in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e)
(f)
(2) Appeals from denials of requests for waiver or reduction of fees shall be decided in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section by the official authorized to decide appeals from denials of access to records. Appeals shall be addressed in writing to the Office of the General Counsel, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Office of the General Counsel, 633 Indiana Avenue NW., 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 within thirty (30) days of the denial of the initial request for waiver or reduction and shall be decided within twenty (20) days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays).
(3) Appeals from an adverse determination of the requester's category as described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section shall be decided by the official authorized to decide appeals from denials of access to records and shall be based upon a review of the requester's submission and the Agency's own records. Appeals shall be addressed in writing to the office or officer specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the Agency's determination of the requester's category and shall be decided within twenty (20) days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays).
(g)
(2) If the requester has failed to state a limit and the costs are estimated to exceed $250.00, the requester shall be notified of the estimated costs and must pre-pay such amount prior to the processing of the request, or provide satisfactory assurance of full payment if the requester has a history of prompt payment of FOIA fees. The requester will also be given an opportunity to reformulate the request in an attempt to reduce fees.
(h)
(2) The Agency reserves the right to request prepayment after a request is processed and before documents are released in the following circumstances.
(i) When costs are estimated or determined to exceed $250.00, the Agency shall either obtain satisfactory assurance of full payment of the estimated cost where the requester has a history of prompt payment of FOIA fees or require the requester to make an advance payment of the entire estimated or determined fee before continuing to process the request.
(ii) If a requester has previously failed to pay a fee within thirty (30) days of the date of the billing, the requester shall be required to pay the full amount owed plus any applicable interest, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the Agency begins to process a new request or the pending request. Whenever interest is charged, the Agency shall begin assessing interest on the 31st day following the day on which billing was sent. Interest shall be at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(i)
(1)
(i) The duplication cost is calculated by multiplying the number of pages in excess of 100 by $0.25.
(ii) Photographs, films, and other materials—actual cost of duplication.
(iii) Other types of duplication services not mentioned above—actual cost.
(iv) Material provided to a private contractor for copying shall be charged to the requester at the actual cost charged by the private contractor.
(2)
(i) $7.00 per quarter hour for clerical staff;
(ii) $10.00 per quarter hour for professional staff; and
(iii) $14.00 per quarter hour for managerial personnel.
(3)
(j)
(k)
(l) The agency shall not assess any search fees (or in the case of an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or a representative of the news media—duplication fees) under this paragraph (l) if the agency has failed to comply with any time limit under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6) and § 802.6(b)(1).
(1) If an agency has determined that unusual circumstances apply (as the term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)) and the agency provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B), a failure described in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B) is excused for an additional 10 days. If the agency fails to comply with the extended time limit, the agency may not assess any search fees (or in the case of a requester as described under this paragraph (l)(1), duplication fees).
(2) If an agency has determined that unusual circumstances apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, an agency may charge search fees (or in the case of a requester described under paragraph (l)(1) of this section, duplication fees) if the agency has provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B) and the agency has discussed with the requester via written mail, electronic mail, or telephone (or made not less than 3 good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii).
(3) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist (as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)), a failure described in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B) shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; adjustment of annual catch limits.
This action transfers unused quota of Georges Bank and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder from the Atlantic scallop fishery to the Northeast multispecies fishery for the remainder of the 2016 fishing year, which ends on April 30, 2017. This quota transfer is justified when the scallop fishery is not expected to catch its entire allocations of yellowtail flounder. The quota transfer is intended to provide additional fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels to help achieve the optimum yield for these stocks while ensuring sufficient amounts of yellowtail flounder are available for the scallop fishery.
Effective March 13, 2017, through April 30, 2017.
Emily Keiley, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9116.
NMFS is required to estimate the total amount of yellowtail flounder catch from the scallop fishery on or around January 15 each year. If the scallop fishery is expected to catch less than 90 percent of its Georges Bank (GB) or Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder sub-ACL, the Regional Administrator (RA) has the authority to reduce the scallop fishery sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL) for these stocks to the amount projected to be caught, and increase the groundfish fishery sub-ACL for these stocks up to the amount reduced from the scallop fishery. This adjustment is intended to help achieve optimum yield for these stocks, while not threatening an overage of the ACLs for the stocks by the groundfish and scallop fisheries.
Based on the most current available data, we project that the scallop fishery will have unused quota in the 2016 fishing year. The scallop fishery is projected to catch approximately 2 mt of GB yellowtail flounder, or 5 percent of its 2016 fishing year sub-ACL, and approximately 17 mt of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, or 53 percent of its 2016 fishing year sub-ACL. Because the scallop fishery is not expected to catch its entire allocation of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, this rule reduces the scallop sub-ACL for both stocks to the upper limit projected to be caught, and increases the groundfish sub-ACLs for these stocks by the same amount, effective March 13, 2017, through April 30, 2017. This transfer is based on the upper limit of expected yellowtail flounder catch by the scallop fishery, which is expected to minimize any risk of an ACL overage by the scallop fishery while still providing additional fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels.
Table 1 summarizes the revisions to the 2016 fishing year sub-ACLs, and Table 2 shows the revised allocations for the groundfish fishery as allocated between the sectors and common pool based on final sector membership for fishing year 2016.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the Northeast multispecies fishery and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment for these adjustments because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. NMFS is required to project GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder catch in the scallop fishery on or around January 15 of each year so that projected unused quota can be transferred to the groundfish fishery. The data did not become available until February 8, 2017. There is insufficient time to allow for prior public notice and comment for the transfer of quota for these yellowtail flounder if the transfer is to be of benefit to the groundfish fishery. The Northeast multispecies fishing year ends on April 30, 2017. If NMFS allowed for the time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, it would be unlikely that the transfer would occur in time to allow groundfish vessels to harvest the additional quota of these stocks before the end of the fishing year. As a result, groundfish fishermen would not receive additional allocation that is intended to offset their current negative economic circumstances due to the severe decreases in ACLs of several important groundfish stocks. Giving effect to this rule as soon as possible will help relieve fishermen from more restrictive ACLs for the yellowtail stocks and help achieve optimum yield in the fishery. For these same reasons, the NMFS Assistant Administrator also finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action. Further, there is no need to allow the industry additional time to adjust to this rule because it does not require any compliance or other action on the part of individual scallop or groundfish fishermen.
Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustments.
We are adjusting the commercial per-trip possession limits for the skate wing and skate bait fisheries for the remainder of the 2016 fishing year, through April 30, 2017, based on revised projection. These possession limit adjustments are necessary to allow fishermen the opportunity to fully harvest the remaining skate wing and skate bait annual commercial quotas. This announcement informs the public that the skate wing and skate bait possession limits have been increased.
Effective March 15, 2017, through April 30, 2017.
Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9112.
The skate wing and skate bait fisheries are managed primarily through the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan. On January 30, 2017, we reduced the commercial skate wing possession limit from 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) of skate wings [9,307 lb (4,222 kg) whole weight] to the incidental possession limit of 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings [1,135 lb (515 kg) whole weight] per trip and reduced the skate bait possession limit from 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) to 1,135 lb (515 kg) (whole weight) per trip, equivalent to the skate wing limit, for the remainder of the fishing year. The NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator is authorized to reduce the skate wing possession limit and required to reduce the skate bait possession limit when landings reached 85 and 90 percent, respectively, of their annual total allowable landings (TAL). There is an exception, however, if the reduction is expected to prevent the attainment of the TAL. The regulations describing the process to adjust inseason commercial possession limits of skate wings and skate bait are described at 50 CFR 648.322(b) and (d).
Based on landings data reported through February 21, 2017, our revised projections indicate that under the current possession limits, the skate wing and skate bait fisheries will only harvest 90 percent and 95 percent, respectively, of the annual TAL before the end of the fishing year. Because the annual TAL would not be fully utilized under the current possession limits, we are authorized to adjust the possession limits in accordance with the regulations to allow the attainment of the TAL. Revised projections indicate that if the possession limit for skate wings was increased from 500 lb (227 kg) back to the seasonal 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) of skate wings per trip [which would also, by regulation, increase the skate bait limit to 9,307 lb (4,222 lb), whole weight, per trip], these fisheries could operate at these higher possession limits for approximately 45 days before the end of the fishing year without exceeded the annual quota. Increasing the possession limits on March 15, 2017, until the end of the fishing year (April 30, 2017) would allow the annual TAL to be fully utilized while limiting the possibility of exceeding it.
This action increases the commercial skate wing possession limit from 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings [1,135 lb (515 kg) whole weight] to 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) of skate wings [9,307 lb (4,222 kg) whole weight] per trip. We also are increasing the skate bait possession limit from 1,135 lb (515 kg) to 9,307 lb (4,222 kg) (whole weight) per trip; the whole weight equivalent of the skate wing possession limit. The annual TAL for both the skate wing and skate bait fisheries is divided into seasonal quota periods in which landings are applied to each quota to evaluate the need for possession limit adjustments. We are currently in skate wing season 2 (September 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017) and skate bait season 3 (November 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017). These are the final skate seasons of the 2016 fishing year, providing us with cumulative annual landings data which allow us to project when the annual TAL would be harvested. We anticipate that implementing these inseason adjustments will allow an opportunity for both fisheries to harvest the annual TAL while reducing the possibility of exceeding it. Beginning March 15, 2017, no person may possess on board or land more than 9,307 lb (4,222 kg) of whole weight skate per trip for the remainder of the 2016 fishing year.
On May 1, 2017, the commercial skate wing possession limit will revert to the skate wing season 1 (May 1, 2017, to August 31, 2017) possession limit of 2,600 lb (1,179 kg) of skate wing [5,902 lb (2,677 kg) whole weight] per trip, and the commercial skate bait possession limit will increase to 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) per trip until a possession limit adjustment is warranted.
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. This proposed AD would require modifying the emergency lubrication system (EMLUB). This proposed AD is prompted by two incidents of emergency ditching after there was a warning of a loss of oil pressure and a false EMLUB failure. The proposed actions are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.
Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2013-0156, dated July 18, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter) Model EC225LP helicopters. EASA advises of two incidents of emergency ditching in the North Sea after a warning indication of MGB loss of oil pressure and subsequent additional red alarm on the EMLUB. In both cases, the EMLUB provided a false failure indication. EASA states in its AD that the EMLUB system was designed to guarantee 30 minutes of continued safe flight in the event of total loss of the dual oil lubrication system of the MGB.
According to EASA, an investigation revealed that a design nonconformity on the electrical outputs of some EMLUB air and glycol pressure-switches, resulting in a connection inconsistency between the pressure switches' electrical pins and the helicopter wiring, caused the false EMLUB warnings. EASA states that a false red EMLUB warning during an MGB emergency lubrication system operation could cause the flight crew to perform an immediate landing or ditching. As a result, EASA required several modifications that restore safe operation of the EMLUB system for the full Model EC225LP flight envelope. Modifications, include installing a new glycol pump and new air and glycol pressure switches, wiring harness modifications, and installing an improved EMLUB electronic board. The EASA AD also specifies a new amendment to the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) emergency procedures and prohibits installing some EMLUB parts.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or
We reviewed Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC225-05A033, Revision 0, dated July 14, 2013, for Model EC225LP helicopters. This ASB specifies replacing the air and glycol pressure switches, modifying the helicopter wiring, replacing the glycol pump, replacing the MGB lubrication card, modifying the RFM emergency procedures in the event of EMLUB activation, and canceling the RFM limitations of Emergency ASB (EASB) No. 04A010, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2013.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed the following Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) EASBs, each dated July 14, 2013:
• EASB, Revision 1, with two different numbers: No. 04A010 for Model EC225LP helicopters and No. 04A009 for military Model EC725AP helicopters, which are not FAA type certificated. This EASB specifies modifying the RFM emergency procedures in the event of activation of the EMLUB system and applies only to those helicopters that have not been altered by certain modifications.
• EASB No. 05A032, Revision 2, for both Model EC225LP and military Model EC725AP helicopters. This EASB specifies checking that the EMLUB electrical system (harness, control, alarm, and indicator panel) operates correctly and applies only to those helicopters that have not been altered by certain modifications (the same as those for EASB No. 04A010 and No. 04A009).
This proposed AD would require, within 500 hours time-in-service:
• Replacing the EMLUB glycol pump.
• Replacing the air and glycol pressure switches with switches from the same manufacturer.
• Modifying and re-identifying the helicopter wiring harness.
• Replacing the MGB lubrication card.
• Testing the function of the EMLUB system and the electrical system.
• Revising the Emergency Procedures section of the RFM.
The proposed AD would also prohibit installing on any helicopter an EMLUB glycol pump part number (P/N) 332A32-5051-00, air pressure-switch P/N MA193-00 or P/N MC7014-0-00, glycol pressure-switch P/N MA194-01 or P/N MC7015-0-00, or an electronic board P/N 704A46580106 or P/N 704A46580127.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 4 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD:
The estimated labor cost is $85 per work hour. We estimate a total of 34 work hours to replace the air and glycol pressure switches, modify the helicopter wiring, replace the glycol pump, and replace the MGB lubrication card. The required parts would cost $121,695 per helicopter. Based on these estimates, the total cost would be $124,585 per helicopter and $498,340 for the U.S. fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model EC225LP helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a false emergency lubrication system (EMLUB) warning. This condition when associated with a loss of the main gearbox (MGB) oil pressure could result in an unnecessary emergency landing or ditching.
We must receive comments by May 15, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 500 hours time-in-service:
(i) Replace EMLUB glycol pump part number (P/N) 332A32-5051-00 with EMLUB glycol pump P/N 332A32-5043-00.
(ii) Replace EMLUB air pressure switch P/N MA193-00 or MC7014-0-00 with P/N MC7014-1-00, and replace EMLUB glycol pressure switch P/N MA194-01 or MC7015-
(iii) Modify and re-identify the helicopter wiring harness. Refer to Figure 3 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC225-05A033, Revision 0, dated July 14, 2013 (ASB EC225-05A033).
(iv) Replace MGB lubrication card P/N 704A46580127 with P/N 704A46580146, and MGB lubrication card P/N 704A46580106 with P/N 704A46580146 or -147.
(v) Accomplish a functional test of the EMLUB system and the electrical system.
(vi) Revise the Emergency Procedures section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) by removing any pages from Section 3 of the RFM that pertain to the emergency procedures in the event of EMLUB activation and by inserting the pages from paragraph 4.C. Appendix 3, of ASB EC225-05A033 into Section 3 of the RFM.
(2) Do not install on any helicopter EMLUB glycol pump P/N 332A32-5051-00, air pressure-switch P/N MA193-00 or P/N MC7014-0-00, glycol pressure-switch P/N MA194-01 or P/N MC7015-0-00, or electronic board P/N 704A46580106 or P/N 704A46580127.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.05A032, Revision 2, dated July 14, 2013, and Emergency ASB with two numbers (No. 04A010 and No. 04A009), Revision 1, dated July 14, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0156, dated July 18, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320, Main Rotor Gearbox.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various Model 234 and Model CH-47D helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspections of the pitch housing and revising the pitch housing retirement life. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracking in the pitch housing lugs. The proposed actions are intended to detect and prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Helicopters, The Boeing Company, 1 S. Stewart Avenue, Ridley Park, PA 19078, telephone 610-591-2121, and Columbia Helicopters, Inc. (Columbia), 14452 Arndt Road NE., Aurora OR 97002, telephone (503) 678-1222, fax (503) 678-5841, or at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; telephone (425) 917-6426; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
We propose to adopt an AD for helicopters with a pitch housing part number (P/N) 145R2075-11, 145R2075-12, 145R2075-13, 145R2075-14, 145R2075-15, 145R2075-16, 234R2075-1, or 234R2075-2 installed. These pitch housings are installed on Model 234 and Model CH-47D helicopters. The type certificate (TC) holder for Model 234 helicopters is Columbia (type certificate previously held by Boeing Defense & Space Group), and the type certificate holders for Model CH-47D helicopters currently include Columbia, Billings Flying Service, Inc., and Tandem Rotor, LLC. We are not limiting this proposed AD to the type certificate holders listed above because we expect additional type certificate holders of helicopters that are subject to this same unsafe condition.
This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracking in the pitch housing lugs. In November 2007, Boeing reported the failure of an aft rotor pitch housing lower lug on a Model CH-47 helicopter operated by the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force. On March 26, 2009, a Model 234 helicopter also experienced a failure because of a crack on an aft rotor pitch housing lower lug. In both cases, the cracking was located on the lead side of the lower vertical pin lug and had initiated in the bore. The crack grew outward by fatigue, initiated by fretting damage.
Those incidents prompted the FAA to issue SAIB SW-11-03, dated October 22, 2010. The SAIB recommends that all owners and operators of Columbia Model 234 helicopters perform repetitive ultrasonic inspections of the lugs. At that time, there were no civil Model CH-47D helicopters in service.
On March 20, 2015, we received a report of lateral vibration on a Model 234 helicopter that prompted an immediate landing. A subsequent investigation found that a crack in an aft pitch housing upper lug resulted in the lateral vibrations. The pitch housing had accumulated 11,733 hours time-in-service (TIS). The crack was determined to be caused by fatigue and attributed to underestimated load conditions in the original life limit calculations. This cracking differed from the cracking described in the SAIB because the cracking initiated at the outer surface of the pitch housing lug and grew inward toward the bore.
To correct this unsafe condition, we propose to require repetitive eddy current and ultrasonic inspections of the pitch housing. Based on the proximity of the most recent inward-growing crack to the outward cracks described in the SAIB, we propose to require ultrasonic inspections of the pitch housing, as recommended in the SAIB. Boeing, the original manufacturer of both model helicopters, developed service information for the SAIB ultrasonic inspections, which we would require in this proposed AD. Due to the rapid growth rate, an effective eddy current inspection must detect an inward-growing crack of no more than 0.10 inch. This proposed AD would require, for Columbia helicopters, the eddy current inspection method specified in Columbia's service information. Because the other TC holders have not developed service instructions, we propose to require the eddy current inspection procedures for all other helicopters be submitted to the Seattle or Denver Aircraft Certification Offices for approval.
We are also proposing to require removing the pitch housing from service when it accumulates a total of 8,200 hours TIS. Forward pitch housings on Model CH-47D helicopters have no life limit and the aft pitch housing already has a life limit of 8,200 hours TIS. For Model 234 helicopters, the forward pitch housing has a life limit of 12,547 hours TIS and the aft pitch housing has a life limit of 19,077 hours TIS. This proposed AD would establish or reduce these life limits to 8,200 hours TIS for both forward and aft pitch housings, regardless of the model helicopter.
The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to detect and prevent a crack in a pitch housing lug. This condition could result in loss of a rotor blade and consequent loss of helicopter control.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 145R2075-62-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2011, which specifies updated life limits for the forward and aft pitch housings and revised overhaul and ultrasonic inspection procedures for various military Model CH-47 and 234 helicopters.
We also reviewed Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Alert Service Bulletin No. 234-62-A0012, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, for Model 234 helicopters; and Alert Service Bulletin No. 47D-62-A0002, Revision 0, dated March 1, 2016, for Model CH-47D helicopters. This service information specifies procedures for performing repetitive eddy current inspections, visual inspections, and ultrasonic inspections and for reducing the life limit of the pitch housing assemblies.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require:
Before further flight, removing from service any pitch housing P/N 145R2075-11, 145R2075-12, 145R2075-13, 145R2075-14, 145R2075-15, 145R2075-16, 234R2075-1, and 234R2075-2 that has accumulated 8,200 hours total time-in-service (TIS).
Before the pitch housing accumulates 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this proposed AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS, ultrasonic inspecting the pitch housing for a crack and replacing any cracked pitch housing. Within 400 hours TIS or before the pitch housing accumulates 4,000 hours total TIS, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS, eddy current inspecting the pitch housing for a crack and replacing any cracked pitch housing.
For Columbia helicopters, this eddy current inspection would be performed in accordance with the Columbia service information. For all other helicopters, this proposed AD would require that the method for the eddy current inspection be approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) or Manager, Denver ACO.
The service information provides different life limits for the forward and aft pitch housings, while this proposed AD would require a life limit of 8,200 hours TIS for all pitch housings. The service information requires either an ultrasonic inspection or a dye penetrant inspection as part of the overhaul procedures. The service information specifies different compliance times for the inspections than what would be required by this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 15 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs would average $85 per work-hour. Based on
• An eddy current inspection would require 4 work-hours for a total cost of $340 per helicopter and $5,100 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
• An ultrasonic inspection would require 4 work-hours for a total cost of $340 per helicopter and $5,100 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
• Replacing a pitch housing would require 8 work-hours and parts would cost $13,000, for a total cost of $13,680 per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed, I certify that this proposed AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by Reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model 234 and Model CH-47D helicopters, regardless of type certificate holder, with a pitch housing assembly (pitch housing) part number (P/N) 145R2075-11, 145R2075-12, 145R2075-13, 145R2075-14, 145R2075-15, 145R2075-16, 234R2075-1, or 234R2075-2 installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a pitch housing lug. This condition could result in loss of a rotor blade and consequent loss of helicopter control.
We must receive comments by May 15, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight, remove from service any pitch housing P/N 145R2075-11, 145R2075-12, 145R2075-13, 145R2075-14, 145R2075-15, 145R2075-16, 234R2075-1, and 234R2075-2 that has accumulated 8,200 hours total time-in-service (TIS).
(2) Before the pitch housing accumulates 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS, ultrasonic inspect the pitch housing for a crack in accordance with Attachment 1, paragraphs F and H through K, of Boeing Service Bulletin 145R2075-62-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2011. If there is a crack, replace the pitch housing before further flight.
(3) Within 400 hours TIS or before the pitch housing has accumulated 4,000 hours total TIS, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS:
(i) For Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Model 234 and CH-47D helicopters, eddy current inspect the pitch housing for a crack by following paragraphs 3.C.(1) and 3.C.(2) of Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Alert Service Bulletin No. 234-62-A0012, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, or Alert Service Bulletin No. 47D-62-A0002, Revision 0, dated March 1, 2016, as applicable to your model helicopter. If there is a crack, replace the pitch housing before further flight.
(ii) For all other helicopters, eddy current inspect the pitch housing for a crack. If there is a crack, replace the pitch housing before further flight. The eddy current inspection must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) or Manager, Denver ACO. For a repair method to be approved as required by this AD, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For operators of helicopters with type certificates issued by the Denver Aircraft Certification Office, the manager of the Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Greg Johnson, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249; phone: 303-342-1083; fax: 303-342-1088; email:
(2) All other AMOC requests should be sent to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Send your proposal to: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; telephone (425) 917-6426; email
(3) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin SW-11-03, dated October 22, 2010 (SAIB), which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. You may view the SAIB on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor Head.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, V2533-A5, V2525-D5, V2528-D5, and V2531-E5 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted following a self-disclosure by IAE regarding manufacturing quality escapes. This proposed AD would require replacing the affected and suspect parts within the time limits specified in the compliance section. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 860-565-0140; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
IAE self-disclosed several quality escapes that had occurred during manufacture of high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 2 air seals, HPT 1st stage air seals, and/or HPT stage 2 ring plates, at the Pratt and Whitney Chengdu facility. The quality escapes are associated with P&W's manufacturing source approval requirement, which includes reporting of tool breaks on life-limited parts. A number of documented and undocumented occurences of tool breaks were experienced during machining, which could affect the low-cycle fatigue capability of the suspect parts. In addition, several manufactured life-limited parts without logbooks are also suspected of experiencing occurences of a tool break. This proposed AD would require replacing the affected parts within the time limits specified in the compliance section. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of high-energy, rotating hardware, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed International Aero Engines, IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) V2500-ENG-72-0676, dated October 14, 2016; IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0677, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2017; IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0682, dated December 2, 2016; IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0681, Revision 2, dated January 9, 2017; and IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0678, Revision 1, dated January 5, 2017. Each of the NMSBs describes procedures for replacing a different affected part. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require replacing the affected parts within the time limits specified in the compliance section.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 70 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 28, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to International Aero Engines (IAE) V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, V2533-A5, V2525-D5, V2528-D5, and V2531-E5 turbofan engines with one or more of the following installed:
(i) High-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 2 air seal, part number (P/N) 2A4157, with a serial number (S/N) listed in Table 1 of IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) V2500-ENG-72-0676, dated October 14, 2016.
(ii) HPT 1st stage air seal, P/N 2A3423, with an S/N listed in Table 1 of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0677 Revision 1, dated January 11, 2017; or IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0678, Revision 1, dated January 5, 2017.
(iii) HPT stage 2 ring plate, P/N 2A3437, with an S/N listed in Table 1 of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0682, dated December 2, 2016; or IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0681, Revision 2, dated January 9, 2017.
(2) Reserved.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Engine.
This AD was prompted by several reports by IAE of quality escapes during manufacture of HPT stage 2 air seals, HPT 1st stage air seals, and/or HPT stage 2 ring plates, at the Pratt and Whitney Chengdu facility. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of high-energy, rotating hardware, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Remove the following hardware from service before reaching the specified part cycles since new listed in the service instructions in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD, or within 50 cycles in service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and replace with a part eligible for installation:
(i) HPT stage 2 air seal, P/N 2A4157, identified in Table 1 of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0676, dated October 14, 2016.
(ii) HPT 1st stage air seal, P/N 2A3423, identified in Table 1 of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0677, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2017.
(iii) HPT stage 2 ring plate, P/N 2A3437, identified in Table 1 of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0682, dated December 2, 2016.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, remove the following hardware from service when the HPT module is disassembled and access to the part is available and replace with a part eligible for installation;
(i) HPT 1st stage air seal, P/N 2A3423, identified in Accomplishment Instructions, Table 1, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0678, Revision 1, dated January 5, 2017.
(ii) HPT stage 2 ring plate, P/N 2A3437, identified in Accomplishment Instructions, Table 1, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0681, Revision 2, dated January 9, 2017.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 860-565-0140; email:
(3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Suspension of comment period.
The DOT is suspending the public comment period for the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees. The DOT published the SNPRM on January 19, 2017, and the comment period was scheduled to close on March 20, 2017. The suspension of the comment period will allow the President's appointees the opportunity to review and consider this action.
The comment period for the SNPRM published January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7536) is indefinitely suspended effective March 14, 2017.
Kimberly Graber or Blane A. Workie, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone),
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Housatonic River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Milford and Stratford, CT, during the United Illuminating Company Housatonic River Crossing Project from April 26, 2017 to May 4, 2017, and from July 29, 2017 to August 3, 2017. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit entry of vessels or people into the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound or a designated representative. The safety zone will only be enforced during cable pulling operations or other instances which may create a hazard to navigation. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 13, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0825 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Katherine Linnick, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4565, email
This rulemaking proposes to establish a safety zone for certain waters of the Housatonic River near Milford and Stratford, CT. Corresponding regulatory history is discussed below.
On August 25, 2016, United Illuminating Company notified the Coast Guard that it would conduct a project involving the installation of new transmission conductors over the Housatonic River near Stratford and Milford, CT. On December 13, 2016, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zone; United Illuminating Company Housatonic River Crossing Project; Housatonic River, Milford and Stratford, CT” in the
The project is scheduled to be completed in two phases, the first being the stringing of optical fiber ground wires on the North circuit from April 26, 2017 to May 4, 2017. The second phase will include the stringing of optical fiber ground wires on the South circuit from July 29, 2017 to August 3, 2017. The proposed work area is between the eastern and western shores of the Housatonic River from the southern boundary of the Metro-North Rail Bridge. It extends approximately 525 feet upstream for the northern boundary. Potential hazards from this project include entanglement of vessels with the messenger line and falling equipment from the electrical towers. The Captain of the Port Long Island Sound (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with the cable crossing project could be a safety concern for anyone within the proposed work area.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the work zone before, during, and after each messenger pulling operation. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:00 a.m. on April 26, 2017 through 6:00 p.m. on May 4, 2017, and from 8:00 a.m. on July 29, 2017 through 6:00 p.m. on August 3, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Housatonic River near Milford and Stratford, CT contained within the following area: Beginning at a point on land in position at 41°12′17″ N., 073°06′40″ W. near the Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike (I-95) Bridge; then northeast across the Housatonic River to a point on land in position at 41°12′20″ N., 073°06′29″ W. near the Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike (I-95) Bridge; then northwest along the shoreline to a point on land in position at 41°12′25″ N., 073°06′31″ W.; then southwest across the Housatonic River to a point on land in position at 41°12′22″ N., 073°06′43″ W.; then southeast along the shoreline back to point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters within the work zone before, during, and after each messenger pulling operation or during any instance that necessitates a temporary closure of the Housatonic River at the work site. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The safety zone will only be enforced during when project work causes a potential hazard to navigation. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 eight hours in advance of any scheduled enforcement period. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would affect a small designated area of the Housatonic River for less than one hour at a time. It also may be enforced temporarily during the cable crossing project if necessitated by an emergency. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone enforced for less
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) All navigable waters of the Housatonic River near Milford and Stratford, CT contained within the following area; beginning at a point on land in position at 41°12′17″ N., 073°06′40″ W. near the Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike (I-95) Bridge; then northeast across the Housatonic River to a point on land in position at 41°12′20″ N., 073°06′29″ W. near the Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike (I-95) Bridge; then northwest along the shoreline to a point on land in position at 41°12′25″ N., 073°06′31″ W.; then southwest across the Housatonic River to a point on land in position at 41°12′22″ N., 073°06′43″ W.; then southeast along the shoreline back to point of origin (NAD 83).
(2) All positions are approximate.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
(3) Operators of vessels desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at 203-468-4401 (Sector LIS command center), or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so. Request to enter or operate in the safety zone must be made 24 hours in advanced of the planned undertaking.
(4) Mariners are requested to proceed with caution after passing arrangements have been made. Mariners are requested to cooperate with the United Illuminating Company work vessels for the safety of all concerned. The United Illuminating Company work vessels will be monitoring VHF channels 13 and 16. Mariners are requested to proceed with extreme caution and operate at their slowest safe speed as to not cause a wake.
(5) Any vessel given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
(6) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
The Transportation Security Administration is reopening the comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published in the
You may submit comments, identified by the TSA docket number to this rulemaking, to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), a government-wide, electronic docket management system, using any one of the following methods:
Harry Schultz (TSA Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement) or Traci Klemm (TSA Office of the Chief Counsel) at telephone (571) 227-3531 or email to
On December 16, 2016, TSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
The comment period closed on February 14, 2017. TSA received multiple requests to extend the comment period. TSA believes reopening the comment period is necessary to meet the intended purpose of the ANPRM—to obtain information and perspectives from potentially regulated entities. Please see the ANPRM for additional background.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, The National Institute of Food and Agriculture has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).
Comments must be submitted April 13, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email:
To request additional information, please contact Robert Martin, Records Officer, email:
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will 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 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.
The Agency received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
Below we provide the National Institute of Food and Agriculture projected average estimates for the next three years:
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 13, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing meeting of the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 p.m. (CDT) on Friday, March 24, 2017, in the Community Room on the 1st Floor of the Aberdeen Public Safety Building, 114 2nd Avenue SE., Aberdeen, SD 57401. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to hear testimony on the subtle effects of racism in South Dakota. The briefing topics will include the value of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement, and minority policing that impacts Native Americans and immigrant communities. The South Dakota Advisory Committee will hear from law enforcement, tribal officials, advocacy groups, community organizations, representatives of local, state, and Federal agencies, and the public.
Friday, March 24, 2017, starting at 1:00 p.m. CST until 6:00 p.m. CST.
Aberdeen Public Safety Building, Community Room, 1st Floor, 114 2nd Avenue SE., Aberdeen, SD 57401.
Malee Craft at
Time will be set aside at the end of the briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, April 24, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 283 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Pharma, Ltd. (BMS) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Manati, Puerto Rico within Subzone 7J. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 6, 2017.
BMS already has authority to produce certain pharmaceutical products within Subzone 7J. The current request would add finished products and foreign status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt BMS from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, BMS would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Antisera; blood fractions; peptides and proteins; Orencia® (and other abatacept-containing products); Opdivo® (and other nivolumab-containing products); Yervoy® (and other ipilimumab-containing products); Empliciti
The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Antisera; blood fractions; peptides and proteins; abatacept; belatacept; elotuzumab; ipilimumab; nivolumab; ferments; whole human blood; antiallergenic preparations; antineoplastic medicaments; and, immunosuppressive medicaments (duty-free).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 24, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the City of Battle Creek, grantee of FTZ 43, requesting an expansion of Subzone 43B on behalf of Mead Johnson & Company, LLC dba Mead Johnson Nutrition (Mead Johnson), located in Zeeland, Michigan. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400). It was formally docketed on March 9, 2017.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
On November 10, 2016, ZF Transmissions Gray Court, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within FTZ 38—Sites 20 and 25 (now designated as Subzone 38K), in Gray Court, South Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
International Trade Administration, DOC.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 2017 from 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Ms. Amy Kreps, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-3835; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
The meeting will take place on April 4 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The general meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 3:00-3:30 p.m. EST. Those interested in attending must provide notification by Friday, March 24, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. EST, via the contact information provided above. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice; request for public comments.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requests comments on the Draft Strategic Plan for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP or Program). The Draft NWIRP Strategic Plan is posted on the NIST Web site at:
NIST requests comments on the Draft NWIRP Strategic Plan. Comments must be received by May 15, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted to NIST in three ways. Comments may be submitted by email to
Questions regarding the Draft NWIRP Strategic Plan should be directed to Dr. Marc Levitan, by email at
The NWIRP was established by Public Law 108-360 Title II and reauthorized in Public Law 114-52 (the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015) on September 30, 2015. Congress established NWIRP “to achieve major measurable reductions in the losses of life and property from windstorms through a coordinated Federal effort, in cooperation with other levels of government, academia, and the private sector, aimed at improving the understanding of windstorms and their impacts and developing and encouraging the implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.” 42 U.S.C. 15703(a).
NIST has been designated as the Lead Agency for NWIRP. Other designated Program agencies are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). 42 U.S.C. 15703(b).
As the lead agency, NIST has the primary responsibility for planning and coordinating the Program. This responsibility includes:
• Ensuring that the Program includes the necessary components to promote the implementation of windstorm risk reduction measures;
• Supporting the development of performance-based engineering tools, and working with appropriate groups to promote the commercial application of such tools;
• Requesting the assistance of Federal agencies other than the Program agencies, as necessary;
• Coordinating all Federal post-windstorm investigations to the extent practicable; and
• When warranted by research or investigative findings, issuing recommendations to assist in informing the development of model codes, and providing information to Congress on the use of such recommendations.
Statutory responsibilities for each of the Program agencies include:
The Draft NWIRP Strategic Plan describes the goals, objectives, and strategic priorities needed to accomplish the Program purpose. They were developed following review and assessment of prior national research needs and planning documents, NWIRP Program agency input, and in consideration of stakeholder input. Stakeholder input was obtained through the NWIRP Strategic Planning Stakeholder's Workshop, held at the National Science Foundation on June 17, 2016. This Workshop was attended by over 80 participants from the public and private sectors who engaged in a series of 11 breakout sessions and provided ideas to help shape the Draft NWIRP Strategic Plan.
When submitting comments, inclusion of name, affiliation, and contact information (phone number and/or email address in case of questions about the comment) are optional. All comments received in response to this notice will become part of the public record and will be posted on the NIST Web site at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a 5-day meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
The meetings will be held on April 3-7, 2017. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2017. On Tuesday, April 4 through Friday, April 7, 2017, the meetings will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Council's Office, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926.
The Council's SSC will hold a 5-day meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903; telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; rescheduled public meetings; request for comments.
NMFS, in coordination with the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), intends to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to analyze the environmental impacts of the continued authorization and management of U.S. Pacific Island deep-set tuna longline fisheries under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP) and other applicable laws. The analysis would include certain longline fisheries based in Hawaii, the U.S. west coast, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The PEIS is intended to support management of U.S. pelagic longline fisheries.
See
You may submit comments on this action, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0010, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Copies of the FEP, amendments, and previous EISs are available at
Ariel Jacobs, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, (808) 725-5182.
NMFS previously published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a PEIS to analyze the environmental impacts of the continued authorization and management of U.S. Pacific Island deep-set tuna longline fisheries under the FEP and other applicable laws (81 FR 10467, February 13, 2017). You may find details regarding development of the PEIS in that NOI; we do not repeat them here.
The NOI announced public scoping meetings in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI. Due to circumstances beyond our control, we are rescheduling the meetings in American Samoa. NMFS will hold public meetings at the dates and locations below. All meetings will be from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Fale Tele of the American Samoa Senate (Fono), Senate building, Fagatogo, Pago Pago, AS 96799.
Fale Tele of HTC Vaimaona, Laulii, Pago Pago, AS 96799.
NOAA GMD/PIFSC Compound Tafuna, 8043 Tasi St., Tafuna, AS 96799.
NMFS will make every attempt to make these meetings accessible to people with disabilities. Direct any requests for sign language interpretation, physical assistance, or other auxiliary aids to Ariel Jacobs at (808) 725-5182 at least five days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
This Authorization is effective from January 24, 2017 through January 23, 2018.
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of ME DOT's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and considered comments submitted in response to the Proposed IHA as part of that process.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. 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, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. 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).”
On August 31, 2016, we received an application from ME DOT for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with the replacement and expansion of the pier and breakwater in Eastport, ME. The project includes the removal of the original filled sheet pile structure (built in 1962), the replacement of the approach pier, expansion of the existing pier head, and the construction of a new wave attenuator. The ME DOT submitted a revised version of the application on October 21, 2016, and a final application on December 2, 2016, which we deemed adequate and complete.
Harbor seal (
Project activities will occur in Cobscook Bay (Washington County) in Eastport, ME. The breakwater lies near the mouth of the St. Croix River at the end of a long peninsula adjacent to Quoddy Head. Cobscook Bay has extremely strong tidal currents and notably high tides, creating an extensive intertidal habitat for marine and coastal species. Water depths at the project location are between 8 and 55 feet (ft) (2.4—17 meter (m)). The Bay is considered a relatively intact marine system, as the area has not experienced much industrialization.
The overall pier replacement structure consists of an open pier supported by 151 piles, including steel pipe piles, reinforced concrete pile caps, and a precast pre-stressed plank deck with structural overlay. The approach pier will be 40 ft by 300 ft and the main pier section that will be parallel to the shoreline will be 50 ft by 400 ft.
The replacement pier consists of two different sections. The approach pier will be replaced in kind by placing fill inside of a sheet pile enclosure, supported by driven piles. The sheet piles can be installed by use of a vibratory hammer only. The main pier, fender system, and wave fence system will be pile supported with piles ranging from 16 inch (in) to 36 in diameter pipe piles. These piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer to a point and must be seated with an impact hammer to ensure stability. In addition, approximately 50 old piles are expected to be removed through vibratory extraction (included in the estimated number of project workdays). The number of piles and types of piles needed to complete this project are described in Table 1.
ME DOT was issued an IHA for their previous work on this project in 2014 (79 FR 59247; October 4, 2014) with a revised date for project activities in 2015 (80 FR 46565; July 20, 2015). This prosed IHA is a continuation of the work to complete the project that began in 2015.
A detailed description of the EBRP project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to ME DOT was published in the
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction authorized for incidental Level B take as a result of project activities, are the harbor seal, gray seal, harbor porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphin and minke whale (Table 2).
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the EBRP, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The minke whale is common and widely distributed within the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (CETAP 1982 as cited in Waring
In-water construction activities associated with the EBRP such as impact and vibratory pile driving components of the specified activity have the potential to result in impacts to marine mammals and their habitat in the project area. The
In order to issue an IHA for the under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
ME DOT worked with NMFS and developed the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, and to monitor marine mammals within designated ZOI corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment thresholds. Here we provide a description of the mitigation measures required as part of the Authorization.
When using an impact hammer to “proof” piles, ME DOT shall use sound absorption cushions and/or a bubble curtain to reduce hydroacoustic sound levels and avoid the potential for marine mammal injury. Based on previous studies, sound attenuation devices are expected to reduce sound levels by at least 5 dB.
Direct measured data from the pile driving events of the EBRP IHA were used to calculate the ZOIs for Level B Harassment for pile driving activities. These values were used to develop mitigation measures for pile driving activities at EBRP. The ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that will be established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur. In addition to the specific measures described later in this section, the EBRP will conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and EBRP staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and if/when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
The following measures will apply to the EBRP's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:
Using the user spreadsheet for the NMFS new acoustic guidance, injury zones were determined for low-, mid- and high-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds (phocids) as the hearing groups analyzed for this project (see Table 3). The purpose of a shutdown zone is to define an area within which shutdown of activity will occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). As a precautionary measure, intended to reduce the unlikely possibility of injury from direct physical interaction with construction operations, ME DOT will implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around each pile for all construction methods for all marine mammals. The shutdown zones calculated for injury were rounded to the nearest 10 m to be more conservative or species were grouped (
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors will record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven or removed, is known from a GPS unit. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an
Two Qualified Protected Species Observers (PSO) (NMFS approved biologists, monitoring responsibilities fully described in the Monitoring section) will be stationed on the pier. One PSO will be responsible for monitoring the shutdown zones, while the second observer will conduct behavioral monitoring outwards to a distance of 1 nautical mile (nmi).
If a PSO sees a marine mammal within or approaching the shutdown zones prior to start of pile driving, the observer will notify the on-site project lead (or other authorized individual) who will then be required to delay pile driving until the marine mammal has moved out of the shutdown zone from the sound source or if the animal has not been resighted within 15 min for small cetaceans and pinnipeds and 30 min for large cetaceans. If a marine mammal is sighted within or on a path toward a shutdown zone during pile driving, pile driving will cease until that animal has moved out of the shutdown zone and is on a path away from the shutdown zone or 15 min (pinnipeds and small cetaceans)/30 min (large cetaceans) has lapsed since the last sighting. Shutdown and delay procedures will also be required if a species for which authorization has not been granted or if a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized number of takes has been met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone.
A “soft-start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before the pile hammer reaches full energy. For vibratory pile driving, the soft-start procedure requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at 40-60 percent reduced energy followed by a 1-min waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times before full energy may be achieved. For impact pile driving, contractors will be required to provide an initial set of 3 strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-min waiting period, then two subsequent 3 strike sets. Soft-start procedures will be conducted any time hammering ceases for more than 30 min.
Work will occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.
To ensure that the “least practicable adverse impact” will be achieved, NMFS has carefully evaluated mitigation measures in 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(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, their habitat, and their availability for subsistence uses (latter where relevant); the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation (including, consideration of personnel safety, practicality of 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 1, 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.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the project action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in the 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.
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
PSOs shall be used to detect, document, and minimize impacts to marine mammals. Monitoring will be conducted before, during, and after construction activities. In addition, PSOs shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and document any behavioral reactions in concert with
• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of marine mammals on land or in the water with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
• Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);
• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when construction activities were conducted; dates and times when construction activities were suspended, if necessary; and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
PSOs shall also conduct mandatory biological resources awareness training for construction personnel. The awareness training shall be provided to brief construction personnel on marine mammals and the need to avoid and minimize impacts to marine mammals. If new construction personnel are added to the project, the contractor shall ensure that the personnel receive the mandatory training before starting work. PSOs will have authority to stop construction if marine mammals appear distressed (evasive maneuvers, rapid breathing, inability to flush) or in danger of injury.
The ME DOT has developed a monitoring plan based on discussions between ME DOT and NMFS. The ME DOT will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction activities for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All PSOs will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
We require that PSOs use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the ME DOT will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the ME DOT will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
ME DOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days of completion of in-water construction activities. The report will include data from marine mammal sightings as described in the Data Collection section above (
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, ME DOT will immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hrs 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).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with ME DOT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ME DOT may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that ME DOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that ME DOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
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).”
All anticipated takes will be by Level B harassment resulting from pile driving activities involving temporary changes in behavior. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that potential for take by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is considered discountable.
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate take based on how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (
Elevated in-water sound levels from pile driving activities in the project area may temporarily impact marine mammal behavior. Elevated in-air sound levels are not a concern because the nearest significant pinniped haul-out is more than six nmi away. Marine mammals are continually exposed to many sources of sound. For example, lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and animals are natural sound sources throughout the marine environment. Marine mammals produce sounds in various contexts and use sound for various biological functions including, but not limited to: (1) Social interactions; (2) Foraging; (3) Orientation; and (4) Predator detection. Interference with producing or receiving these sounds may result in adverse impacts. Audible distance or received levels will depend on the sound source, ambient noise, and the sensitivity of the receptor (Richardson
Behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected to affect only a small number of individual marine mammals, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity.
The ME DOT has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of harbor seals, gray seals, harbor porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and minke whales incidental to the pile driving associated with the EBRP described previously in this document. In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area and the number of days the activity will be conducted. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidents of take.
As discussed above, in-water pile driving activities generate loud noises that could potentially harass marine mammals in the vicinity of ME DOT's EBRP. No impacts from visual disturbance are anticipated because there are no known pinniped haul-outs within the project area. The only potential disturbance anticipated to occur will be during driving operations, which may cause individual marine mammals to temporarily avoid the area.
We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by Level B harassment might occur. To date, no studies have been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been established. These thresholds (Table 5) are used to estimate when harassment may occur (
Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of fifteen is often used under conditions, where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.
For Level B ZOIs for vibratory driving of piles, NMFS used source levels of 161 dB and 167 dB, and used practical spreading to calculate zones of 500 m and 1,260 m for 16-20 in and 36-in piles, respectively.
In this case of sheet piles, we have measured field data available from the previous EBRP IHA at the same location and from the same type sheet piles showing at a particular point where the received level is below 120 dB, to determine the disturbance distance for the Level B ZOI. Data from several sheet piles of each pile type were used to determine the Level B ZOIs. For sheet pile type PZC-18, 400 m is the measured distance where the Level B ZOI is below 120 dB. For sheet pile type PZC-26, the farthest measurement did not go below 120 dB so the statistical analysis of 90 percent confidence interval was used, which pointed to 665 m for the Level B ZOI. For impact pile driving, we used the third farthest point from the measured field data, which was 550 m from the source, and measured under 160 dB.
The sound field in the project area is the existing ambient noise plus additional construction noise from the project. The primary components of the project expected to affect marine mammals is the sound generated by impact and vibratory pile driving. The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. In order to determine the distance to the thresholds and the received levels to marine mammals that are likely to result from pile driving at EBRP, we evaluated the acoustic monitoring data (Table 6) from the previous EBRP IHA with similar properties to the current project activity.
We consider the values presented in Table 6 to be representative of SPLs that may be produced by pile driving in the project area. Distances to the harassment isopleths vary by marine mammal type and pile extraction/driving tool. All calculated distances to and the total area encompassed by the marine mammal sound thresholds are provided in Tables 3 and 4.
In addition, we generally recognize that pinnipeds occurring within an estimated airborne harassment zone, whether in the water or hauled out (no haul outs within six nmi of the project area), could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment. However, any animal exposed to airborne sound above the behavioral harassment threshold is likely to also be exposed to underwater sound above relevant thresholds (which are typically in all cases larger zones than those associated with airborne sound). Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in the estimates of potential take. Multiple incidents within a day of exposure to sound above NMFS' thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed to result in increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or intensity of disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data. Southall
As mentioned previously in this document, five marine mammal species (three cetacean and two pinniped species) are likely to occur in the area of the activity. Of the three cetacean species likely to occur in the project area, the minke whale is considered a low-frequency cetacean, the Atlantic white-sided dolphin is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean and the harbor porpoise is classified as a high-frequency cetacean (NMFS 2016). A species' hearing group and its generalized hearing range is a consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
ME DOT and NMFS determined that in-water construction activities involving the use of impact and vibratory pile driving during the EBRP has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammal species and stocks in the vicinity of the project activity.
The following sections are descriptions of how take was determined for impacts to marine mammals from noise disturbance related to pile driving.
Incidental take is calculated for each species by estimating the likelihood of a marine mammal being present within the ensonified area above the threshold during pile driving activities, based on information about the presence of the animal (density estimates or the best available occurrence data) and the size of the zones of influence, which in this case is based on previous measurements from the acoustic monitoring in the previous EBRP IHA. Expected marine mammal presence is determined by past observations and general abundance during the construction window. When local abundance is the best available information, in lieu of the density-area method, we may simply multiply some number of animals (as determined through counts of animals hauled-out) by the number of days of activity, under the assumption that all of those animals will be present within the area ensonified by the threshold and incidentally taken on each day of activity.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number more realistically represents the number of incidents of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative.
For this project, the take requests were estimated using local marine mammal data sets and information from Federal agencies and other experts. The best available data for marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area was derived from three sources including: three years (2007-2010) of marine mammal monitoring data from the Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) tidal generator project that was located between Eastport and Lubec, ME, the 2015-2016 marine mammal monitoring data from the previous EBRP IHA, and communication with marine mammals experts from ME (Stephanie Wood (NOAA Biologist) and Dr. James Gilbert (Wildlife Ecologist, University of ME)). Although the ORPC project was located on the other side of the peninsula from the Eastport pier, the presence of species and timing of their occurrence appears similar between the ORPC data and marine mammal monitoring data from the previous EBRP IHA.
The calculation for marine mammal exposures is estimated by:
The estimated number of animals in the area was previously determined based on the maximum group size of animals observed during ORPC's marine mammal observation effort (six seals (harbor and gray seals combined), six harbor porpoises, and one Atlantic white-sided dolphin) multiplied by the maximum expected number of pile/sheet installation and sheet removal days. During the winter and spring months we expect lower numbers of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine (including the project area) and therefore take estimates were lower (January through May). Atlantic white-sided dolphins are not expected to frequent the project area, as they are more of a pelagic species. Only two Atlantic white-sided dolphins were observed in four years of marine mammal monitoring (ORPC and EBRP IHA). Harbor and gray seals were combined into one pinniped group because they cannot always be identified by species level. See Tables 7 and 8 for total estimated incidents of take.
Based on comments provided by the MMC, take estimates are now revised for gray/harbor seal and Atlantic white-side dolphins. Minke whale take has also been added. In the proposed IHA, NMFS estimated 120 pinnipeds per month from January through August would be taken by Level B Harassment. This was calculated using an average group size of six animals per day for a 20-day work period/month. When comparing this to ME DOT's data collected from their previous authorization, the maximum number of seals observed in one month was 190 (July 2015), however; only 11 of those 190 seals were taken as Level B harassment over a 20-day period. The average of all seals observed in July 2015 was 10 seals per day. Therefore, NMFS has revised the take estimate to an average of 10 seals per day, increasing the total number of seals that may be taken by Level B harassment from 120 seals to 200 seals per month (Table 7). Although only two Atlantic white-sided dolphins were observed over the past four years, NMFS has revised the Level B take estimate, recommended by the MMC, from one Atlantic white-sided dolphins per month to nine dolphins per month based on one group (nine dolphins) that may enter the bay each month. NMFS added minke whales to be taken by Level B Harassment over the project period. NMFS recognizes 28 minke whales were observed during ME DOT's previous authorization during a 4-month period (July through October); however, none of these whales were taken by Level B harassment. The
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, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving activities associated with this project have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Elevated noise levels are expected to be generated as a result of these activities. However, ME DOT will use noise attenuation devices (
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions from these low intensity, localized, and short-term noise exposures that may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modifications by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. Moreover, marine mammals are expected to avoid the area during in-water construction because animals generally move away from active sound sources, thereby reducing exposure and impacts. In addition, through mitigation measures including soft start, marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious and detection of marine mammals by observers will enable the implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of noise disturbance that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior.
In-water construction activities will occur in relatively shallow coastal waters of Cobscook Bay. The project area is not considered significant habitat for marine mammals and therefore no adverse effects on marine mammal habitat are expected. Marine mammals approaching the action area will likely be traveling or opportunistically foraging. There are no rookeries or major haul-out sites nearby, foraging hotspots, or other ocean bottom structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals that may be present in the marine waters in the vicinity of the project area. The closest significant pinniped haul out is more than six nmi away, which is well outside the project area's largest harassment zone. The project area is not a prime habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by marine mammals. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic noise associated with breakwater replacement activities are expected to affect only small numbers of marine mammals on an infrequent basis. Although it is possible that some individual marine mammals may be exposed to sounds from in-water construction activities more than once, the duration of these multi-exposures is expected to be low since animals will be constantly moving in and out of the area and in-water construction activities will not occur continuously throughout the day.
Harbor and gray seals, harbor porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphins and minke whales as the potentially affected marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction in the action area, are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and are not considered strategic under the MMPA. Because of the low level of impact, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stocks is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stocks as a whole. Additionally, Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to avoid the project area while the activity is occurring.
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) There is no known foraging or reproductive habitat in the project area and the project activities are not expected to result in the alteration of habitat important to these behaviors or substantially impact the behaviors themselves; (4) There is no major haul out habitat within six nmi of the project area; (5) The project area is not a prime habitat for marine mammals, nor will the activity otherwise have adverse effects on marine mammal habitat; and (6) Mitigation measures are expected to be effective in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In addition, these stocks are not listed under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to have adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
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 monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from the construction activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The amount of take NMFS is authorizing is considered small, less than one percent relative to the estimated populations for harbor porpoises, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and minke whales and 2.11 percent for harbor seals. 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 mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, 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.
No ESA-listed marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction or their designated critical habitat are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that a consultation under the ESA is not required. The applicant consulted with the NMFS' GARFO for federally listed fish species.
NMFS prepared an EA and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that will result from the EBRP. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed January 2017. A copy of the EA and FONSI is available upon request (see
NMFS has issued an IHA to ME DOT for the potential harassment of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to the EBRP in Eastport, ME, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Credit Union Advisory Council (CUAC or Council) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). The notice also describes the functions of the Council. Notice of the meeting is permitted by section 9 of the CUAC Charter and is intended to notify the public of this meeting.
The meeting date is Thursday, March 30, 2017, 3:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. eastern daylight time.
The meeting location is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Crystal Dully, Outreach and Engagement Associate, 202-435-9588,
Under section 9(d) of the CUAC Charter, each meeting of the Council shall be open to public observation, to the extent that a facility is available to accommodate the public, unless the Bureau, in accordance with paragraph (4) of this section, determines that the meeting shall be closed. The Bureau also will make reasonable efforts to make the meetings available to the public through live recording. Notice of the time, place an purpose of each meeting, as well as a summary of the proposed agenda, shall be published in the
Section 2 of the CUAC Charter provides that pursuant to the executive and administrative powers conferred on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by section 1012 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Director established the Credit Union Advisory Council to consult with the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the Federal consumer financial laws as they pertain to credit unions with total assets of $10 billion or less.
Section 3(a) of the CUAC Charter states that the CFPB supervises depository institutions and credit unions with total assets of more than $10 billion and their respective affiliates, but other than the limited authority conferred by section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB does not have supervisory authority regarding credit unions and depository institutions with total assets of $10 billion or less. As a result, the CFPB does not have regular contact with these institutions, and it would therefore be beneficial to create a mechanism to ensure that their unique perspectives are shared with the Bureau. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panels provide one avenue to gather this input, but participants from credit unions must possess no more than $175 million in assets, which precludes the participation of many. Under section 3(b), the Advisory Council shall fill this gap by providing an interactive dialogue and exchange of ideas and experiences between credit union employees and Bureau staff. The Advisory Council shall advise generally on the Bureau's regulation of consumer financial products or services and other topics assigned to it by the Director. To carry out the Advisory Council's purpose, the scope of its activities shall include providing information, analysis, and recommendations to the Bureau. The output of Advisory Council meetings should serve to better inform the CFPB's policy development, rulemaking, and engagement functions.
The Credit Union Advisory Council will discuss alternative data and consumer access to financial records. Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Individuals who wish to attend the Credit Union Advisory Council meeting must RSVP to
The Council's agenda will be made available to the public on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, via
A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's Web site
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Department of the Air Force, Defense.
Meeting notice.
The United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board plans to hold its Spring Board meeting in April. This meeting will be
The meeting date is Tuesday, April 11, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
25th AF Headquarters, 2 Hall Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78243-7072.
The Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer, Major Mike Rigoni at
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 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 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces the United States Air Force (USAF) Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) Spring Board meeting will take place on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at the 25th Air Force Headquarters, located at 2 Hall Blvd. Ste. 201, San Antonio, TX, 78243-7072. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the meeting will be closed to the general public because the Scientific Advisory Board will discuss classified information and matters covered by Section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, subsection (c), subparagraph (1).
Any member of the public that wishes to provide input to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board must contact the Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer at the phone number or email address listed in this announcement at least five working days prior to the meeting date. Please ensure that you
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 15, 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.
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 15, 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),
FCC 605 application is a consolidated application form for Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Radio Operators, and General Mobile Radio Services and is used to collect licensing data for the Universal Licensing System. The Commission is requesting OMB approval for an extension (no change in the reporting, recordkeeping and/or third party disclosure requirements). The Commission is making minor clarifications to the instructions on the main form and schedule B as well as a clarification to Item 3 on the main form.
The data collected on this form includes the Date of Birth for Commercial Operator licensees however this information will be redacted from public view.
The FCC uses the information in FCC Form 605 to determine whether the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to obtain a license. Without such information, the Commission cannot determine whether to issue the licenses to the applicants that provide telecommunication services to the public, and therefore, to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
The Commission is revising the basic qualifications section of the form to include a question regarding whether an application has been convicted of a felony in any state or federal court. Applicants, answering yes must provide an explanation. This item enables the FCC to determine whether an Applicant is eligible under §§ 310(d) and 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to hold or have ownership interest in a station license.
In addition we are seeking approval to change the ship application form require the applicant provide the official ship number. Coast Guard requests we change this question from optional to required. Obtaining the ship number is the only way to reliably link a license to a specific vessel.
The Information provided on this form will also be used to update the database and to provide for proper use of the frequency spectrum as well as enforcement purposes.
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 15, 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
The FCC rules under 47 CFR 2.1033 and 15.121 require manufacturers of scanning receivers to design their equipment so that it has 38 dB of image rejection for Cellular Service frequencies, tuning, control and filtering circuitry are inaccessible and any attempt to modify the scanning receiver to receive Cellular Service transmissions will likely render the scanning receiver inoperable. The Commission's rules also require manufacturers to submit information with any application for certification that describes the testing method used to determine compliance with the 38 dB image rejection ratio, the design features that prevent modification of the scanning receiver to receive Cellular Service transmissions, and the design steps taken to make tuning, control, and filtering circuitry inaccessible. Furthermore, the FCC requires equipment to carry a statement assessing the vulnerability of the scanning receiver to modification and to have a label affixed to the scanning receiver, similar to the following as described in section 15.121:
The Commission uses the information required in this equipment authorization process to determine whether the equipment that is being marketed complies with the Congressional mandate in the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (TDDRA) and applicable Commission rules.
Section 18.213 (for which the Commission is seeking continued OMB approval) requires information on industrial, scientific and medical equipment shall be provided to the user in the instruction manual or on the packaging of an instruction manual is not provided for any type of ISM equipment. (a) The interference potential of the device or system; (b) maintenance of the system; (c) simple measures that can be taken by the user to correct interference; and (d) manufacturers of RF lighting devices must provide documentation, similar to the following:
This product may cause interference to radio equipment and should not be installed near maritime safety communications equipment or other critical navigation or communication equipment operating between 0.45-30 MHz. Variations of this language are permitted provided all the points of the statement are addressed and may be presented in any legible font or text style.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed as the contact.
For additional information about the information collection, contact Brian Marenco at (202) 418-0838, or email:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission released a public notice announcing the meeting and agenda of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended effect of this action is to make the public aware of the NANC's next meeting and agenda.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017, 10:00 a.m.
Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Carmell Weathers, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-C162, Washington, DC 20554.
Carmell Weathers at (202) 418-2325 or
This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 17-235 released March 9, 2017. The complete text in this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at
The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has scheduled a meeting to be held Tuesday, March 28, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC.
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many participants as possible. The public may submit written statements to the NANC, which must be received two business days before the meeting. In addition, oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the NANC will be permitted to the extent time permits. Such statements will be limited to five minutes in length by any one party or entity, and requests to make an oral statement must be received two business days before the meeting.
* The Agenda may be modified at the discretion of the NANC Chairman with the approval of the DFO.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Montana has scheduled a Special General Election on May 25, 2017, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the At-Large Congressional District vacated by Representative Ryan Zinke.
Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special General Election on May 25, 2017, shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report, and a 30-day Post-General Report.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Montana Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on May 13, 2017, and a 30-day Post-General Report on June 24, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees not filing monthly in 2017 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Montana Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Montana Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the Montana Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special election must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,900 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).
On behalf of the Commission.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
South Carolina has scheduled special elections to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 5th Congressional District vacated by Representative Mick Mulvaney.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
There are three possible special elections, but only two may be necessary.
• Primary Election: May 2, 2017.
• Possible Runoff Election: May 16, 2017. In the event that one candidate does not achieve a majority vote in his/her party's Special Primary Election, the top two vote-getters will participate in a Special Runoff Election.
• General Election: June 20, 2017.
All principal campaign committees of candidates
If only two elections are held, all principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the South Carolina Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a Pre-Primary Report on April 20, 2017; a Pre-General Report on June 8, 2017; and a Post-General Report on July 21, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
If three elections are held, all principal campaign committees of candidates
All principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the South Carolina Special Primary, Special Runoff and Special General Elections shall file a Pre-Primary Report on April 20, 2017; a Pre-Runoff Report on May 4, 2017; a Pre-General Report on June 8, 2017; and a Post-General Report on July 21, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees not filing monthly in 2017 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the South Carolina Special Primary, Special Runoff or Special General Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the South Carolina Special Primary, Special Runoff or Special General Elections will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the South Carolina Special Elections may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,900 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).
On behalf of the Commission,
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Notice.
The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend for three years, its current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Fuel Rating Rule (“Rule”), which will expire on July 31, 2017.
Comments must be filed by May 15, 2017.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, Room CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2889.
The Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR part 306 (OMB Control Number: 3084-0068), establishes standard procedures for determining, certifying, and disclosing the octane rating of automotive gasoline and the automotive fuel rating of alternative liquid automotive fuels, as required by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. 15 U.S.C. 2822(a)-(c). The
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the regulations noted herein.
Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
Labor costs are derived by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. Here, the average hourly wages of refiners, producers, distributors, and importers is $35.12.
Staff believes that the Rule does not impose any capital costs for producers, importers, or distributors of fuels. Retailers, however, incur the cost of procuring and replacing fuel dispenser labels to comply with the Rule. Staff conservatively estimates that the price per automotive fuel label is two dollars and that the average automotive fuel retailer has six dispensers; thus, $12 labeling cost at inception per retailer.
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Fuel Rating Rule PRA Comment, FTC File No. P144200” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 15, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Julia Solomon Ensor, Attorney, (202) 326-2377, or Crystal Ostrum, Attorney, (202) 326-3405, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 8, 2017), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 7, 2017. Write “In the Matter of Block Division, Inc., File No. 172 3052” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Block Division, Inc., File No. 172 3052” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Block Division, Inc. (“respondent”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves respondent's marketing, sale, and distribution of pulley blocks and other products with claims that the products are of U.S.-origin. According to the FTC's complaint, respondent represented that its products are “Made in USA.” In fact, respondent's products incorporate significant imported parts, including imported steel pulley plates that entered the United States from overseas already stamped “Made in USA.”
The complaint alleges that respondent's claims that its products are “Made in USA” were false or misleading, or not substantiated at the time the representations were made. Accordingly, the complaint alleges that respondent engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondent from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Consistent with the FTC's Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, Part I prohibits Block Division, Inc. from making U.S.-origin claims for its products unless either: (1) The final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States; or (2) a clear and conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients, and/or processing.
Part II prohibits respondent from making any “Made in USA” or other country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is true, not misleading, and respondent has a reasonable basis substantiating the representation.
Parts III through VI are reporting and compliance provisions. Part III requires respondent to acknowledge receipt of the order, to provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors, and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the order. Part IV requires the filing of compliance reports within one year after the order becomes final and within 10 days of any change in respondent that would affect compliance with the order. Part V requires respondent to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. Part VI requires respondent to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview respondent's personnel.
Finally, Part VII is a “sunset” provision, terminating the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Rule Governing Pre-sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms. That clearance expires on March 31, 2017.
Comments must be received by April 13, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Christine M. Todaro, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., CC-8528, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3711.
The Pre-sale Availability Rule, 16 CFR. 702, is one of three rules
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 13, 2017. Write “Warranty Rules: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403” on your comment. Your comment, including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you are required to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comment online, or to send it to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Warranty Rules: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should also be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, address comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
Notice.
The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) publishes notice of a proposed subaward from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NOAA) to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA), a nonprofit organization, for the purpose of supporting the Council Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP). The Council and NOAA have entered an interagency agreement for NOAA to carry out CMAP, as approved in the Council's Initial Funded Priorities List.
Please send questions by email to
Section 1321(t)(2)(E)(ii)(III) of the RESTORE Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(t) and
As specified in the Initial Funded Priorities List, which is available on the Council's Web site at
The program will: (1) Create an inventory of the existing monitoring programs, data, protocols and standards; (2) determine the minimum monitoring elements needed to evaluate the performance of restoration projects; (3) evaluate monitoring program suitability; (4) combine data from the suitable existing programs into searchable databases for Council use; (5) examine the inventory to determine what data are missing (
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Extension of public comment period.
On February 10, 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a notice in the
Written comments must be received on or before May 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0008 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of
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 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.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on April 5, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Tommy Douglas Conference Center, the Ballroom, 10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903. The conference center's telephone number is 240-645-4000. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The
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:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2017-N-1062. The docket will close on April 4, 2017. Comments received on or before March 22, 2017, will be provided to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Stephanie L. Begansky at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has identified a list of class II devices that, when finalized, will be exempt from premarket notification requirements, subject to certain limitations. FDA is publishing this notice of that determination and requesting public comment in accordance with procedures established by the 21st
Submit either electronic or written comments on the notice by May 15, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2017. The
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Bryce Bennett, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5244, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-348-1446, email:
Under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA must classify devices into one of three regulatory classes: Class I, class II, or class III. FDA classification of a device is determined by the amount of regulation necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295), and the amendments of the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), devices are to be classified into class I (general controls) if there is information showing that the general controls of the FD&C Act are sufficient to assure safety and effectiveness; into class II (special controls), if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance; and into class III (premarket approval), if there is insufficient information to support classifying a device into class I or class II and the device is a life sustaining or life supporting device or is for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.
Most generic types of devices that were on the market before the date of the 1976 amendments (May 28, 1976) (generally referred to as preamendments devices) have been classified by FDA under the procedures set forth in section 513(c) and (d) of the FD&C Act through the issuance of classification regulations into one of these three regulatory classes. Devices introduced into interstate commerce for the first time on or after May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices) are classified through the premarket notification process under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)). Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and the implementing regulations, part 807 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), require persons who intend to market a new device to submit a premarket notification (510(k))
On December 13, 2016, the President signed into law the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255). Section 3054 of the 21st Century Cures Act amended section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. As amended, section 510(m)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish in the
In a final action, and after considering comments, FDA intends to amend the codified language for each listed regulation to reflect the final determination with respect to exempt devices. FDA's final action will decrease regulatory burdens on the medical device industry and will eliminate private costs and expenditures required to comply with Federal regulation. Specifically, regulated industry will no longer have to invest time and resources in 510(k) notifications, including preparation of documents and data for submission to FDA, payment of user fees associated with 510(k) submissions, and responding to questions and requests for additional information from FDA during 510(k) review.
There are a number of factors FDA may consider to determine whether a 510(k) is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a class II device. These factors are discussed in the guidance the Agency issued on February 19, 1998, entitled “Procedures for Class II Device Exemptions from Premarket Notification, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff” (Ref. 1).
FDA believes that the types of class II devices listed in this notice should be exempt from the premarket notification requirements found under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act. However, an exemption from the requirement of premarket notification does not mean that the device is exempt from any other statutory or regulatory requirements, unless such exemption is explicitly provided by order or regulation. FDA's initial determination that premarket notification is unnecessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for devices listed in this document is based, in part, on the assurance of safety and effectiveness that other regulatory controls, such as current good manufacturing practice requirements, provide.
In addition to being subject to the general limitations to the exemptions found in §§ 862.9 to 892.9) 21 CFR 862.9 to 892.9, FDA may partially limit the exemption from premarket notification requirements to specific devices within a listed device type. In table 1, for example, FDA is listing the exemption of the endoscopic magnetic retriever, but limits the exemption to such devices that are for single use. All other endoscopic magnetic retrievers are still subject to premarket notification requirements because FDA determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these devices.
FDA is identifying the following list of class II devices that, if finalized, would no longer require premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, subject to the general limitations to the exemptions found in §§ 862.9 to 892.9:
In table 1, FDA included devices classified under § 866.5750 (Radioallergosorbent (RAST) immunological test system, product code “DHB”). FDA does not believe that all devices with the product code DHB meet the exemption criteria from premarket notification requirements. However, FDA is identifying a substantial amount of these devices for exemption in table 2.
The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Notice; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is establishing a public docket to solicit input on ongoing efforts to enhance mechanisms for patient engagement at the Agency. Engaging with patients, their caregivers, and advocates has long been a priority of the Agency. In this tradition, FDA intends to enhance future patient engagement by providing a more transparent, accessible, and robust experience for patient communities. To achieve these goals, FDA is considering establishing a new Office of Patient Affairs. This concept was directly informed by the public feedback solicited through the prior public docket regarding FDA's stakeholder engagement responsibilities outlined by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The purpose of this notice is to outline FDA's proposal for the future of patient engagement at the Agency so that the perspectives of
Submit either electronic or written comments by June 12, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Sharnell Ligon, Office of Medical Products and Tobacco, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6125, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5253, FAX: 301-847-3532.
FDA has long recognized the importance of engaging with patients, caregivers, and their advocates in the medical product development process. On July 9, 2012, the President signed into law FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144), which expands FDA's authorities and strengthens the Agency's ability to safeguard and advance public health in several areas, including increasing stakeholder involvement in FDA regulatory processes. Section 1137 of FDASIA, Patient Participation in Medical Product Discussions, codified in section 569C of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-8c), directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “develop and implement strategies to solicit the views of patients during the medical product development process and consider the perspectives of patients during regulatory discussions.”
On November 4, 2014, FDA issued a
As part of this effort, the Agency has identified the following objectives for its patient engagement activities:
• Develop a nuanced understanding of the patient experience of disease by:
○ Gathering patient perspective on what is clinically meaningful,
○ assessing attitudes towards benefit-risk and tolerance of uncertainty, and
○ enhancing the science of eliciting and integrating patient input.
• Support patients and their advocates in understanding regulatory processes and navigating the FDA by:
○ Communicating relevant FDA positions, procedures, and activities,
○ connecting patients and their advocates with the appropriate resources, and
○ resolving discrete challenges and needs.
To achieve these objectives, the Agency is considering establishing a central “Office of Patient Affairs” which will be tasked with supporting and coordinating patient engagement activities across medical product centers and other offices that engage with patients and their advocates on matters pertaining to medical products. In order to improve the transparency, coordination, and implementation of FDA's patient engagement activities, the responsibilities of this central office would include:
• Offering a single, central entry point to the Agency for the patient community,
• providing triage and navigation services for inbound inquiries from patient stakeholders,
• hosting and maintaining robust data management systems that would
• developing a scalable and forward-looking platform for communicating with patient stakeholders, particularly online channels.
Under this proposal to enhance mechanisms for patient engagement at FDA, a new “Office of Patient Affairs” would be directly accountable to the medical product Centers through clear governance structures. In addition, a regular evaluation of this central office and of FDA's overall patient engagement efforts is proposed. This evaluation will include feedback from external stakeholders (including patients and their advocates) on a biennial basis to best ensure the Agency's ongoing responsiveness to the needs of patient communities.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012; Regulatory Science Initiatives.” The topics to be discussed will provide an overview of the current status of regulatory science initiatives for generic drugs and an opportunity for public input on research priorities in this area. FDA is seeking this input from a variety of stakeholders—industry, academia, patient advocates, professional societies, and other interested parties—as it fulfills its commitment under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) to develop an annual list of regulatory science initiatives specific to generic drugs. FDA will take the information it obtains from the public workshop into account in developing the fiscal year (FY) 2018 Regulatory Science Plan.
The public workshop will be held on May 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The registration deadline to attend either in person, or virtually via web cast, is April 5, 2017. Comments regarding this public workshop may be submitted March 2, 2017, through June 2, 2017.
The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, Section A), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Stephanie Choi, Center for Drug
In July 2012, Congress passed GDUFA (Title III of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144)). GDUFA is designed to enhance public access to safe, high-quality generic drugs and modernize the generic drug program. To support this goal, FDA agreed in the GDUFA commitment letter to work with industry and interested stakeholders on identifying regulatory science research priorities specific to generic drugs for each fiscal year covered by GDUFA. The commitment letter outlines FDA's performance goals and procedures under the GDUFA program for the years 2012-2017. The commitment letter can be found at
The purpose of the May public workshop is to obtain input from industry and other interested stakeholders on the identification of generic drug regulatory science priorities for FY 2018. FDA is holding this public workshop because the Agency intends to continue its regulatory science initiatives upon reauthorization of GDUFA (
• Opportunities for scientific or technical advancements that would help to overcome specific barriers for industry that currently limit the availability of generic drug products.
• Innovative approaches to pre-approval development of generic drugs, including new methodologies for product design and manufacturing, and design and conduct of in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical studies and identification of scientifically robust strategies for demonstration of bioequivalence for various product classes.
• Innovation in scientific approaches to evaluating the therapeutic equivalence of generic drug products throughout their life cycle.
• Identification of high-impact public health issues involving generic drugs that can be addressed by the prioritized allocation of FY 2018 funding for regulatory science research.
• Identification of specific issues related to generic drug products where scientific recommendations and/or clarifications are needed in developing and/or revising FDA's guidance for industry.
• Strategies for enhancing quality and equivalence risk management during generic drug product development, during regulatory review, and/or throughout the drug product's life cycle.
FDA will consider all comments made at this workshop or received through the docket (see
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by April 5, 2017, midnight eastern standard time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted.
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice
The meeting will be held on March 22, 2017 from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held in a webinar and conference call format. Webinar information can be found on the Web site at:
Information about the NACNHSC and the agenda for this meeting can be obtained by accessing the following Web site:
Anyone requesting information regarding the NACNHSC should contact CAPT Shari Campbell, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), HRSA in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: CAPT Shari Campbell, Designated Federal Official, BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 14N108, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 594-4251; or (3) send an email to
The NACNHSC makes recommendations with respect to their responsibilities under Subpart II, Part D of Title III of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (National Health Service Corps and Health Professional Shortage Area Designations), and shall review and comment upon regulations promulgated by the Secretary under Subpart II.
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Oral comments will be honored in the order they are requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the NACNHSC should be sent to Monica-Tia Bullock at
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice and request for comments. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs is requesting OMB approval for a new Generic Clearance for the Collection of Routine Customer Feedback by OMB.
Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of the Secretary (OS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to OMB for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 15, 2017.
Submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant Web sites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
Sherrette Funn,
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.
The Agency 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
• 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 will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• 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.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
All written comments will be available for public inspection
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Council of Research Advocates.
The meeting will be held as a webinar only and is open to the public to join/dial-in for participation. Individuals who plan to join/dial-in to the meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations in order to do so, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
(Join by Phone) 1-855-244-8681 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada), 1-650-479-3207 Call-in toll number (US/Canada).
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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 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 National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Open: May 18, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
SAMHSA is conducting a cross-site evaluation of the FY2016 cohort of the CABHI grant program. The CABHI Evaluation builds on a previous evaluation of SAMHSA's 2009-2012 homeless services grant programs (
In 2016, SAMHSA awarded 30 CABHI grants across three levels: States (up to $1.5 million per year), local governments (up to $800,000 per year), and communities (up to $400,000 per year). The grantees are united by the goal of enhancing and expanding infrastructure and capacity for mental health and substance abuse treatment and related support services for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness or veterans, families, or youth experiencing homelessness as a result of these conditions. This is accomplished through the provision of permanent supportive housing, behavioral health treatment, and recovery support services, and enrollment in health insurance, Medicaid, or other mainstream benefit programs. Potential grantees awarded in FY2017 will have the same funding options and grant requirements.
The primary task of the CABHI evaluation is to conduct a comprehensive process and outcome evaluation, addressing questions related to the implementation of the CABHI grant projects and the extent to which they were able to meet the program's goals. Process evaluation primarily represents what is done to and for the client (
The Client Interview—Baseline and the Client Interview—6-Month Follow-up have been developed to provide
The Client Interview is comprised of questions (unique from SAMHSA's Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] client-level tool) that measure the outcomes of interest and subpopulations of focus: Homelessness, housing, treatment history, trauma symptoms, housing and treatment choice, burden and satisfaction, and criminal justice involvement. For the CABHI Evaluation, the Client Interview Baseline and 6-Month Follow-up have been updated to (1) reflect changes to the GPRA client-level tool which allowed the questions on military service to be removed, (2) align with the newest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), (3) remove the Readiness to Change measure, and (4) add detailed housing and homelessness questions. For the 6-Month Follow-up only, questions documenting services and evidence based practices received were added to improve data on client service receipt. Immediately following the SAMHSA-required administration of the GPRA client-level tools, which are completed by enrolled clients for each grantee project at baseline and 6-month follow-up, the paper and pencil Client Interview will be administered face-to-face by the GPRA interviewer. Questions regarding perception of care and treatment coercion will be self-administered by participating clients and returned to the interviewer in a sealed envelope to be included in the full package mailed to the evaluation coordinating center. Client participation is voluntary; gift card incentives will be given at baseline worth a $15 value and at 6-month follow-up worth a $30 value. Clients will be assigned unique identifiers by local projects; responses will be recorded on a paper and pencil answer sheet, mailed by the grantee project to the evaluation coordinating center, and scanned into a secure dataset. This process will eliminate the need for data entry, thereby reducing cost and potential for data entry error, and ensuring privacy for evaluation data.
The Stakeholder Survey will be conducted with CABHI project stakeholders and partners via a web survey to assess the types of stakeholder partnerships involved in the CABHI projects, the services provided, and the effectiveness of implementation and collaboration in the CABHI projects. For the CABHI Evaluation, the survey has been divided into three waves so that questions are relevant to the current phase of grant implementation (
Annual burden has increased from 4,006 to 5,098 hours per year as the response burden times have been revised to reflect real-world experience during the Homeless Programs evaluation and the number of respondents has been increased for the Stakeholder Survey.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, MD 20857
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued for Gunderson Marine LLC HULL 115. We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on January 5, 2017.
If you have questions on this notice, call LCDR Patrick Drayer, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 206-220-7275.
A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed for under the provisions of the alternative compliance regulations in 33 CFR part 81, has been issued for the Gunderson Marine LLC HULL 115. The vessel's primary purpose is as an Oil Recovery Barge.
The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that full compliance with the International and Inland Navigational Rules would interfere with the special functions and intent of the vessel and would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessel's operation. Placing the sidelights in the required position would result in the high probability that the lights would be damaged or destroyed during vessel mooring or anchoring operations, and pose a potential hazard to vessel crew during vessel operations.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance authorizes the Gunderson Marine LLC HULL 115 to deviate from the requirements set forth in Annex I of the International Navigational Rules and 33 CFR 84.05 of the Inland Navigational Rules by placing its sidelights 39 feet and 4 inches from the vessel's centerline.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued for Conrad Industries Hull C-1148. We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on January 5, 2017.
If you have questions on this notice, call LCDR Patrick Drayer, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 206-220-7275.
A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed for under the provisions of the alternative compliance regulations in 33 CFR part 81, has been issued for the Conrad Industries Hull C-1148. The vessel's primary purpose is a tank barge intended to operate at all times in Articulated Tug and Barge mode. The unique design of the vessel does not lend itself to full compliance with Rule 24(f) and Annex I, Part 3(b) of the International and Inland Navigational Rules.
The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that full compliance with the International and Inland Navigational Rules would interfere with the special functions and intent of the vessel and would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessel's operation. Placing the sidelights in the required position would result in the high probability that the lights would be damaged or destroyed and pose a potential personal safety hazard during vessel mooring operations.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance authorizes the Conrad Industries Hull C-1148 to deviate from the requirements set forth in Annex I of the International Navigational Rules and 33 CFR 84.05 of the Inland Navigational Rules by placing its sidelights 27 feet and 9 inches from the vessel's centerline.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued for JT Marine Shipyard Hull #005. We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on January 5, 2017.
If you have questions on this notice, call LCDR Patrick Drayer, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 206-220-7275.
A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed for under the provisions of the alternative compliance regulations in 33 CFR part 81, has been issued for the JT Marine Shipyard Hull #005. The vessel's primary purpose is as a work boat. The unique design of the vessel does not lend itself to full compliance with Rule 21(c) and Annex I, Part 3(b) of the International and Inland Navigational Rules.
The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that full compliance with the International and Inland Navigational Rules would interfere with the special functions and intent of the vessel and would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessel's operation. Placing the sidelights and sternlight in the required position would result in the high probability that the lights would be damaged or destroyed during vessel work boat operations.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance authorizes the JT Marine Shipyard Hull #005 to deviate from the requirements set forth in Annex I of the International Navigational Rules and 33 CFR 84.05 of the Inland Navigational Rules by placing its sidelights 8 feet and 4 inches from the vessel's centerline and the sternlight on the backside of the rear navigation light mast.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of recertification.
This notice informs the public that the Coast Guard has recertified the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) as an alternative voluntary advisory group for Prince William Sound, Alaska. This certification allows the PWSRCAC
This recertification is effective for the period from March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018.
LT P. Grizzle, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi), by phone at (907) 463-2809, email at
As part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Congress passed the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (the Act), 33 U.S.C. 2732, to foster a long-term partnership among industry, government, and local communities in overseeing compliance with environmental concerns in the operation of crude oil terminals and oil tankers.
On October 18, 1991, the President delegated his authority under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o) to the Secretary of Transportation in Executive Order 12777, section 8(g) (see 56 FR 54757; October 22, 1991) for purposes of certifying advisory councils, or groups, subject to the Act. On March 3, 1992, the Secretary redelegated that authority to the Commandant of the USCG (see 57 FR 8582; March 11, 1992). The Commandant redelegated that authority to the Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (G-M) on March 19, 1992 (letter #5402).
On July 7, 1993, the USCG published a policy statement, 58 FR 36504, to clarify the factors that shall be considered in making the determination as to whether advisory councils, or groups, should be certified in accordance with the Act.
The Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection (G-M), redelegated recertification authority for advisory councils, or groups, to the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District on February 26, 1999 (letter #16450).
On September 16, 2002, the USCG published a policy statement, 67 FR 58440, which changed the recertification procedures such that applicants are required to provide the USCG with comprehensive information every three years (triennially). For each of the two years between the triennial application procedures, applicants submit a letter requesting recertification that includes a description of any substantive changes to the information provided at the previous triennial recertification. Further, public comment is not solicited prior to recertification during streamlined years, only during the triennial comprehensive review.
The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company provides financial support to the PWSRCAC annually in the form of a long term contract. In return for this funding, the PWSRCAC must annually show that it “fosters the goals and purposes” of OPA 90 and is “broadly representative of the communities and interests in the vicinity of the terminal facilities and Prince William Sound.” The PWSRCAC is an independent, nonprofit organization founded in 1989. Though it receives Federal oversight like many independent, non-profit organizations, it is not a Federal agency. The PWSRCAC is a local organization that predates the passage of OPA 90. The existence of the PWSRCAC was specifically recognized in OPA 90 where it is defined as an “alternate voluntary advisory group.”
Alyeska funds the PWSRCAC, and the Coast Guard makes sure the PWSRCRC operates in a fashion that is broadly consistent with OPA 90.
On February 2, 2017 the USCG published a
By letter dated February 27, 2017, the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard certified that the PWSRCAC qualifies as an alternative voluntary advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This recertification terminates on February 28, 2018.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of three data storage products. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of origin of two data storage products is Mexico and the country of origin of the third data storage is Malaysia for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on March 8, 2017. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within April 13, 2017.
Grace A. Kim, Tariff Classification and Marking Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-7941.
Notice is hereby given that on March 8, 2017, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR 177(B)), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain data storage products, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H269185, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR 177(B), which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that for two of the three products, the processing in Mexico results in a substantial transformation. However, for the third product, the processing in Mexico does not result in a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin of two data storage products is
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the
This is in response to a letter we received dated September 18, 2013, requesting a final determination on behalf of [********] (“the Company”), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177) and to two follow-up submissions dated January 6, 2014, and May 30, 2014. You also requested a country of origin marking decision. CBP also received notification on July 21, 2015 that the Company was acquired by another corporation and counsel for the Company was replaced. Under 19 CFR part 177, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511
This final determination concerns the country of origin of three data storage products for government procurement. As a U.S. importer, the Company is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination. A meeting was held at our office on February 19, 2014.
In your letter, you requested confidential treatment for certain information contained in the file. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), the identified information has been bracketed and will be redacted in the public version of this final determination.
The Company is a data storage technology company headquartered in the United Kingdom with worldwide operations. The Company manufactures a variety of high performance enterprise data storage products that are used for the storage of electronic data onto physical disc drives. These products serve as the building blocks for medium to large corporations with a need to store and access large amounts of data securely and rapidly. Physically, the products operate in large server rooms or similar facilities, managed by trained professional information technology staff.
Three products are the subject of this ruling and they all apply the Integrated Storage Test Platform (“ISTP”). ISTP is a highly proprietary, Linux-based global hardware and software solution representing approximately 100 man-years of software development time over the past ten years and 6,500,000 lines of code, developed in the United Kingdom and the United States for the Company's manufacturing processes. You state that ISTP is a critical element of the Company's products. As discussed
Product One, the [********] is a storage application platform delivering integrated storage and enterprise server system resources that tailor the amount of processing, memory, storage capacity, and high bandwidth input/output resources to meet customers' requirements. While Product One can be configured based on customer requirements, it generally includes hard disc slots that can carry up to 24 hard disc drivers in drive carrier, server-grade Intel processor(s), memory chips, and seven Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (“PCIe”) input/output slots. It can accept both a base-level operating system and unique storage applications developed by Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEM”). The chassis subassembly is imported from Malaysia; hard disc drives are imported from China, Singapore, or Thailand; and a power supply included in the chassis subassembly is imported from the Philippines. All of the components are imported into Mexico for assembly, firmware installation, inspection, and testing. The workers at the Mexican facility are stated to be highly trained and many positions require college/technical degrees, in addition to 1-7 years of experience.
The assembly process in Mexico starts with the chassis subassembly, which is a non-functioning unit that includes certain electronic components (
1. The chassis subassembly is removed from the packaging, prepared for production, and inspected.
2. A SAP-trained employee generates labels to be applied to the subassembly to track the subassembly parts through the production.
3. The individual hard drives from China, Singapore, or Thailand, and drive carriers from Malaysia are assembled to create 24 disc drive assemblies. This process is conducted under stringent electrostatic discharge (“ESD”) controlled conditions and operators must use SAP to determine the assembly process. The installation of each hard drive into the drive carrier takes 12 steps.
4. The disc drive assemblies are installed into the chassis subassembly in a 15 step process, with SAP-generated labels.
5. The assembled chassis build undergoes first inspection, in an approximately 80-85 step process, which primarily focuses on the physical condition and the traceability of all the parts.
6. During the basic assurance test and functional test/firmware and software installation, the chassis build is connected to a custom test server to
7. A controlled environment reliability test is conducted to ensure that the chassis build can endure challenging physical environments (excessive heat or cold).
8. The Hipot test is conducted to verify that the chassis build is electrically safe, which confirms that the electric current used to run the unit is adequately shielded so that neither the operators nor the equipment are harmed by electrical shock and that all insulation is installed correctly.
9. Customer region-specific power cables, installation, and other customer-specific documentation are added.
10. Final inspection is performed.
Product Two, the [********] is a combined storage and server platform on which OEMs can deploy their own data storage software as a storage solution to their end customers. The embedded servers have less memory, processing, and input/output capacity than Product One, but they are designed to provide OEMs with a high availability storage solution that can withstand a server failure. While Product Two can be configured based on customer requirements, it generally includes hard disc drive slots that can carry up to 24 hard disc drives in drive carriers, and two embedded server modules with a low-power server-grade Intel processor, memory chips, and one PCIe input/output slot. It can also accept both a case-level operating system and unique OEM applications. The assembly process is similar to the Product One assembly, in that it starts with the chassis subassembly, but does not include disc drive assemblies and has a different computing capacity. The assembly process takes approximately 76 minutes of labor time.
Product Three, the [********], is also substantially similar to Product One, but it can incorporate up to 84 disc drives. Otherwise, the assembly in Mexico is substantially similar to that of Product One. The assembly process takes approximately 355 minutes of labor time.
During the Basic Assurance Test and Functional Test/Firmware and Software Installation process in all three products, the Company loads numerous firmware files onto the system (15 firmware files in Product One and Product Three, and 22 firmware files in Product Two). The specific firmware is said to confer customer specific operational functionality to the system and enable the components to work together. The disc drives are programmed with key codes in order to work with the customer application, and the Company states that the disc drives are not functional without this step. The drives are programmed to set up to 300 custom drive performance characteristics, such as timeouts, error thresholds, and data block size. The Company states that the post-assembly programming and testing enables the operation of each product and customizes it for its customers. The Company's programming process is driven and managed by the ISTP and is as follows:
1. Initialization and hardware validation is performed to ensure that all necessary physical components are present (disc drives, power units, batteries, motherboards, other printed circuit boards, etc).
2. Canister master/slave validation is performed to ensure that the “master” canister (controller) is properly communicating with the other canisters (the “slaves”).
3. Code load and validation are conducted in three phrases to establish the customer-specific operating systems and application code: boot loader (loading code that establish initial functions required by the customer), enclosure configuration (ensuring that hardware is compatible with the software or application that will operate on the product), and virtual product data load and configuration (customizing the product instruction to be specific to the customer's product).
4. Motherboard Ethernet branding ensures that the Ethernet ports operate correctly.
5. An SES element test is performed to ensure that sensors are present and communicating with the system.
6. Hard disc drive presence, code load, and validation is performed to ensure that all hard disc drives have been installed properly and are able to communicate with the system. The Company will load the customer's firmware and establish the operational behavior of the drives.
7. A hard disc drive rotational vibration test is performed to ensure that the fan vibration does not affect the integrity of data sent to and received by the disc drives.
8. Hard disc drive performance, link speed, and status are verified to assess the response time between the drives and execute the instruction from the main processing unit.
9. Hard disc drive branding and validation is performed.
10. Fan speed test is conducted.
11. Voltage, battery, and temperature validation is performed.
12. Log analysis is conducted.
The Company also states that all three storage products are classified under subheading 8471.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). As reflected in the General Note (“GN”) 12(u)(6) of the HTSUS, the Company states that the goods are considered originating goods for purposes of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) when imported into the United States from Mexico. The Company states that the major components imported into Mexico (chassis subassemblies, disc drives, drive carriers, drawer assemblies, etc.) are classified within the subheadings of 8471.60 and 8472.90, HTSUS.
I. What is the country of origin of the three data storage products for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
II. What is the proper country of origin marking under the NAFTA Marking Rules of the three storage products?
Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
In
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into complete products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item's components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative.
You argue that the country of origin of the three products is Mexico because the components imported into Mexico are substantially transformed as a result of the Mexican assembly operations, as described
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H082476, dated May 11, 2010, and in New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N083979 dated December 3, 2009, the United States was determined to be the country of origin of ICS clustered storage units, when foreign components were assembled into the units and programmed in the United States. In HQ H025023 dated April 1, 2008, CBP determined that the Czech Republic was the country of origin of a fabric switch that was assembled to completion and programmed in that country.
In this case, there are also significant assembly operations of the data storage products occurring in Mexico. Similar to HQ H125975, we have various countries involved: Chassis assembly from Malaysia; power supply from the Philippines; software from the United Kingdom; hard disc drives from China, Singapore, or Thailand; and assembly in Mexico. Given the totality of the circumstances in this case, we find that Products One and Three are substantially transformed in Mexico mainly because of the assembly of the various components. However, we find that the origin of Product Two is Malaysia because it lacks the disc drive assemblies, which make up a significant part of the assembly process. For purposes of government procurement, Mexico is the country of origin for Products One and Three, and Malaysia is the country of origin for Product Two.
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article. By enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304, Congress intended to ensure “that the ultimate purchaser would be able to know by inspecting the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods are the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will.”
Section 134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines “country of origin” as “the country of manufacture, production or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the United States. Further work or material added to an article in another country must effect a substantial transformation in order to render such other country the `country of origin' within the meaning of this part; however, for a good of a NAFTA country, the NAFTA Marking Rules will determine the country of origin.”
The NAFTA Marking Rules require the application of the country of origin rules per 19 CFR 102.11, in order to determine whether a good qualifies to be marked as a good of a NAFTA country.
(1) The good is wholly obtained or produced;
(2) The good is produced exclusively from domestic materials; or
(3) Each foreign material incorporated in that good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification set out in 102.20 and satisfies any other applicable requirements of that section and all other applicable requirements of these rules are satisfied.
The three data storage products are neither wholly obtained or produced in a single NAFTA country or produced exclusively from domestic materials. You state that the three products are classified under subheading 8471.70, HTSUS. CBP agrees with the Company's classification with regard to Product One and Product Three. However, after consulting with the National Commodity Specialist Division (“NCSD”), we have determined that Product Two is classified in subheading 8471.80, HTSUS. The tariff shift rule for goods of subheading 8471.70 and 8471.80 is set forth in 19 CFR 102.20 as follows:
In all three instances, the Company concedes that the tariff shift rule is not met because the major components are classified in subheadings between 8471.60 and 8472.90, HTSUS, and do not undergo a tariff shift.
However, the Company states that the products will qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the NAFTA. Assuming the Company plans to make a NAFTA claim at the time of entry, 19 CFR 102.19(a) provides as follows:
The language of 19 CFR 102.19(a) is applicable because pursuant to GN 12(b)(v), the three products are considered originating because they are classified under subheading 8471.70 and 8471.80, HTSUS.
Based on the facts provided, we find that the country of origin of Products One and Three for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Mexico. The country of origin of Product Two for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Malaysia. The country of origin for all three products for marking purposes will be Mexico under the NAFTA Marking Rules.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is providing notice that it has issued an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under the authority granted in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
Emily Su, Assistant Chief Counsel, Civil Enforcement, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002; telephone (571) 227-2305; facsimile (571) 227-1378; email
On August 3, 2007, section 1302(a) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (the 9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53, 121 Stat. 392, gave TSA new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under title 49 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) and for any violations of chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S. Code, which governs transportation worker identification credentials (TWICs).
Section 1302(a) of the 9/11 Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. 114(v), authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties for a violation of any surface transportation requirement under 49 U.S.C. or any requirement related to TWICs under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701. TSA exercises this function under delegated authority from the Secretary.
Under 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA is required to provide the public with an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under this subsection; and include in each such summary the identifying information of each enforcement action, the type of alleged violation, the penalty or penalties proposed, and the final assessment amount of each penalty, if any. This summary is for calendar year 2016. At the beginning of each calendar year, TSA will continue to publish a summary of all enforcement actions taken under the statute during the previous calendar year.
You can get an electronic copy of both this notice and the enforcement actions summary on the Internet by—
(1) Searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page at
(2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA provides the following summary of enforcement actions taken by TSA in calendar year 2016 under section 114(v).
Section 114(v) of title 49 of the U.S. Code gave the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under 49 U.S.C. and for any violations of chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S. Code, which governs transportation worker identification credentials (TWICs). Specifically, section 114(v) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties for a violation of any surface transportation requirement under title 49 U.S.C. or any requirement related to TWICs under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 15, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0075 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0029. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
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:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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)
The Form I-864A is a contract between the sponsor and the sponsor's household members. It is only required if the sponsor used income of his or her household members to reach the
The Form I-864EZ will be used by the USCIS in exactly the same way as Form I-864, however, the USCIS will collect less information from the sponsors as less information will be needed from those who qualify in order to make a thorough adjudication.
The Form I-864W is a form that will be used by the USCIS to determine whether the intending immigrant meets the criteria for exemption of section 213A requirements. This form collects the immigrant's basic information, such as name and address, the reason for the exemption, and accompanying documentation in support of the immigrant's claim that they are not subject to section 213A.
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 15, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0079 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0011. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
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:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 15, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0053 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0016. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
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:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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)
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-567-569 and 731-TA-1343-1345 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, provided for in statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by April 24, 2017. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by May 1, 2017.
Carolyn Carlson (202-205-3002,
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 6, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of J.S.T. Corporation of Farmington Hills, Michigan. A supplement to the complaint was filed on February 13, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrical connectors, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,004,766 (“the '766 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrical connectors, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 2, 4, 9, and 10 of the '766 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 15, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Keith Krolczky, National Investigative Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement Branch, either by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226, by email at
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 Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 15, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Explosives Relief of Disabilities Program, National Center for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) either by mail at 3750 Corporal Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, by email at
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 Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 15, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Andrew Ashton, NFA Branch Specialist either by mail at 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at
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:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 15, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Sheila Hopkins, Program Manager, ATF National Laboratory Center, either by mail at 6000 Ammendale Road, Beltsville, MD 20705-1250, by email at
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:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 15, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact the Explosives Relief of Disabilities Program, National Center for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) either by mail at 3750 Corporal Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, by email at
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:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Periodic Medical Surveillance Examinations For Coal Miners.
All comments must be received on or before May 15, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, Section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811 authorizes the Secretary to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal and metal and nonmetal mines.
The Mine Act authorizes the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to study the causes and consequences of coal-related respiratory disease, and in cooperation with MSHA, to carry out a program for early detection and prevention of pneumoconiosis. NIOSH administers the National Coal Workers' Health Surveillance Program, “Specifications for Medical Examinations of Underground Coal Miners,” as specified in 42 CFR part 37. 30 CFR 72.100 contains collection requirements for these activities in paragraphs (d) and (e).
Section 72.100(d) requires that each mine operator must develop and submit for approval to NIOSH a plan in accordance with 42 CFR part 37 for providing miners with the required periodic examinations specified in 72.100(a) and a roster specifying the name and current address of each miner covered by the plan.
Section 72.100(e) requires that each mine operator must post on the mine bulletin board at all times the approved plan for providing the examinations specified in 72.100(a).
Section 72.100(d) and (e) are requirements that mirror NIOSH information collection requirements under 42 CFR 37.4 (existing OMB No. 0920-0020). Including these requirements allows MSHA to use its inspection and enforcement authority to ensure that operators comply with these provisions.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Periodic Medical Surveillance Examinations For Coal Miners. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Periodic Medical Surveillance Examinations For Coal Miners. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Mississippi River Commission.
9:00 a.m., April 3, 2017.
On board MISSISSIPPI V at Port of Hickman, Hickman, Kentucky.
Open to the public.
(1) Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (2) District Commander's overview of current project issues within the St. Louis and Memphis Districts; and (3) Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers.
9:00 a.m., April 4, 2017.
On board MISSISSIPPI V at Beale Street Landing, Memphis, Tennessee.
Open to the public.
(1) Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (2) District Commander's overview of current project issues within the Memphis District; and (3) Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers.
9:00 a.m., April 5, 2017.
On board MISSISSIPPI V at City Front, Greenville, Mississippi.
Open to the public.
(1) Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (2) District Commander's overview of current
9:00 a.m., April 7, 2017.
On board MISSISSIPPI V at City Dock, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Open to the public.
(1) Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (2) District Commander's overview of current project issues within the New Orleans District; and (3) Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Charles A. Camillo, telephone 601-634-7023.
National Science Foundation.
Final notice of Research Terms and Conditions (RTC) to address and implement the
Effective with publication of this Notice in the
The updated Research Terms and Conditions will March 14, 2017.
To view the final Research Terms and Conditions and Appendices, see:
In 2000, the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP), a cooperative initiative among numerous Federal agencies and institutional recipients of research funds aimed at reducing the administrative burdens associated with research grants and contracts, developed Standard Terms and Conditions as a model implementation of OMB Circular A-110. These terms were an effective set of requirements for many agency research awards. In 2005, following public and agency comment on the original FDP terms, standard research terms and conditions were developed by Research Business Models (RBM), an Interagency Working Group of the Social, Behavioral & Economic Research Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a committee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). In 2008, a side-by-side comparison of OMB Circular A-110 and the Research Terms and Conditions was developed; the terms and conditions were updated in 2011.
This project is an initiative of the Research Business Models (RBM) Interagency Working Group. One of the RBM Subcommittee's priority areas is to create greater consistency in the administration of Federal research awards. Given the increasing complexity of interdisciplinary and interagency research, it has become increasingly important for Federal agencies to manage awards in a similar fashion.
On June 30, 2014, a proposal was presented to the RBM on behalf of the participating agencies from the RBM Interagency Working Group to develop a revised set of RTCs for implementing the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). The purpose was to develop a revised set of RTCs as they apply to research and research-related grants made by the following awarding agencies to institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations.
The agencies participating in this activity include the: U. S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology; U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health; U.S. Department of Agriculture/National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
On October 14, 2015 the National Science Foundation asked for public comment on the updated Research Terms and Conditions (RTC) to address and implement the
While the Uniform Guidance outlines provisions that are specific to research, these terms and conditions:
• Incorporate the entire Uniform Guidance by reference, clarifying or supplementing select provisions where appropriate and consistent with government-wide research policy.
• Incorporate the latest version of the Frequently Asked Questions for the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR 200 (located at
• Apply to an award when included as part of the award or when incorporated in the award by reference. Use of the RTCs is envisioned as a streamlined approach that supports the implementation of the Uniform Guidance by providing clarification, supplementary guidance, and, where appropriate, selected options, while meeting the spirit and intent of a uniform implementation.
The side-by-side RTCs depict pertinent sections of the Uniform Guidance on the left side and clarifications for research and research-related awards on the right side.
In addition to the RTCs, three companion resources will be developed upon implementation: Appendix A, Prior Approval Matrix, Appendix B, Subaward Requirements Matrix, and
These RTCs will apply to an award when they are included as part of that award, or when incorporated into that award by reference. Each participating agency will develop their own implementation plan, and agency specific requirements to the RTCs, which will be posted on the NSF Web site at:
Other agencies not identified above that would like to implement the RTCs are strongly encouraged to do so. In order to provide the necessary documentation to the research community, the following information must be provided to NSF prior to adoption of the RTCs: Prior Approval Matrix, Subaward Requirements Matrix, Agency-Specific Requirements, and agency implementation plan.
On behalf of the RBM, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has agreed to continue to serve as the sponsor of the updated version of these RTCs.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Written comments on this notice must be received by April 13, 2017, to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Ms. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NSF Division of Materials Research (DMR) supports a number of National User Facilities that provide specialized capabilities and instrumentation to the scientific community on a competitive proposal basis. In addition to the user program, these facilities support in-house research, development of new instrumentation or techniques, education, and knowledge transfer.
The facilities integrate research and education for students and post-docs involved in experiments, and support extensive K-12 outreach to foster an interest in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and STEM careers. Facilities capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
National User Facilities will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. User facilities will be required to develop a set of management and performance indicators for submission annually to NSF via the Research Performance Project Reporting (RPPR) module in Research.gov. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, lists of successful proposal and users, the characteristics of facility personnel and students; sources of financial support and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students supported through the facility or users of the facility; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of this investment. Such reporting requirements are included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.
Each facility's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Research, (2) education and training, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships, (5) diversity, (6) management, and (7) budget issues.
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives and metrics for the reporting period, challenges or problems the facility has encountered in making progress towards goals, anticipated problems in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
Facilities are required to file a final report through the RPPR. Final reports contain similar information and metrics as annual reports, but are retrospective and focus on the period that was not addressed in previous annual reports.
The ACRS Subcommittee on NuScale will hold a meeting on March 24, 2017, at 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 NuScale Topical Report TR-0815-16497, “Safety Classification of Passive Nuclear Power Plant Electrical Systems.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Michael Snodderly (Telephone 301-415-2241 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from February 14 to February 27, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on February 28, 2017.
Comments must be filed by April 13, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 15, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411 email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0071, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0071, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic
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 15, 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's 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
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3 states that the allowance may only be used when there is a reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed. Since the proposed changes do not significantly affect system Operability, the proposed changes will have no significant effect on the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not been previously performed if there is reasonable expectation that the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3 while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment would extend the existing UFM AOT to 72 hours. There are no modifications to the plant being made. As there are no modifications to the plant or a change in plant control systems, extending the UFM outage would not significantly increase accident probability.
Accident consequences are, in part, dependent on the operating power level of the reactor assumed in accident analyses. The UFM is used to obtain information needed to perform a calorimetric heat balance calculation to determine reactor power output and maintain operation within accident analysis limits. The proposed amendment would permit measurements from FW [feedwater] venturis and RTDs [resistance temperature detectors] to be substituted for UFM measurements while maintaining a stable power level during a 72-hour period. Venturi-based FW flow measurements would be normalized to the last UFM-based measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat balance and would have a nearly identical degree of uncertainty as UFM measurements for the duration of the proposed AOT when stable thermal power conditions are maintained. Therefore, calculated reactor power based on normalized FW flow venturi measurements
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment would extend the existing UFM AOT to 72 hours. Modifications to the plant are not being made. FW flow venture measurements that are normalized to the last UFM-based measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat balance have a nearly identical degree of uncertainty as UFM measurements for the duration of the proposed AOT when stable thermal power conditions are maintained. Calculated reactor power based on normalized FW flow venturi measurements will continue to be maintained within accident analysis limits.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed amendment would permit the plant to operate at rated thermal power for up to 72 hours after the last calorimetric heat balance based on UFM readings before reducing power. A plant-specific statistical evaluation of the difference between historical UFM-based FW flow measurements and venturi-based FW flow measurements has demonstrated that the average difference does not vary significantly over short periods of time. Therefore, if current venturi-based FW flow measurements are normalized to the last UFM-based measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat balance no greater than 72 hours prior, a nearly identical degree of uncertainty would be obtained with the venturis as with the UFM. The proposed amendment restricts application of the 72-hour AOT to conditions when the plant is operated consistently above 90 percent RTP [rated thermal power] during the 72-hour period to avoid changes in FW flow or temperature that have potential to de-foul venturis and affect measurements.
As the proposed change will result in the same degree of uncertainty in reactor power calculations using alternate measurements as with using the UFM, there is no 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?
The proposed change modifies ACTION 23 of TS 3.3.2, Table 3.3-2, to establish a 48-hour completion time for restoring two anticipatory ESFAS functions. The instrumentation associated with the proposed changes are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected. The proposed changes will not impact assumptions or conditions previously used in the radiological consequence evaluations. The subject ESFAS functions are not relied upon for accident mitigation and thus the proposed changes cannot affect the radiological consequences. The proposed changes will not impact any plant systems such that previously analyzed SSCs [systems, structures, and components] would be more likely to fail. The subject ESFAS functions will continue to be maintained and operated in a manner consistent with their intended function. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the protective and mitigative capabilities of the plant. The offsite and Control Room doses will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 100, 10 CFR 50.67, and 10 CFR 50 Appendix A.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change modifies the TS ACTION for two restoring anticipatory ESFAS functions. No new or different interactions with safety-related SSCs are created by the proposed change. The proposed changes will not introduce failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases. The subject ESFAS functions will continue to be operated and maintained such that the possibility of a new or different type of equipment malfunction is not created. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change modifies the TS ACTION for restoring two anticipatory ESFAS functions. The subject ESFAS functions are not relied upon for accident mitigation and are not credited in design bases accident analyses. Hence the proposed changes cannot alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or methods of operating the plant. The proposed changes do not adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. No changes in the methods, values or limits of a safety related function or accident analysis result from the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes would not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 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?
The Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser Air Ejectors Exhaust and Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range noble gas monitoring instrumentation are not an initiator of any accidents previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not impact any plant systems such that previously analyzed structures, systems, and components (SSCs) would be more likely to fail. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the protective and mitigative capabilities of the plant nor the offsite and control room dose projections associated with any design basis accident described in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report].
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change removes the subject instruments from the accident monitoring TS and as such is an administrative change in nature. The Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser Air Ejectors Exhaust and Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range noble gas monitoring instrumentation will continue to perform their specified function. Removal of the monitors from the TS will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. No new or different interactions with safety related systems or components are created. The proposed changes will not introduce new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases. The possibility of a new or different malfunction of safety-related equipment is not created. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of these changes. There will be no adverse effects or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change relocates the Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser Air Ejectors Exhaust and Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range noble gas monitoring requirements from TS 3.3.3.3, Accident Monitoring, to the Turkey Point ODCM, and as such is an administrative change in nature. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. Consequently, there will be no change in the ability to monitor post-accident plant conditions, radionuclide releases, and public doses. The safety analyses acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation outside of the design basis.
Therefore, operation in accordance with the proposed amendment would 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?
This activity revises the raceway spacing configurations and permits spacing in accordance with existing licensing basis requirements, Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.75 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 384 for the MCR and RSR.
The proposed consistency change to revise separation requirements for MCR and RSR raceways does not inhibit any systems, structures or components (SSCs) from performing their safety-related function, as raceways in the MCR and RSR are installed in accordance with spacing configurations currently specified in the UFSAR or in the code of record, IEEE 384. This proposed amendment does not have an adverse impact on the response to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions because the functions of the SSCs are not changed. The change does not involve an interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. Accidents associated with raceway separation are not identified in the safety analysis. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the inspection criteria for raceway separation requirements does not adversely affect any safety-related equipment, and does not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. This change provides consistency between the COL Appendix C and the UFSAR and industry standards only. System, design functions and equipment qualification are not adversely affected by these changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect plant safety or safety-related equipment as the change is for consistency with existing licensing basis requirements and industry standards. New credible failure modes are not introduced by the changes in separation requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change maintains compliance with the applicable Codes and Standards, thereby maintaining the margin of safety associated with these SSCs. The proposed change does not alter any applicable design codes, code compliance,
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, design certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 1 material departures.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The design functions of the VCS include control of the air temperature and reduction of humidity in the containment to provide a suitable environment for equipment operability during normal power operation, and for personnel accessibility and equipment operability during refueling and shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS address changes in total required design air flow rates and total design cooling and heating requirements, thereby maintaining these design functions.
The design functions of the VAS include prevention of the unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent plant areas, by maintaining a negative pressure differential in radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building, maintaining occupied areas and access and equipment areas within their design temperature range, and providing outside air for plant personnel. The proposed changes for the VAS enable pressure differential monitoring and control for an area of the auxiliary building that is physically remote and separate from the currently monitored and controlled areas, and provide VAS supply air flow rate and total ventilation flow through the auxiliary building fuel handling area required to maintain occupied areas and access and equipment areas within their design temperature range and to provide outside air for plant personnel, maintaining these design functions.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. There are no inadvertent operations or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as accident initiators or part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
These proposed changes to the VCS and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systemsto postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes create any new accident precursors. The proposed changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events,
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed changes revise the VCS and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis to enable the systems to perform required design functions. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events resulting in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes to the VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related design function. These changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested 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?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and operation of the in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST), including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance requirements, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the operation of the IRWST is not affected. There are no inadvertent operations or failures of the IRWST considered as accident initiators or part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the IRWST to perform its design functions. The design of the IRWST continues to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the IRWST to mitigate the consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria. The proposed changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events;
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and operation of the IRWST, including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of the IRWST is not affected. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the IRWST to perform its design functions. The proposed changes maintain existing safety margin through continued application of the existing requirements of the UFSAR, while updating the acceptance criteria for verifying the design features necessary to ensure the IRWST performs the design functions required to meet the existing safety margins in the safety analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do no adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to demonstrate the capacity of partial joint penetrate on (PJP) welds with fillet weld reinforcement joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being able to perform their intended design function in lieu of satisfying the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive examination (NDE) on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and
The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the mechanical couplers or the SSCs to which the mechanical couplers are welded. The probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected.
The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical or fluid systems. The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of any safety-related structures. 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 proposed change create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created.
The proposed change does not adversely affect the design function of the mechanical couplers, the structures in which the couplers are used, or any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change satisfies the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. This change does not adversely affect compliance with any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change. Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by this change, no significant margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, design certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 1 material departures.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The design functions of the containment recirculation cooling system (VCS) include control of the air temperature and reduction of humidity in the containment to provide a suitable environment for equipment operability during normal power operation, and for personnel accessibility and equipment operability during refueling and shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS address changes in total required design air flow rates and total design cooling and heating requirements, thereby maintaining these design functions.
The design functions of the radiologically controlled area ventilation system (VAS) include prevention of the unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent plant areas, by maintaining a negative pressure differential in radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building, maintaining occupied areas and access and equipment areas within their design temperature range, and providing outside air for plant personnel. The proposed changes for the VAS enable pressure differential monitoring and control for an area of the auxiliary building that is physically remote and separate from the currently monitored and controlled areas, and provide VAS supply air flow rate and total ventilation flow through the auxiliary building fuel handling area required to maintain occupied areas and access and equipment areas within their design temperature range and to provide outside air for plant personnel, maintaining these design functions.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. There are no inadvertent operations or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as accident initiators or part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
These proposed changes to the VCS and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed changes revise the VCS and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis to enable the systems to perform required design functions. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events resulting in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes to the VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related design function. These changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested 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?
The proposed amendment is a change to TS 5.7.2.19 to allow a one-time exception to [Regulatory Guide] (RG) 1.163, “Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,” September 1995 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740058)] to extend the Type C LLRTs for a limited number of CIVs. The valves for which the extension of the LLRT interval is being requested are leak-tight and in good condition. The total leakage of these valves [
The total leakage of the CIVs for which an extension is requested is also approximately 0.39% of the total allowable bypass leakage for the WBN Unit 2 Type B and C bypass tests (61.5 scfh, which is the TS 25% La limit). For comparison purposes, the WBN Unit 2 total leakage for all bypass leakage penetrations on a minimum path basis is approximately 4.4% of the total allowable bypass leakage (
A delay in performing these LLRTs does not result in a system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of this one-time extension request, the short period of additional time that the affected systems and components will be in service before the next performance of the LLRT will not affect the ability of those systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this action and the consequences remain consistent with previously evaluated accidents. On this basis, the proposed delay in performance of the LLRTs in this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the one-time LLRT extensions being requested.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed amendment is a change to TS 5.7.2.19 to allow a one-time exception to RG 1.163 to extend the Type C LLRTs for a limited number of CIVs. The WBN Unit 2 CIVs, for which an extension is requested, are the same design as those in WBN Unit 1 and operate under the same service conditions. Furthermore, any increase in leakage because of the extension is expected to be within TS limits and will not compromise containment integrity. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a modification of any TS limiting condition for operation. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change to any limit on accident consequences specified in the license or regulations. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change in how accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change in a methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change in any operating procedure or process.
Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems and components will be in service before the LLRTs are next performed, as well as the operating experience that demonstrates the reliability of the CIVs, it is reasonable to conclude that the margins of safety associated with the LLRTs for these CIVs will not be affected by the requested extension.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion profile.
Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods and makes technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) governing the rods. However, the proposed change has no significant effect on the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident analysis as the proposed Action require verification that SDM is maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to be applicable. Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to frequent use of the moveable incore detector system to verify the position of rods with inoperable rod position indicator does not change the requirement for the rods to be aligned and within the insertion limits.
Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the consequences.
The consequences of an accident that might occur during the 1-hour period provided for the analog rod position indication to stabilize after rod movement are no different than the consequences of the accident under the existing actions with the rod declared inoperable.
The proposed change to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable. Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the consequences.
The proposed change to eliminate an unnecessary action has no effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the analysis of those accidents did not consider the use of the action.
The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the proposed change clarifies the application of the existing requirements and does not change the intent.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change to allow time for rod position indication to stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to repair rods that are Operable but immovable does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must be verified to be Operable, and all other banks must be within the insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary actions do not affect the margin of safety as the changes do not affect the ability of the rods to perform their specified safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change revises the TS requirements for consistency with the design
Thus, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical change to any SSCs (
Therefore, the proposed change does not introduce any new failures that could create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. There are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. The RHR System has no accident mitigation function and its operation is not assumed in any safety analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not impact the condition or performance of SSCs relied upon for accident mitigation or any safety analysis assumptions.
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.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated February 16, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 2017.
The amendment for WBN, Unit 1, also makes an administrative change to add a reference to LCO 3.0.7 in LCO 3.0.1, consistent with TSTF-6, Revision 1, “Add exception for LCO 3.0.7 to LCO 3.0.1.”
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of March 13, 20, 27, April 3, 10, 17, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 13, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 27, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 10, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 17, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG-1307, Revision 16, “Report on Waste Burial Charges: Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities.” This report, which is revised periodically, explains the formula acceptable to the NRC for determining the minimum decommissioning fund requirements for nuclear power reactors, as required by the NRC's regulations. Specifically, this report provides adjustment factors, and updates to these values, for the labor, energy, and waste components of the minimum decommissioning formula.
NUREG-1307, Revision 16, is available March 14, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0220 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:
•
•
•
Emil Tabakov, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6814; email:
The NRC is issuing NUREG-1307, Revision 16, “Report on Waste Burial Charges: Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities.” This report, which is revised periodically, explains the formula acceptable to the NRC for determining the minimum decommissioning fund requirements for nuclear power reactors, as required by section 50.75 of title 10 of the
The NRC published a notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection request (ICR), Self-Certification of Full-Time School Attendance For The School Year, RI 25-14 and Information and Instructions for
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 13, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent by email to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent by email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0032) was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM'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 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,
Form RI 25-14 is used to survey survivor annuitants who are between the ages of 18 and 22 to determine if they meet the requirements of Section 8341(a)(4)(C), and Section 8441, title 5, U.S. Code, to receive benefits as a student. RI 25-14A provides instructions for completing the Self-Certification of Full-Time School Attendance for the School Year survey form.
March 8, 2017.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend current price protections related to complex orders. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below. (additions are
When used in these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a)-(yyy) No change.
This rule describes the process for routing orders through the Exchange's order handling system in classes designated for trading on the CBOE Hybrid System. The order handling system is a feature within the Hybrid System to route orders for automatic execution, book entry, open outcry, or further handling by a broker, agent, or PAR Official, in a manner consistent with Exchange Rules and the Act (
(a) Orders may route through the order handling system for electronic processing in the Hybrid System or to a designated order management terminal or PAR Workstation in any of the circumstances described below. Routing designations may be established based on various parameters defined by the Exchange, order entry firm or Trading Permit Holder, as applicable.
(1)-(3) No change.
(4) Limit Order Price Parameter for Complex Orders: [Limit orders will route directly from an order entry firm to an order management terminal designated by the order entry firm if]
(i) prior to the opening (including
(ii) [once a series has opened, the order is priced at a net debit that is more than an acceptable tick distance above]
For purposes of this subparagraph (a)(4),[: An “acceptable tick distance” (which is also referred to as an “ATD”), as determined by] the Exchange
(5) [Limit Order Price Parameter for Stock-Option Orders: Limit orders received after a series is opened will be cancelled if the order is priced at a net debit that is more than an acceptable tick distance above the opposite side derived net market using the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual series leg and the national best bid or offer of the stock component comprising the stock-option order or the order is priced at a net credit that is more than an acceptable tick distance below the opposite side derived net market based on the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual series leg and the national best bid or offer of the stock component comprising the stock-option order.
For purposes of this subparagraph (a)(5): An “acceptable tick distance” (which is also referred to as an “ATD”), as determined by the Exchange on a class by class and net premium basis and announced to the Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular, shall be no less than 5 minimum net price increment ticks for stock-option orders. The Exchange may determine on a class by class basis and announce via Regulatory Circular whether to apply paragraph (a)(5) to immediate-or-cancel complex orders. The limit order price parameter will take precedence over another routing parameter to the extent that both are applicable to an incoming limit order.]
(6)-(7) No change.
(b) No change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01 For purposes of subparagraphs (a)(3)[,]
(a) Notification of [intra-day]
(b) The Exchange will periodically review determinations to grant [intra-day ]relief
(a)-(c) No change.
(d) Process for Complex Order RFR Auction: Prior to routing to the COB or once on PAR, eligible complex orders may be subject to an automated request for responses (“RFR”) auction process.
(i) No change.
(ii) Initiation of a COA:
(A) The System will send an RFR message to all Trading Permit Holders who have elected to receive RFR messages on receipt of (1) a COA-eligible order with two legs (including orders submitted for electronic processing from PAR) that is better than the same side of the [derived net]
(B) No change.
(iii)-(ix) No change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01-.03 No change.
.04 For each class where COA is activated, the Exchange may also determine to activate COA for complex orders resting in COB. For such classes, any non-marketable order resting at the top of COB may be automatically subject to COA if the order is within a number of ticks away from
.05-.07 No change.
.08 Price Check Parameters: On a class-by-class basis, the Exchange may determine (and announce to the Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular) which of the following price check parameters will apply to eligible complex orders. Paragraph[s] (b) [and (e)] will not be applicable to stock-option orders.
For purposes of this Interpretation and Policy .08:
Vertical Spread. A “vertical” spread is a two-legged complex order with one leg to buy a number of calls (puts) and one leg to sell the same number of calls (puts) with the same expiration date but different exercise prices.
Butterfly Spread. A “butterfly” spread is a three-legged complex order with two legs to buy (sell) the same number of calls (puts) and one leg to sell (buy) twice as many calls (puts), all with the same expiration date but different exercise prices, and the exercise price of the middle leg is between the exercise prices of the other legs. If the exercise price of the middle leg is halfway between the exercise prices of the other legs, it is a “true” butterfly; otherwise, it is a “skewed” butterfly.
Box Spread. A “box” spread is a four-legged complex order with one leg to buy
To the extent a price check parameter is applicable, the Exchange will not automatically execute an eligible complex order that is:
(a)-(d) No change.
(e)
(f) [Stock-Option Derived Net Market Parameters: A stock-option order that is marketable if, following COA, the execution would not be within the acceptable derived net market for the strategy that existed at the start of COA.
(1) An “acceptable derived net market” for a strategy will be calculated using the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual option series leg(s) and the NBBO in the stock leg plus/minus an acceptable tick distance. An “acceptable tick distance” will be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class and premium basis.
(2) Such a stock-option order will route via the order handling system pursuant to Rule 6.12.
In classes where this price check parameter is available, it will also be available for COA responses under Rule 6.53C(d), AIM and Solicitation Auction Mechanism stock-option orders and responses under Rule 6.74A and 6.74B, and customer-to-customer immediate cross stock-option orders under Rule 6.74A.08. Under these provisions, such paired stock-option orders and responses will not be accepted except that, to the extent that only a paired contra-side order subject to an auction under Rule 6.74A or 6.74B exceeds this price check parameter, the contra-side order will not be accepted and the paired original Agency Order will not be accepted or, at the order entry firm's discretion (
(g) No change.
.09-.10 No change.
.11 Execution of Complex Orders on the COB Open:
(a) Complex orders, including stock-option orders, do not participate in opening rotations for individual component option series legs conducted pursuant to Rule 6.2B. When the last of the individual component option series legs that make up a complex order strategy has opened (and, in the case of a stock-option order, the underlying stock has opened), the COB for that strategy will open. The COB will open with no trade, except as follows:
(i) The COB will open with a trade against the individual component option series legs if there are complex orders on only one side of the COB that are marketable against the opposite side of the [derived net]
(ii) The COB will open (or continue to open with another trade if a trade occurred pursuant to subparagraph (i) above) with a trade against complex orders if there are complex orders in the COB (including any remaining balance of an order that enters the COB after a partial trade with the legs pursuant to subparagraph (i)) that are marketable against each other and priced within the [derived net]
(b) [The “derived net market” for a stock-option order strategy will be calculated using the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual option series leg(s) and the NBBO in the stock leg. The “derived net market” for any other complex order strategy will be calculated using the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual option series legs.
(c) ]The Exchange may also use the process described in paragraph (a) of this Interpretation and Policy .11 when the COB reopens a strategy after a time period during which trading of that strategy was unavailable.
.12 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has in place various price protection mechanisms that are designed to prevent complex orders from executing at potentially erroneous
The proposed rule change amends the limit order price parameters for complex and stock-option orders, which are intended to block executions at prices that exceed the derived net market by more than a reasonable amount. Rule 6.12(a)(4) currently provides complex limit orders will route directly from an order entry firm to an order management terminal designated by the order entry firm if:
• prior to the opening (including before a series is opened following a halt), the order is priced at a net debit that is more than an acceptable tick distance above the derived net market using the Exchange's previous day's close in the individual series legs comprising the complex order or the order is priced at a net credit that is more than an acceptable tick distance below the derived net market using the Exchange's previous day's close in the individual series legs comprising the complex order
• once a series has opened, the order is priced at a net debit that is more than an acceptable tick distance above the opposite side derived net market using the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual series legs comprising the complex order or the order is priced at a net credit that is more than an acceptable tick distance below the opposite side derived net market based on the individual series legs comprising the complex order.
For purposes of current subparagraph (a)(4), an “acceptable tick distance” (or “ATD”), as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class and net premium basis and announced to Trading Permit Holders by regulatory circular, will be no less than 5 minimum net price increment ticks for complex orders. The Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis and announce by Regulatory Circular whether to apply the limit price parameters in subparagraph (a)(4)(i), (ii), or both, to immediate-or-cancel complex orders. This price parameter takes precedence over other routing parameters to the extent that both are applicable to an incoming limit order.
Rule 6.12(a)(5) currently provides that stock-option limit orders received after a series is opened will be cancelled if the order is priced at a net debit that is more than an acceptable tick distance above the opposite side derived net market using the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual series leg and the national best bid or offer of the stock component comprising the stock-option order or the order is priced at a net credit that is more than an acceptable tick distance below the opposite side derived net market based on the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual series leg and the national best bid or offer of the stock component comprising the stock-option order. For purposes of current subparagraph (a)(5), an ATD, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and net premium basis and announced to the Trading Permit Holders by regulatory circular, will be no less than five minimum net price increment ticks for stock-option orders. The Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis and announce by regulatory circular whether to apply subparagraph (a)(5) to immediate-or-cancel complex orders. This price parameter takes precedence over another [sic] routing parameters to the extent that both are applicable to an incoming limit order.
The Exchange proposes to amend these provisions to provide a complex order's price generally will be compared to the derived net price based on the national spread market.
• prior to the opening of a series (including during any pre-opening period and opening rotation), the derived net market using the Exchange's previous day's closing prices in the individual series legs comprising the complex order. However, this does not apply to stock-option orders, to orders of CBOE or away market-makers, or if there is no Exchange previous day's closing price in any leg; or
• intraday, the opposite side of the national spread market. This applies to stock-option orders, but does not apply if the NBBO in any leg is locked, crossed or unavailable
Prior to individual series legs opening on CBOE (which the rule clarifies includes any pre-opening period and opening rotation
With respect to complex orders entered during a trading halt (which includes any pre-opening period or opening rotation prior to re-opening following a halt),
The proposed rule change states this price parameter will not apply to pairs of orders submitted to AIM or SAM. The AIM and SAM functionality separately limits the prices at which those pairs may be submitted and executed, and thus it would be duplicative for the System to apply this price parameter to those pairs of orders.
Once a series has opened on CBOE, this check will compare the price of a complex order with a net debit (credit) price to the opposite side of the national spread market. The national spread market would more accurately reflect the then-current market, rather than the Exchange spread market, and thus the Exchange believes it would be a better measure to use for purposes of determining the reasonability of the prices of orders. This applies to stock-option orders, but does not apply if the NBBO in any leg is locked, crossed or unavailable
Current subparagraph (a)(4)(i) does not apply to stock-option orders, and proposed subparagraph (a)(4)(i) will continue to not apply to stock-option orders. However, current subparagraph (a)(4)(ii) also does not apply to stock-option orders, and current subparagraph (a)(5) applies to stock-option orders. However, the limit order price parameter in current subparagraph (a)(4)(ii) applies to complex orders other than stock-option orders in the same manner as current subparagraph (a)(5) applies to stock-option orders using the Exchange spread market as the comparison figure.
The rule currently states the Exchange determines the ATD on a class-by-class and premium basis and will be no less than five minimum increment ticks. The proposed rule change states the Exchange will determine a specified amount, rather than an ATD, which may be no less than $0.02. With respect to complex orders, the Exchange has determined pursuant to Rule 6.42(4) the minimum increment for complex orders in all but three classes (SPX, OEX and XEO) is $0.01, which would be the minimum increment tick under current Rule 6.12(a)(4) (thus the current minimum is essentially $0.01 for almost all classes). The Exchange generally announces the setting for this parameter in a monetary amount rather than number of ticks, so the Exchange believes amending the rule to use the term amount rather than ticks is consistent with this practice.
Additionally, because market conditions during pre-opening periods and trading rotations
The proposed rule change deletes the Exchange's flexibility to not apply this price parameter to immediate-or-cancel complex orders, as the Exchange believes these orders are also at risk of execution at extreme and potentially
The System receives a complex order to buy Series A and sell Series B for a net debit price of $1.50. Suppose the NBBO for Series A is $2.00 to $2.20 and the NBBO for Series B is $1.00 to $1.20, making the national spread market for a strategy with a buy Series A leg and sell Series B leg $0.80 to $1.20. The Exchange has set the limit order price parameter at $0.20 (thus a limit order will be rejected if more than $0.20 above (below) the opposite side of the national spread market). Because the net debit price of the complex order is $0.30 above the offer of the national spread market, the System rejects this order.
The proposed rule change amends Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08(e), which currently provides the Exchange will not automatically execute an eligible complex order (and instead route the order via the order handling system pursuant to Rule 6.12) that is marketable if, following a complex order auction (“COA”), the execution would be at a price that is not within an acceptable percentage distance from the derived net price of the individual series legs that existed at the start of COA. The acceptable percentage distance is a percentage determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and is no less than 3%.
The proposed rule change amends this price protection mechanism to provide the Exchange will not automatically execute an incoming complex order (including a stock-option order) after the series for all legs of the complex order are open for trading
• The amount equal to a percentage (which may not be less than 3%) of the national spread market (the “percentage amount”) if that amount is not less than a minimum amount or greater than a maximum amount (the Exchange will determine the percentage and minimum and maximum amounts and announce them to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory Circular);
• the minimum amount, if the percentage amount is less than the minimum amount; or
• the maximum amount, if the percentage amount is greater than the maximum amount.
The System cancels an order (or any remaining size after partial execution of the order) that would execute or rest in the COB at a price outside the acceptable price range.
This proposed rule change expands this parameter to incoming complex orders that do not COA and may immediately execute, as well as orders that do COA (to which the current parameter applies), which will potentially prevent erroneous executions of more complex orders. Additionally, under the proposed rule change, the System cancels the order (or remainder) that would execute or rest in the COB at a price outside the acceptable price range rather than routes it via the order handling system. Cancelling the order (or remainder) will prevent any future execution at a price “too far away” from the market and allow the Trading Permit Holder to reevaluate the order price based on current market prices and ensure it was not erroneous. The proposed rule change provides, while the acceptable price range will continue to be based on a percentage away from the market, the System will use the national spread market rather than the Exchange spread market for the reasons set forth above.
Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08(f) sets forth a parameter currently applicable to stock-option orders, which is the same as the parameter in current paragraph (e), except the parameter in current paragraph (f) blocks executions of stock-option orders at prices more than a specified number of ticks away from the Exchange spread market, while current paragraph (e) blocks executions of complex orders at prices more than a specified percentage away from the Exchange spread market. Current paragraph (f) states the Exchange will not automatically execute a stock-option order that is marketable if, following a COA, the execution would not be within the acceptable derived net market for the strategy that existed at the start of COA. An “acceptable derived net market” for a strategy is calculated using the BBO in the individual option
Suppose the NBBO for Series A is $2.00 to $2.20 (50 × 50) and the NBBO for Series B is $1.00 to $1.20 (50 × 50), making the national spread market for a strategy with a buy Series A leg and sell Series B leg $0.80 to $1.20. Also suppose the BBO for Series A is $1.98 to $2.22 (10 × 10) and the BBO for Series B is $0.98 to $1.22 (10 × 10), making the Exchange spread market for a strategy with a buy Series A leg and sell Series B leg $0.76 to $1.24. Pursuant to proposed Rule 6.12(a)(4), the Exchange has set the limit order price parameter at $0.20 (thus a limit order will be rejected if more than $0.20 above (below) the opposite side of the national spread market). The Exchange determined the following settings for the acceptable percentage range parameter: 10%, with a minimum amount of $0.05 and a maximum amount of $0.10. Therefore, the acceptable percentage range is $0.72 to $1.30.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because the limit order price parameter (intraday) and the acceptable percentage range parameter for complex orders will be based on the national spread market when available, which is based on the NBBO, and thus will more accurately reflect the entire market for a complex order at the time of execution than the Exchange spread market (which is based on the BBO). The Exchange believes the enhanced price protection mechanisms will further protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering orders at extreme and potentially erroneous prices.
With respect to the limit order price parameter for complex orders, the Exchange believes the national spread market when trading is open would be a better measure to use for purposes of determining the reasonability of the prices of orders and more accurately prevent executions of limit orders at erroneous prices, which ultimately protects investors. The Exchange also believes applying this check to immediate-or-cancel complex orders may prevent executions at extreme and potentially erroneous prices of these orders. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to have flexibility to determine to apply a different amount to complex orders entered during the pre-opening, a trading rotation, or a trading halt to reflect different market conditions during those times. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not apply this price check to complex orders routed from a PAR workstation or OMT, as those orders were subject to manual handling by a PAR or OMT operator who will have evaluated the net price of a complex order based on then-existing market conditions prior to submitted it for electronic execution, thus minimizing risk of an erroneous execution. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not apply this price check to multi-class spreads, as those will be handled by brokers who will have evaluated the net price of the spread based on then-existing market conditions prior to representation on the trading floor. This flexibility and non-applicability, as applicable, will further assist the Exchange with its efforts to maintain a fair and orderly market, which will ultimately protect investors.
With respect to the acceptable percentage range parameter, the national
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding how the acceptable percentage range parameter will apply to AIM and SAM orders is reasonable, as the proposed rule change is consistent with the contingencies attached to those types of orders.
The proposed rule change to apply a single limit order price parameter and acceptable price range to all complex orders, including stock-option orders (subject to certain exceptions consistent with the current rules), will protect investors, as it simplifies the rules.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will apply to all complex orders submitted to CBOE in the same manner. The enhancements to the price protection mechanisms applicable to all incoming orders will help further prevent potentially erroneous executions, which benefits all market participants. The proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition, as it merely incorporates best prices available on other markets into current price protection mechanisms applicable to complex orders. Additionally, the proposed rule change is substantially similar to a rule of another options exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 67 to modify the date of Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Rule 67(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements)
The Exchange is proposing amendments to Supplementary Material .70 to Rule 67 to delay the date by which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly available on the Exchange's or DEA's Web site from February 28, 2017, until April 28, 2017. Appendix C data for the Pre-Pilot Period through the month of January 2017 will be published on the Exchange's or DEA's Web site on February 28, 2017, and, thereafter, on the original 30-day schedule.
In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that the public data will be made available for free “on a disaggregated basis by trading center” on the Web sites of the Participants and the Designated Examining Authorities.
As noted in Item 2 of this filing, the Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. If the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay, the operative date of the proposed rule change will be the date of filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-capitalization companies. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide the Exchange with additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data made publicly available will not identify the trading center that generated the data.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Participants in meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19(b)-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative on February 28, 2017.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is intended to address confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of over-the-counter (“OTC”) Appendix B data by permitting the Exchange to delay Web site publication of its Appendix B data from February 28, 2017 to April 28, 2017.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to delay publication of its Appendix B data until April 28, 2017. As noted above, commenters continue to raise concerns about the publication of OTC Appendix B data.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to Rule 7.46 to modify the date of Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Rule 7.46(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements)
The Exchange is proposing amendments to Supplementary Material .70 to Rule 7.46 to delay the date by which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly available on the Exchange's or DEA's Web site from February 28, 2017, until April 28, 2017. Appendix C data for the Pre-Pilot Period through the month of January 2017 will be published on the Exchange's or DEA's Web site on February 28, 2017, and, thereafter, on the original 30-day schedule.
In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that the public data will be made available for free “on a disaggregated basis by trading center” on the Web sites of the Participants and the Designated Examining Authorities.
As noted in Item 2 of this filing, the Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. If the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay, the operative date of the proposed rule change will be the date of filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-capitalization companies. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide the Exchange with additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data made publicly available will not identify the trading center that generated the data.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Participants in meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19(b)-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative on February 28, 2017.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is intended to address confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of over-the-counter (“OTC”) Appendix B data by permitting the Exchange to delay Web site publication of its Appendix B data from February 28, 2017 to April 28, 2017.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to delay publication of its Appendix B data until April 28, 2017. As noted above, commenters continue to raise concerns about the publication of OTC Appendix B data.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
This proposed rule change by OCC is designed to enhance the overall resilience of OCC's Stock Loan/Hedge Program (“Hedge Program”) and Market Loan Program (collectively, the “Stock Loan Programs”). The proposed rule change would, among other things: (1) Require Clearing Members to have robust processes in place to reconcile open interest in the Stock Loan Programs at least once per stock loan business day; (2) provide further clarity and certainty regarding the formal record of stock loan positions being guaranteed by OCC at any given time (“golden copy” rules); (3) further clarify that stock loan positions at OCC are not terminated until the records of OCC reflect the termination of such stock loan; (4) provide a specific timeframe in which Clearing Members in the Stock Loan Programs must buy-in or sell-out of stock loan positions in the event of another Hedge or Market Loan Clearing Member suspension (as applicable); (5) provide OCC with the authority to withdraw from a Clearing Member's account the value of any difference between the price reported by a Clearing Member instructed to execute a buy-in or sell-out of loaned stock as a result of another Clearing Member suspension and the price that OCC determines to be reasonable; and (6) allow OCC to close out the Matched-Book Positions of suspended Hedge Clearing Members through the termination by offset and “re-matching” of such positions without requiring the transfer of securities against the payment of settlement prices as currently required under OCC's rules.
All terms with initial capitalization not defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in OCC's By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC proposes a number of amendments to its By-Laws and Rules designed to enhance the overall resilience of its Stock Loan/Hedge Program (“Hedge Program”) and Market Loan Program (collectively, the “Stock Loan Programs”). Specifically, the proposed rule change would improve risk management in the Stock Loan Programs by, among other things: (1) Requiring Clearing Members to have robust processes in place to reconcile open interest in the Stock Loan Programs at least once per stock loan business day; (2) providing further clarity and certainty regarding the formal record of stock loan positions being guaranteed by OCC at any given time (“golden copy” rules); (3) further clarifying that stock loan positions at OCC are not terminated until the records of OCC reflect the termination of such stock loan; (4) providing a specific timeframe in which Clearing Members in the Stock Loan Programs must buy-in or sell-out of stock loan positions in the event of another Hedge or Market Loan Clearing Member suspension as applicable); (5) providing OCC with the authority to withdraw from a Clearing Member's account the value of any difference between the price reported by a Clearing Member instructed to execute a buy-in or sell-out of loaned stock as a result of another Clearing Member suspension and the price that OCC determines to be reasonable; and (6) allowing OCC to close out the Matched-Book Positions of suspended Hedge Clearing Members through the termination by offset and re-matching of such positions without requiring the transfer of securities against the payment of settlement prices as currently required under OCC's rules.
The proposed amendments to the By-Laws and Rules are discussed in more detail below.
OCC currently operates two Stock Loan Programs: The Hedge Program and the Market Loan Program. In the Hedge Program, OCC acts as the principal counterparty for stock loans that are executed bilaterally outside of OCC and sent to OCC for clearance and settlement. In the case of a Hedge Loan, prospective Lending and Borrowing Clearing Members identify each other (independent of OCC), agree to bilaterally negotiated terms of the Hedge Loan, and then send the details of the stock loan to the Depository with a certain “reason code,”
In the Market Loan Program, stock loans are initiated through the matching of bids and offers that are either agreed upon by the Market Loan Clearing Members or matched anonymously through a Loan Market. In order to initiate a Market Loan, the Loan Market sends a matched transaction to OCC, which in turn sends two separate but linked settlement instructions to the Depository to effect the movement of Eligible Stock and cash collateral between the accounts of the Market
Regardless of whether a transaction is initiated under the Hedge Program or Market Loan Program, OCC novates the transaction and becomes the lender to the Borrowing Clearing Member and the borrower to the Lending Clearing Member after it accepts an end-of-day report from the Depository showing completed Stock Loans.
OCC's Rules currently provide that termination of a Hedge Loan is not complete until either: (1) The Depository makes final entries on its records reflecting that the stock loan position has been unwound and OCC receives notice thereof; or (2) the counterparties to the transaction certify to OCC that the stock loan is terminated and the settlement price has been transferred between them.
Market Loans are typically terminated by a Market Loan Clearing Member providing notice to the relevant Loan Market calling for the recall or return of a specified quantity of the Loaned Stock. The Loan Market then sends details of the matched return/recall transaction to OCC, which validates the transaction and sends a pair of delivery orders to the Depository in connection with the recall/return. However, in certain circumstances where a Market Loan Clearing Member fails to return the specified quantity of Loaned Stock or to pay the applicable settlement price for a Loaned Stock, the counterparty Clearing Member may choose to execute a buy-in or sell-out of the Loaned Stock on its own.
When either of the above scenarios occur, the Clearing Member remains obligated to effect the required settlements, including, for example, making the associated Mark-to-Market Payments, until the stock loan position is terminated at OCC. Moreover, in these scenarios, a Clearing Member may continue to receive margin benefits on the closed stock loan until the appropriate trade corrections are made at OCC. Such scenarios could give rise to operational and/or credit risk if a Clearing Member's expectations of its obligations for certain stock loan positions are inconsistent with the Clearing Member's formal obligations for such positions on the records of OCC (
Currently, in the event a Stock Loan Program Clearing Member is suspended, the suspended Clearing Member's open stock loan positions are closed by instructing the respective non-suspended Clearing Member counterparties (within either the Hedge Program or Market Loan Program, as applicable) to buy-in or sell-out the Eligible Stock.
Furthermore, and as described in more detail below, because OCC maintains inventory in the Hedge Program on a bilateral basis (
OCC is proposing a number of rule changes to provide more clarity, transparency, and certainty around the status of stock loan positions being cleared and guaranteed at OCC. In addition, OCC is proposing enhancements to its default management process for the Stock Loan Programs to mitigate the risks associated with the buy-in/sell-out and recall/return processes as described above. The proposed changes are discussed in more detail below.
A key attribute of managing risk in the Stock Loan Programs is ensuring that OCC and its Clearing Members have identical records of open and closed positions to ensure all parties are aware of their obligations with respect to those positions. As described above, a stock loan transaction may be terminated by a Hedge Clearing Member (and, in more limited circumstances, a Market Loan Clearing Member) without OCC being made aware of the termination if the correct reason codes are not used in connection with stock loan activity at the Depository.
In order to minimize the potential dislocation between the records of OCC and its Clearing Members and mitigate the risks that may arise from such out trades, OCC is proposing to amend Rules 2205 and 2205A to require that Hedge and Market Loan Clearing Members, respectively, have adequate policies and procedures in place to perform a reconciliation of stock loan position balances between the records of the Clearing Member and any report or reports provided by OCC at least once per stock loan business day and resolve any discrepancies based on such report(s) for a given stock loan business day by 9:30 a.m. Central Time on the following stock loan business day. The proposed rule change would therefore ensure that OCC and its Clearing Members have an accurate and consistent understanding of each member's open stock loan positions at OCC and the obligations associated therewith.
OCC also proposes clarifying amendments to Articles XXI and XXIA of its By-Laws to emphasize that the records of OCC are the official record of open and closed stock loan transactions in the Stock Loan Programs and that Clearing Members remain liable for all obligations related to open stock loan positions as reflected in the records of OCC. In particular, OCC proposes to amend Article XXI, Sections 3 and 4 (relating to the agreements of Borrowing and Lending Clearing Members in the Hedge Program) and Article XXIA, Sections 3 and 4 (relating to the agreements of Borrowing and Lending Clearing Members in the Market Loan Program) to explicitly state that, in the event of a conflict between the records of OCC and any records generated by Borrowing or Lending Clearing Members regarding stock borrow or stock loan positions, the records generated by OCC will prevail and the Borrowing or Lending Clearing Member shall remain liable for all obligations associated with such stock borrow or stock loan positions maintained on the records of OCC. The proposed amendment would provide additional transparency and certainty to Clearing Members regarding OCC's treatment of its own records as the formal “golden copy” record of stock loan positions at OCC.
OCC also proposes amendments to Rules 2209 and 2209A to provide that the termination of Hedge Loans and Market Loans, respectively, shall be deemed to be complete when the records of OCC reflect the termination of such stock loans. The proposed rule change is intended to clarify and reinforce that OCC's records of stock loan positions, and in particular, the termination of stock loan positions, are the formal record of cleared stock loan positions at OCC. OCC believes the proposed rule change will provide additional clarity and transparency around the obligations of OCC and its Clearing Members in the Stock Loan Programs, particularly where discrepancies may arise between the records of OCC and its Clearing Members concerning terminated stock loans.
In order to mitigate the risks involved in the existing buy-in/sell-out process, as described in detail above, and enhance the resiliency of the Stock Loan Programs, OCC proposes to amend Rules 2211 and 2211A to require Lending Clearing Members or Borrowing Clearing Members that are instructed to buy-in or sell-out in connection with a Hedge or Market Loan Clearing Member suspension to execute such transactions by the close of the stock loan business day after the receipt of such instruction by OCC.
Additionally, OCC proposes a conforming change to Rules 2211 and 2211A to eliminate the requirement that Hedge or Market Loan Clearing Members executing a buy-in or sell-out must be prepared to defend the reasonableness of the timing of such transaction as all instructed Clearing Members would be required to execute the buy-in/sell-out within the newly specified two business day timeframe or be subject to automatic termination and settlement under the proposed rule change. OCC also proposes conforming changes to delete language stating that OCC, in its discretion and upon notice to the Lending Clearing Member or the independent broker, may fix a cash settlement value for the quantity of the Loaned Stock not returned to the Lending Clearing Member as this rule text would no longer be necessary under the proposed two-day buy-in/sell-out rules described above.
OCC believes the proposed changes will help to mitigate potential credit risks that may be associated with a delay in a Hedge or Market Loan Clearing Member effecting buy-in or sell-out transactions as it would ensure that positions are closed out—either through the buy-in/sell-out of stock loans by the instructed Hedge or Market Loan Clearing Members or by the automatic termination and settlement of stock loans by OCC—in a time period consistent with OCC's margin assumptions and thereby reducing the risk that the price paid or received for
Under existing Rules 2211 and 2211A, after a buy-in or sell-out occurs in a Clearing Member suspension scenario, OCC validates the prices reported by the Clearing Members to determine whether or not the price utilized to buy-in or sell-out is reasonable given the market prices during the two stock loan business day window. Clearing Members executing the buy-in or sell-out must be prepared to defend the reasonableness of the price, transactional costs, or cash settlement value of the transaction. OCC is proposing to amend Rules 2211 and 2211A to provide OCC with the authority to withdraw from the Clearing Member's account the value of any difference between the price reported by the Clearing Member executing the buy-in or sell-out, as applicable, and the price that OCC, in its sole discretion, determines to be reasonable. In addition, OCC proposes to amend Rules 2211 and 2211A to provide further clarity that a Clearing Member may defend the reasonableness of a reported price or cash settlement value of a buy-in or sell-out by demonstrating that it fell within the trading range of the Eligible Stock on that day. OCC believes this proposed change will further incentivize Clearing Members to execute a buy-in or sell-out at a reasonable price in accordance with the newly implemented two-day close out timeframe.
A significant portion of the activity in OCC's Hedge Program relates to what is often referred to as matched-book activity where a Hedge Clearing Member maintains in an account a stock loan position for a specified number of shares of an Eligible Stock reflecting a stock lending transaction with one Hedge Clearing Member (the Borrowing Clearing Member) and also maintains in that same account a stock borrow position for the same number, or lesser number, of shares of the same Eligible Stock with another Hedge Clearing Member (the Lending Clearing Member) (such positions being Matched-Book Positions). From a daily mark-to-market settlement perspective, there are typically no obligations related to Matched-Book Positions because the member is simultaneously borrowing and lending the same securities (and quantity), which are marked to the same price. OCC's margin process recognizes this and currently nets loans and borrows in the same security prior to calculating exposure, resulting in no margin on a perfectly matched position.
As discussed above, in the event of a Hedge Clearing Member suspension, OCC terminates the suspended Hedge Clearing Member's stock loans in accordance with the buy-in and sell-out process described in Rule 2211.
In addition, to the extent Borrowing and Lending Clearing Member counterparties to the suspended Hedge Clearing Member's Matched-Book Positions wish to maintain equivalent stock loan positions at OCC, those Borrowing and Lending Clearing Members would be required to initiate new stock loans to replace the closed out positions. Throughout this process of terminating and reestablishing stock loan positions, a number of operational steps are required to facilitate and settle those transactions, which introduce the potential for market disruption. The successful initiation of new replacement stock loans for the Borrowing or Lending Clearing Members could be subject to disruption by operational or execution risks with the result that one “leg” of the initiating transaction would fail, resulting in a temporary imbalance of the previously “matched-book” position. Moreover, the Borrowing and Lending Clearing Members lose the protections afforded by OCC's guaranty of their stock loan positions until the newly initiated stock loan transactions have been accepted, novated, and guaranteed by OCC.
OCC is proposing new Rule 2212 to allow OCC to perform an orderly close out of a suspended Hedge Clearing Member's Matched-Book Positions through the termination by offset and re-matching
Proposed Rule 2212(a) would provide that, in the event that a suspended Hedge Clearing Member has Matched-Book Positions within the Hedge Program, OCC will, upon notice to affected Hedge Clearing Members, close out the suspended Hedge Clearing Member's Matched-Book Positions to the greatest extent possible by (i) the termination by offset of stock loan and stock borrow positions that are Matched-Book Positions in the suspended Hedge Clearing Member's account(s) and (ii) OCC's re-matching of stock borrow positions for the same number of shares in the same Eligible Stock maintained in a designated account of a Matched-Book Borrowing Clearing Member against a stock lending position for the same number of shares in the same Eligible Stock maintained in
Under proposed Rule 2212(b), the Matched-Book Borrowing Clearing Member and Matched-Book Lending Clearing Member would not be required to issue instructions to the Depository in accordance with Rules 2202(a) and 2208(a) to terminate the relevant stock loan and stock borrow positions or to initiate new stock loan transactions to reestablish such positions, as the affected positions would be re-matched without requiring the transfer of securities against the payment of settlement prices.
Proposed Rule 2212(c) provides that OCC shall make reasonable efforts to re-match Matched-Book Borrowing Clearing Members with Matched-Book Lending Clearing Members that maintain between them current executed Master Securities Lending Agreements (“MSLAs”),
Under proposed Rule 2212(d), the termination by offset and re-matching of positions would be done using a matching algorithm in which the Matched-Book Positions of the suspended Hedge Clearing Member are first terminated by offset and then affected Matched-Book Borrowing Clearing Members and Matched-Book Lending Clearing Members are re-matched in order of priority based first upon whether the re-matched Clearing Members have an existing MSLA between them. Specifically, under the re-matching algorithm, OCC would first select the largest stock loan or stock borrow position in a given Eligible Stock from the suspended Hedge Clearing Member's Matched-Book Positions. The selected positions would then be re-matched with the largest available stock borrow or stock loan positions, as applicable, for the selected Eligible Stock for which a MSLA exists between a Matched-Book Borrowing Clearing Member and a Matched-Book Lending Clearing Member. OCC would repeat this process until all potential re-matching between Matched-Book Borrowing Clearing Members and Matched-Book Lending Clearing Members with MSLAs is completed. After re-matching among lenders and borrowers with existing MSLAs, the re-matching process would then be repeated for all remaining Matched-Book Positions for which MSLAs do not exist between the lenders and borrowers. During this stage, positions would be selected for re-matching in order of priority based on largest outstanding position size.
Under proposed Rule 2212(e), in the event Borrowing and Lending Clearing Members are re-matched through this process, the re-matched positions would be governed by the pre-defined terms and instructions established by the Lending Clearing Member pursuant to Rule 2201. In this case, the re-matched Hedge Clearing Members may choose to execute an MSLA or close-out the re-matched positions in accordance with existing Rule 2208. Any change in Collateral requirements arising from a change in the terms of stock loan or stock borrow positions between a Lending Clearing Member and Borrowing Clearing Member with re-matched positions would be included in the calculation of the Mark-to-Market Payment obligations as provided in Rule 2204 on the stock loan business day following the completion of the positions adjustments as set forth in proposed Rule 2212(f).
Under proposed Rule 2212(f), the termination by offset and re-matching of positions would be complete upon OCC completing all position adjustments in the accounts of the suspended Hedge Clearing Member and the Borrowing Clearing Members and Lending Clearing Members with re-matched positions and the applicable systems reports are produced and provided to the Clearing Members reflecting the transaction.
Under proposed Rules 2212(g)-(i), from and after the time OCC has completed the position adjustments as set forth in OCC Rule 2212(f), the suspended Hedge Clearing Member would have no further obligations under the By-Laws and Rules with respect to such positions; however, a Borrowing Clearing Member with re-matched stock borrow positions would remain obligated as a Borrowing Clearing Member and a Lending Clearing Member with re-matched stock loan positions would remain obligated as a Lending Clearing Member as specified in the By-Laws and Rules applicable to the Hedge Program. Moreover, upon notification that OCC has completed the termination by offset and re-matching of stock loan and borrow positions, the suspended Hedge Clearing Member and Borrowing Clearing Members and Lending Clearing Members with re-matched positions would be required to promptly make any necessary bookkeeping entries at the Depository necessitated by the re-matching to ensure the accuracy and efficacy of those stock loan terms not governed by OCC's By-Laws and Rules.
Finally, under proposed Rule 2212(j), Borrowing Clearing Members and Lending Clearing Members that have been re-matched would be required to work in good faith to either (i) reestablish any terms, representations, warranties and covenants not governed by the By-Laws and Rules (
OCC also proposes a number of conforming changes to Article XXI, Sections 2-4 of the By-Laws and to Rule 2210 to reflect the proposed adoption of new Rule 2212. In particular, OCC would amend Rule 2210(b), which concerns the treatment of open stock loan and borrow positions resulting from Stock Loans of a suspended Hedge Clearing Member, to provide that such positions may now also be closed out using the re-match in suspension authority under proposed Rule 2212. Under the default management rules and procedures for stock loan positions in the Hedge Program, OCC would first attempt to close out any Matched-Book Positions of the suspended Hedge Clearing Member to the greatest extent possible using the re-match in suspension authority under proposed Rule 2212. After executing the re-matching process, OCC would generally look to close out the remaining stock loan positions of the suspended Clearing Member, to the extent that the defaulting member was the borrower of loans that were not matched, by using any stock pledged to OCC as margin collateral that is the same as the Eligible Stock in question to deliver to its counterparty lenders via the Depository. Finally, all remaining open stock loan positions would be closed out pursuant to the buy-in/sell-out process under Rule 2211, and in accordance with the proposed enhancements to that process as described herein.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
In addition, recently adopted Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13)
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
As described in detail above, OCC is proposing a number of improvements in the area of trade balancing and recordkeeping of stock loan positions at OCC. Specifically, the proposed rule change would require Clearing Members in the Stock Loan Programs to have adequate policies and procedures in place to perform reconciliations of open and closed stock loan and stock borrow positions to OCC's records at least once each stock loan business day and resolve any discrepancies based on such report(s) for a given stock loan business day by 9:30 a.m. Central Time on the following stock loan business day to minimize the risk inaccurate records may present. OCC is also proposing a number of clarifying amendments to its By-Laws and Rules to emphasize that the records of OCC are the official record of open and closed stock loan transactions in the Stock Loan Programs, including for terminations of stock loan positions, and that Clearing Members remain liable for all obligations related to open stock loan positions as reflected in the records of OCC.
The proposed rule change is designed to provide more certainty regarding the formal record of the open stock loan positions guaranteed by OCC and provide additional clarity and transparency around the obligations of OCC and its Clearing Members in the Stock Loan Programs, particularly where differences may arise between the records of OCC and its Clearing Members. OCC believes the proposed rule change would therefore reduce the likelihood of credit or operational risks arising due to discrepancies between the records of OCC and its Clearing Members. As a result, OCC believes the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is responsible in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
OCC Rules 2211 and 2211A describe the buy-in and sell-out process in the event of a Hedge Clearing Member and Market Loan Clearing Member suspension, respectively, but the rules do not currently require that such actions be taken within a specified period of time. As described in detail above, OCC's margin and liquidation period assumptions contemplate a two-day close out process, which is applicable to all products without differentiation. Any delay in the buy-in/sell-out process could result in increased credit risk to OCC as the close out process for stock loans could fail to align with such margin and liquidation period assumptions. As a result, OCC may be exposed to credit risk if the price paid or received for the buy-in or sell-out of the Eligible Stock varies from the price at which OCC last collected a Mark-to-Market Payment from the defaulter and that price differential exceeds the amount of margin on deposit for such positions.
OCC proposes to amend Rules 2211 and 2211A to require Lending Clearing Members or Borrowing Clearing Members that are instructed to buy-in or sell-out in connection with a Hedge or Market Loan Clearing Member suspension to execute such transactions by the close of the stock loan business day after the receipt of such instruction by OCC.
OCC believes the proposed rule change will help to mitigate the potential credit risk that may be associated with a delay in a Hedge or Market Loan Clearing Member effecting buy-in or sell-out transactions by ensuring that positions are closed out—either through the buy-in/sell-out of stock loans by the Hedge Clearing Members or by the automatic termination and settlement of stock loans by OCC—in a time period consistent with OCC's margin assumptions. Accordingly, OCC believes the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is responsible, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The proposed rule change would also provide OCC with the authority to withdraw from a Clearing Member's account the value of any difference between the price reported by the Clearing Member for a buy-in or sell-out under Rule 2211 and Rule 2211A, as applicable, and the price that OCC, in its sole discretion, determines to be reasonable (if OCC determines that the Clearing Member's reported price was unreasonable based on whether the reported price fell within the trading range of the Eligible Stock on that day). The proposed rule change is designed to incentivize Clearing Members to execute a buy-in or sell-out at a reasonable price in accordance with the newly implemented two-day close out timeframe, and would allow OCC to withdraw the difference for any buy-in or sell-out reported outside of the trading range of the Eligible Stock, thereby helping to ensure that the buy-in/sell-out is executed at a price that falls within OCC's margin and liquidation assumptions. As a result, OCC believes the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is responsible, in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
As noted above, a significant portion of the activity in OCC's Hedge Program relates to matched-book activity. Under OCC's existing rules, OCC would terminate a suspended Hedge Clearing Member's Matched-Book Positions in accordance with the buy-in and sell-out process contained in Rule 2211. Logistically, this requires OCC to both recall the loan and return the borrowed shares to completely unwind the Matched-Book positions, which exposes OCC to potential price dislocation between the buy-in and sell-out transactions. Moreover, as noted above, the buy-in/sell-out process effectively utilizes each counterparty to the suspended Hedge Clearing Member's Matched-Book Positions as independent “liquidating agents,” making the process prone to greater operational and execution risk due to the number of counterparties effecting the buy-in/sell-out transactions, and thereby posing risks to the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and the safeguarding of securities and funds associated therewith. In addition, to the extent Borrowing and Lending Clearing Member counterparties to the Matched-Book Positions wish to maintain equivalent stock loan positions at OCC, those Clearing Members would be required to initiate new stock loans to replace the closed out positions and would lose the protections afforded by OCC's guaranty of their stock loan positions until the newly initiated stock loan positions have been accepted, novated, and guaranteed by OCC.
Proposed Rule 2212 would allow OCC to perform an orderly close out of a suspended Hedge Clearing Member's Matched-Book Positions through the termination by offset and re-matching of such positions without requiring the transfer of securities against the payment of settlement prices as currently required under OCC Rule 2211. As a result, the proposed rule change would minimize the potential for operational and execution risks and eliminate any risk resulting from potential price dislocation between recall and return transactions. OCC believes the proposed rule change will strengthen the risk management processes in place at OCC by mitigating the risks involved in the buy-in/sell-out of Matched-Book Positions as well as provide the overall marketplace with more stability with respect to the Hedge Program. OCC therefore believes the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
In addition, OCC would use a matching algorithm to re-match stock loan and stock borrow positions in order of priority based on the largest available stock borrow or stock loan positions, as applicable, for the selected Eligible Stock for which a MSLA exists between the Borrowing and Lending Clearing Members. In the event Hedge Clearing Members are re-matched that do not have existing securities lending relationships, those members may choose to either work in good faith to reestablish any terms, representations, warranties and covenants not governed by the By-Laws and Rules (
Furthermore, OCC believes the proposed rule change would make key aspects of OCC's default procedures for the Hedge Program publicly available (particularly with respect to the close out of Matched-Book Positions) and would establish default procedures for the Hedge Program that ensure that OCC can take timely action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and continue meeting its obligations in the event of a participant default in accordance with Rules 17Ad-22(d)(11), (e)(13), and (e)(23).
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received. OCC has, however, discussed the re-matching in suspension proposal with its Clearing Members at numerous member outreach forums and meetings. While members were generally supportive of the proposal, some members did raise concerns over the possibility of being re-matched with a counterparty with which the Clearing Member does not have an existing securities lending relationship. For example, some Clearing Members noted that they could be re-matched with counterparties with which they do not have an existing MSLA, which dictates all of the terms of the stock loan not governed by OCC's By-Laws and Rules (
OCC carefully considered this member feedback in the development of its proposal, and in order to mitigate these concerns, the proposed re-matching in suspension rules would require OCC to make reasonable efforts to re-match Hedge Clearing Members that maintain between them current executed MSLAs. Specifically, under the proposed rule change, OCC would use a matching algorithm to re-match stock loan and stock borrow positions in order of priority based on the largest available stock borrow or stock loan positions, as applicable, for the selected Eligible Stock for which a MSLA exists between the Borrowing and Lending Clearing Members to ensure that members with existing securities lending relationships are re-matched to the greatest extent possible. Even in light of these concerns, however, Clearing Members generally agreed that it is preferable to maintain a stock loan with another counterparty rather than attempting to close out stock loan positions in the event of a Hedge Clearing Member suspension as in many cases (and particularly in stressed market conditions) it could be difficult for the borrower to return the securities to the lender since the securities would likely be being used for other purposes.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2017-004 and should be submitted on or before April 4, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 6191 to modify the date of Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Rule 6191(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements)
FINRA is proposing amendments to Rule 6191.12 to delay the date by which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly available on FINRA's Web site from February 28, 2017, until April 28, 2017.
In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that the public data will be made available for free “on a disaggregated basis by trading center” on the Web sites of the Participants and the Designated Examining Authorities.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be the date of filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-capitalization companies. FINRA believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide FINRA with additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data made publicly available will not identify the trading center that generated the data.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19(b)-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative on February 28, 2017.
FINRA notes that the proposed rule change is intended to address confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of OTC Appendix B data by permitting FINRA to delay Web site publication of Appendix B data from February 28, 2017 to April 28, 2017.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow FINRA to delay publication of Appendix B data until April 28, 2017. As noted above, commenters continue to raise concerns about the publication of OTC Appendix B data. The Commission notes that FINRA has filed a proposed rule change that is intended to mitigate confidentiality concerns raised by commenters regarding the publication of Appendix B data.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 67 to modify the date of Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Rule 67(b)—Equities (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements)
The Exchange is proposing amendments to Supplementary Material .70 to Rule 67—Equities to delay the date by which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly available on the Exchange's or DEA's Web site from February 28, 2017, until April 28, 2017. Appendix C data for the Pre-Pilot Period through the month of January 2017 will be published on the Exchange's or DEA's Web site on February 28, 2017, and, thereafter, on the original 30-day schedule.
In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that the public data will be made available for free “on a disaggregated basis by trading center” on the Web sites of the Participants and the Designated Examining Authorities.
As noted in Item 2 of this filing, the Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. If the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay, the operative date of the proposed rule change will be the date of filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-capitalization companies. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide the Exchange with additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data made publicly available will not identify the trading center that generated the data.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Participants in meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19(b)-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative on February 28, 2017.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is intended to address confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of over-the-counter (“OTC”) Appendix B data by permitting the Exchange to delay Web site publication of its Appendix B data from February 28, 2017 to April 28, 2017.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to delay publication of its Appendix B data until April 28, 2017. As noted above, commenters continue to raise concerns about the publication of OTC Appendix B data.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 30, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Acting Chairman Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective March 6, 2017. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule, effective March 6, 2017, to provide an incentive for OTP Holders and OTP Firms (each an “OTP”) to post volume in non-Penny Pilot Issues as Non-Customers,
Currently, the transactions fees and credits applied to Non-Customer posting liquidity in non-Penny Pilot issues range from a per contract fee of $0.50 (charged to Firms and Broker Dealers) to a per contract credit of $0.40 (issued to LMMs).
The Exchange proposes to introduce a program to further incent Non-Customers to post volume in non-Penny Pilot Issues. The proposed program would offer OTPs the ability to earn per contract credits for electronic executions of Non-Customer posted interest in non-Penny Pilot issues. The amount of credit would depend on an OTP's share of total industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV (“TCADV”) (referring to herein as the “Non-Penny Posting Tiers”).
•
•
•
If an execution of Non-Penny Pilot Issues by an OTP for a Non-Customer is eligible for more than one fee or credit, the Exchange will apply the most favorable rate. For instance, under the Fee Schedule, an LMM that posts interest in non-Penny Pilot issues in its appointment receives a base per contract credit of $0.40. If that same OTP achieves proposed Tier 1 of the Non-Penny Posting Tiers, the OTP would be eligible to receive a per contract credit of $0.32. However, that OTP would still receive the higher per contract credit of $0.40 on its LMM posted interest in non-Penny Pilot issues.
The Exchange believes the proposed Non-Penny Posting Tiers would encourage an increased level of activity, particularly in non-Penny Pilot Issues, which in turn encourages tighter market spreads and increased liquidity to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed Non-Penny Posting Tiers are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are competitive with incentive programs offered to similarly situated participants on other options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would encourage OTPs post interest on the Exchange in order to qualify for the proposed credits, which would reduce their overall transaction costs on the Exchange.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal would provide additional incentives to direct Non-Customer order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants through increased liquidity and enhanced price discovery. Finally, encouraging OTPs to send higher volumes of orders to the Exchange would also contribute to the Exchange's depth of book as well as to the top of book liquidity.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of intent to terminate the class waiver to the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Rubber Gloves.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is considering terminating a class waiver to the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR) for “Gloves, rubber (
Thus, SBA is seeking comment on the termination of the class waiver for “Gloves, rubber (
Comments and source information must be submitted on or before March 29, 2017.
You may submit comments and source information via the Federal Rulemaking Portal at
Roman Ivey, Program Analyst, by telephone at 202-401-1420; or by email at
Section 8(a)(17) and 46 of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17) and 657, and SBA's implementing regulations require that recipients of Federal supply contracts set aside for small businesses (except those valued between $3,500 and $150,000), service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), women-owned small businesses (WOSBs), economically disadvantaged women-owned small businesses (EDWOSBs), or participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR). 13 CFR 121.406(b). Sections 8(a)(17)(B)(iv)(II) and 46(a)(4)(B) of the Act authorize SBA to waive the NMR for a “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market.
As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1204(a)(7), SBA will periodically review existing class waivers to the NMR in order to determine whether small business manufacturers or processors have become available to participate in the Federal market. Upon receipt of information that such a small business manufacturer or processor exists, the SBA will announce its intent to terminate the NMR waiver for a class of products. 13 CFR 121.1204(a)(7)(ii).
On April 8, 2008, SBA issued a Notice of Intent to waive the NMR for Safety Zone Rubber Gloves Manufacturing under NAICS 339113 (Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing), and identified PSC 9999, the code for miscellaneous items. 73 FR 19132. SBA did not receive any comments, and on May 1, 2008, SBA issued a class waiver for Safety Zone Rubber Gloves Manufacturing. 73 FR 24101. On October 27, 2016, SBA received a request to terminate the NMR waiver for “Gloves, rubber (
More information on the NMR and Class Waivers can be found at
Department of State.
Notice.
The Government of Belize has informed the Government of the United States of America of its interest in an extension of the
The Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: 202-632-6301;
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), the Department proposes an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Belize.
A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, the Designated List of categories of material restricted from import into the United States, and related information can be found at the Cultural Heritage Center Web site:
Department of State.
Notice.
The Government of the Republic of Guatemala has informed the Government of the United States of America of its interest in an extension of the
The Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: 202-632-6301;
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), the Department proposes an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Guatemala.
A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, the Designated List of categories of material restricted from import into the United States, and related information can be found at the Cultural Heritage Center Web site:
Department of State.
Notice.
The Government of the Republic of Mali has informed the Government of the United States of America of its interest in an extension of the
The Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: 202-632-6301;
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), the Department proposes an extension of the Agreement with the Government of Mali.
A copy of the Agreement, the Designated List of categories of material restricted from import into the United States, and related information can be found at the Cultural Heritage Center Web site:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew and revise a previously approved information collection. The collection involves requirements for operators and repair stations to report any malfunctions and defects or service difficulties to the Administrator. The information collected allows the FAA to evaluate its certification standards, maintenance programs, and regulatory requirements. It is also the basis for issuance of Airworthiness Directives designed to prevent unsafe conditions and accidents.
Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
Notice is being given that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a request from the Valdosta-Lowndes County Airport Authority to waive the requirement that one (1) acre of surplus property, located at the Valdosta Regional Airport be used for aeronautical purposes. Currently, ownership of the property provides for protection of FAR Part 77 surfaces and compatible land use.
Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2017.
Documents are available for review by prior appointment at the following location: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Rob Rau, Georgia Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, Telephone: (404) 305-6748.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Rob Rau, Georgia Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to James P. Galloway, III, Executive Director, Valdosta-Lowndes County Airport Authority at the following address: Valdosta Regional Airport, 1750 Airport Road, Suite 1, Valdosta, Georgia 31601.
Rob Rau, Georgia Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404)305-6748. The
Under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47151, the FAA is reviewing a request by the Valdosta-Lowndes County Airport Authority to release one (1) acre of surplus property at the Valdosta Regional Airport. This singular parcel was originally leased to the United States of America on December 15, 1941. Then on December 18, 1946, the lease with the United State of America was declared surplus and was transferred to the City of Valdosta. The Valdosta-Lowndes County Airport Authority will retain ownership of this parcel while establishing a land lease for a solar array.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on February 6, 2017.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. Executive Order 12862 Setting Customer Service Standards, and most recently updated in Executive Order 13571, requires the Federal Government to provide the “highest quality service possible to the American people.” Under the order, the “standard of quality for services provided to the public shall be: Customer service equal to the best in business.” The FAA Flight Standards Service designed the SAFE Program to continuously promote and improve overall aviation safety.
Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the Scholes International Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).
Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ben Guttery, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas Airports District Office, ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Mike Shahan, Airport Director, at the following address: 2115 Terminal Drive #4, Galveston, Texas 77554.
Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports District Office, ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, Telephone: (817) 222-5663, email:
The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Scholes International Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21. The following is a brief overview of the request:
City of Galveston requests the release of 5.5 acres of non-aeronautical airport property. The property is located on the west side of the airport, along Travel Air Road. The property to be released will be sold and revenues shall be used to build airport-owned hangars whose lease revenue will support maintenance and improvement of the airport. Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. AC Form 8050-5 is an application for a dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate which, under, may be issued to a person engaged in manufacturing, distributing, or selling aircraft.
Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416 or by email at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew and revise a previously approved information collection. A final rule published on January 16, 2007 codified previous practices that permitted certificated air carriers to operate two-engine airplanes over long-range routes. The FAA uses this information collection to ensure that aircraft for long range flights are equipped to minimize diversions, to preclude and prevent diversions in remote areas, and to ensure that all personnel are trained to minimize any adverse impacts of a diversion.
Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. 14 CFR 125 prescribes requirements for issuing operating certificates and for appropriate operating rules. In addition to the statutory basis, the collection of this information is necessary to issue, reissue, or amend applicant's operating certificates and operations specifications.
Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. Flight plan information is used to govern the flight of aircraft for the protection and identification of aircraft and property and persons on the ground.
Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comment.
The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public comment on a request by the City of Tallahassee to change a portion of airport property from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use at the Tallahassee International Airport, Tallahassee City, Florida. The request consists of approximately 119.6 acres.
Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Tallahassee International Airport and the FAA Airports District Office.
Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
The City of Tallahassee is proposing to release from aeronautical use provisions approximately 119.6 acres at Tallahassee International Airport. The Proposed Project is part of the City of Tallahassee strategy to diversify the fuel supply, reduce the City's reliance on fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions generated with electric power generation. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to generate clean energy, increase energy independence, and decrease the reliance on electricity generated by fossil fuel power plants. The Proposed Project is necessary to increase economic contribution from non-aviation uses on Airport property, support economic and sustainable development at the Airport, contribute to the Airport's economic viability and reduce the airport's carbon footprint.
Comments are due on or before April 13, 2017.
Documents are available for review at Tallahassee International Airport, and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Pedro Blanco, Community Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
Pedro Blanco, Community Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. The collection of information is for the purpose of obtaining essential information concerning the applicant's professional and personal qualifications. The FAA uses the information provided to screen and select designees who act as representatives of the FAA Administrator in performing various certification and examination functions described in the Federal Aviation Act.
Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. Information is maintained by owners and operators of light-sport aircraft and is collected to be used by FAA safety inspectors in determining whether required maintenance actions have been accomplished on light-sport aircraft. The information is also used when investigating accidents.
Written comments should be submitted by April 13, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the proposed information collection activities listed below. Before submitting these information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Comments must be received no later than May 15, 2017.
Submit written comments on the information collection activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB Control Number 2130-XXXX,” (the relevant OMB control number for each ICR is listed below) and should also include the title of the ICR. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll free.)
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) ensure that it organizes information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
Below is a brief summary of currently approved information collection activities that FRA will submit for OMB renewed or revised clearance as the PRA requires:
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of proposed information collection activities. Before submitting these information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities, which are identified below.
Comments must be received no later than May 15, 2017.
Submit written comments on any of the following information collection activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB control number 2130-XXXX” (the relevant OMB control number for each ICR is listed below), and should also include the title of the collection. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). These telephone numbers are not toll-free.
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following summary of information collection activities regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) how FRA can enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) how FRA can minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology (
FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) ensure it organizes information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources
Below is a brief summary of currently approved information collection activities FRA will submit for renewed clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA is informing the public that FRA has made three proposed revisions to the Quarterly Positive Train Control (PTC) Progress Report Form (Form FRA F 6180.165), which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved on June 20, 2016, under its regular processing procedures. Before submitting this revised quarterly information collection request to OMB for regular clearance and approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the proposed information collection identified below.
Comments must be received no later than May 15, 2017.
Submit written comments on the following proposed activity by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB control number 2130-0553.” Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or via email to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The PRA and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval or renewal by OMB.
Under 49 U.S.C. 20157, as amended by the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act), FRA must conduct compliance reviews at least annually to ensure each railroad is complying with its revised PTC implementation plan (PTCIP). The PTCEI Act requires railroads to provide information to FRA that FRA determines is necessary to adequately conduct such compliance reviews. 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2).
Under its statutory and regulatory investigative authorities, FRA currently requires, and seeks to continue requiring, each subject railroad to submit Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) on its PTC system implementation progress.
FRA has determined that quarterly reporting is necessary for FRA to effectively monitor industry's implementation of PTC systems and to meet the statutory mandate to conduct compliance reviews at least annually to ensure each railroad is complying with its revised PTCIP.
Congress made it clear in the PTCEI Act and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act that enforcement is FRA's main oversight tool for ensuring each railroad implements a PTC system consistent with its revised PTCIP and by the new statutory deadline. 49 U.S.C. 20157(e)(1)-(4). FRA needs the quarterly reports to conduct the compliance reviews the PTCEI Act mandates and to initiate well-supported enforcement action against a delinquent railroad when necessary. In the PTCEI Act, Congress required each railroad to provide detailed implementation information in its revised PTCIP, including end-of-year milestones for spectrum acquisition, employee training, and hardware installation, with totals separated by each major hardware category. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(A)(iii). By law, each railroad must comply with its revised PTCIP, including its end-of-year milestones, and FRA is authorized to assess a civil penalty for any failure to meet those milestones. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(D), (e)(2), 49 CFR 1.89.
By statute, railroads are required to provide FRA with any information FRA deems necessary to adequately conduct its compliance reviews.
On June 20, 2016, OMB approved the Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) for a period of one year, expiring on June 30, 2017. The current Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form, as approved through June 30, 2017, can be accessed and downloaded in FRA's eLibrary at:
Following the 60-day public comment period after this notice is published, FRA will request OMB's re-approval of the form, with three proposed changes. First, FRA proposes removing a now inapplicable instruction from page 1 of the quarterly form, which stated,
Please note that FRA did not require a Q1 progress report to be submitted in April 2016. For 2016, the Q1 and Q2 reports are both due in the same form on July 31, 2016.
FRA delayed the due date for submitting the first 2016 quarterly report to allow time for the normal 60 days of notice and public comment to FRA and additional 30 days of public comment to OMB while it underwent OMB review as the PRA and its concomitant regulations require. Because that due date extension applied only in 2016, FRA proposes removing that note from page 1 of the form and retaining the standard quarterly due dates below:
In addition, FRA proposes making the following two changes to Section 1 of the form (Summary Section) to clarify the section and respond to a Congressional request that FRA collect certain additional information:
(i) To ensure clarity and consistent interpretations by respondents, FRA proposes adding instructions to the existing Summary Section row entitled, “Route Miles in Testing or Revenue Service Demonstration,” as a footnote. The current Summary Section in the Quarterly PTC Progress Report requires railroads to provide the following information:
In the Summary Section of the Quarterly PTC Progress Reports railroads have submitted to date, some railroads have improperly listed the same number of miles in the “Route Miles in Testing or Revenue Service Demonstration” and “Route Miles in PTC Operation” fields, under the heading “Cumulative Quantity Completed to Date.” This makes it impossible for FRA to know if the railroad is indeed still conducting PTC testing (
Enter the cumulative number of route miles where PTC technology is
(ii) In September 2016, when reviewing data collected in the OMB-approved Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165), staffers from the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation requested that FRA also collect information to directly show each railroad's progress towards completing the revenue service demonstration (RSD) criteria under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi)-(vii). Specifically, to receive an extension beyond December 31, 2018, but no later than December 31, 2020, for certain non-hardware, operational aspects of PTC system implementation, a railroad must complete each of the statutory prerequisites under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B), including one prerequisite that differs depending on whether a railroad is or is not a Class I railroad or Amtrak. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi)-(vii). For Class I railroads and Amtrak, one of the statutory prerequisites is that the railroad must have “implemented a [PTC] system or initiated [RSD] on the majority of territories, such as subdivisions or districts, or route miles” the railroad owns or controls that are required to have operations governed by a PTC system. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi). For other railroads or entities that are not Class I railroads or Amtrak, one of the statutory prerequisites is that the entity must have initiated RSD on at least 1 territory required to have PTC-governed operations, or met any other criteria FRA established. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vii). To be clear, by law, Congress authorizes FRA to establish alternative RSD criteria only for entities that are not Class I railroads or Amtrak.
The Summary Section in the current Quarterly PTC Progress Report, approved through June 30, 2017, asks railroads to report route miles in “Testing or Revenue Service Demonstration.” However, that does not directly indicate whether or not the railroad has satisfied the above criteria because, for example, those route miles might refer to a combination of route miles in field testing and route miles in RSD, and also it does not provide any information about the number of territories where the railroad has initiated RSD and how many territories are required to have operations governed by a PTC system. Similarly, the drop-down menu in Section 4 regarding the overall current status of track segments has a “Testing” option, which provides only an overview of whether that railroad is currently doing either field testing or RSD in the track segment, but does not differentiate between field testing and RSD, as there might be various stages of testing occurring in a particular track segment.
Rather than substantially changing the existing Summary Section and Section 4 of the form, and thus requiring railroads to deviate from the procedures and formulas they already have in place for quarterly reporting, FRA proposes simply adding one new row to the Summary Section and leaving the rest of the form and fields unchanged.
Specifically, to address the request from Congressional staffers, FRA proposes adding a new row in the Summary Section entitled, “Territories Where Revenue Service Demonstration Has Been Initiated.” The table headings, “Cumulative Quantity Completed to Date” and “Total Quantity Required for PTC Implementation” would remain in place in the Summary Section. FRA proposes adding a footnote after the word “Territories” in the new row to define a territory as “an entire installation/track segment as identified in the railroad's PTCIP (
The associated collection of information is summarized below. FRA will submit this information collection request to OMB for regular clearance as required by the PRA.
FRA notes that the 21.60-hour estimate is an average for all railroads. FRA estimated the quarterly reporting burden is approximately 40.5 hours for the 11 Class I and large passenger railroads per quarterly form, approximately 27.5 hours for the 11 Class II and medium passenger railroads per quarterly form, and approximately 7.25 hours for the 19 Class III, terminal, and small passenger railroads per quarterly form.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that this proposed collection of information is mandatory under 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2).
44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520, 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2).
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approvals.
This notice announces OMB approved new information collection requests (ICRs) for 49 CFR parts 223, 228, 232, 234, 237, 238, and 270, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). FRA also announces OMB re-approved other ICRs for 49 CFR parts 207, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 241, and 242, and related to other regulatory activities. Further, OMB reinstated two ICRs for 49 CFR parts 215 and 234, and approved one ICR under Emergency Processing procedures.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll free.)
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to ensure information collections display OMB control numbers. In the past 25 months, OMB approved the following new FRA
Additionally, in the past 25 months, OMB has re-approved the following information collections with the following new expiration dates: (1) OMB No. 2130-0595, Safety and Health Requirements Related to Camp Cars (49 CFR part 228)—January 31, 2018; (2) OMB No. 2130-0596, Conductor Certification (49 CFR part 242)—April 30, 2018; (3) OMB No. 2130-0556, U.S. Locational Requirements for Dispatching U.S. Rail Operations (49 CFR part 241)—January 31, 2018; (4) OMB No. 2130-0539, Roadway Worker Protection (49 CFR part 214)—January 31, 2018; (5) OMB No. 2130-0506, Cars Moved in Accordance with Order 13528 (49 CFR part 232)—January 31, 2018; (6) OMB No. 2130-0571, Occupational Noise Exposure for Railroad Operating Employees (49 CFR parts 227 and 229)—April 30, 2018; (7) OMB No. 2130-0505, Inspection and Maintenance of Steam Locomotives (49 CFR part 230)—August 31, 2018; (8) OMB No. 2130-0526, Control of Alcohol and Drug Use in Railroad Operations (49 CFR part 219)—August 31, 2018; (9) OMB No. 2130-0606, Railworthiness Directive under 49 CFR 180.509 for Railroad Tank Cars Equipped with Certain McKenzie Valve and Machining LLC Valves—September 30, 2018; (10) OMB No. 2130-0500, Accident/Incident Reporting and Recordkeeping (49 CFR part 225), revision of Form FRA F 6180.54, Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report (addition of Special Study Blocks)—February 28, 2017; (11) OMB No. 2130-0607, FRA Safety Advisory 2015-01, Mechanical Inspections and Wheel Impact Load Detector Standards for Trains Transporting Large Amounts of Class 3 Flammable Liquids—December 31, 2018; (12) OMB No. 2130-0608, FRA Safety Advisory 2015-02, Hazardous Materials: Information Requirements Related to Transportation of Trains Carrying Specified Volumes of Flammable Liquids—December 31, 2018; (13) OMB No. 2130-0006, Railroad Signal System Requirements (49 CFR parts 233 and 235)—December 31, 2018; (14) OMB No. 2130-0614, FRA Safety Advisory 2015-04, Ballast Defects and Conditions: Importance of Identification and Repair in Preventing Development of Unsafe Combinations of Track Conditions—March 31, 2019; (15) OMB No. 2130-0004, Locomotive Safety Standards and Event Recorders (49 CFR part 229)—December 31, 2018; (16) OMB No. 2130-0611, FRA Emergency Order No. 31, Notice No. 1, Emergency Order under 49 U.S.C. 20104 Establishing Requirements for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation to Control Passenger Train Speeds at Certain Locations Along the Northeast Corridor—December 31, 2018; (17) OMB No. 2130-0509, State Safety Participation Regulations and Remedial Actions (49 CFR parts 209 and 212)—January 31, 2019; (18) OMB No. 2130-0560, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (49 CFR part 222)—January 31, 2019; (19) OMB No. 2130-0613, FRA Safety Advisory 2015-03, Operational and Signal Modifications for Compliance with Maximum Authorized Train Speeds and Other Restrictions—February 28, 2019; (20) OMB No. 2130-0565, Safety Appliance Standards Guidance Checklist Forms, approval of new Forms FRA F 6180.161(a)-(j)—May 31, 2019; (21) OMB No. 2130-0529, Disqualification Proceedings (49 CFR part 209)—April 30, 2019; (22) OMB No. 2130-0604, Secretary's Emergency Order Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0067, Emergency Order Providing for Local Notification of High-Volume Rail Transport of Bakken Crude Oil—March 31, 2019; (23) OMB No. 2130-0586, Bridge Inspection Report Form Public Version (Form FRA F 6180.167)—September 30, 2019; (24) OMB No. 2130-0502, Filing of Dedicated Cars (49 CFR part 215)—October 31, 2019; (25) OMB No. 2130-0504, Special Notice for Repairs (49 CFR part 216)—October 31, 2019; (26) OMB No. 2130-0523, Rear-End Marking Devices (49 CFR part 221)—October 31, 2019; (27) OMB No. 2130-0527, Locomotive Certification (Noise Compliance Regulations) (49 CFR part 210)—October 31, 2019; (28) OMB No. 2130-0537, Railroad Police Officers (49 CFR part 207)—October 31, 2019; (29) OMB No. 2130-0555, Foreign Railroads Foreign-Based Employees Who Perform Train or Dispatching Service in the United States (49 CFR part 219)—October 31, 2019; (30) OMB No. 2130-0553, Positive Train Control (PTC) Annual Progress Report (Form FRA F6180.166) (49 CFR part 236)—November 31, 2017; (31) OMB No. 2130-0516, Remotely Controlled Switches (49 CFR part 218)—January 31, 2020; (32) OMB No. 2130-0519, Bad Order and Home Shop Card (49 CFR part 215)—January 31, 2020; (33) OMB No. 2130-0535, Bridge Worker Safety Rules (49 CFR part 214)—January 31, 2020; and (34) OMB No. 2130-0590, Alleged Violation Reporting Form (FRA F 6180.151)—January 31, 2020.
Furthermore, in the past 25 months, OMB reinstated the following information collections with the following new expiration dates: (1) OMB No. 2130-0520, Stenciling Reporting Mark on Freight Cars (49 CFR part 215)—January 31, 2020; and (2) OMB No. 2130-0534, Grade Crossing Signal System (49 CFR part 234)—January 31, 2020.
Finally, under Emergency Processing procedures, OMB approved information collection OMB No. 2130-0616, Railworthiness Directive for Certain Railroad Tank Cars Equipped with Bottom Outlet Valve Assembly and Constructed by American Railcar Industries and ACF Industries, expiring April 30, 2017.
Persons affected by the above-referenced information collections are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. These OMB approvals certify FRA has complied with the provisions of the PRA requiring agency action before carrying out information collections.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and comment request.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and its expected burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2017.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll free.)
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On November 16, 2016, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the ICR and its expected burden. FRA is submitting the new request for clearance by OMB as the PRA requires.
In March 2013, FRA amended the Track Safety Standards and Passenger Equipment Safety Standards applicable to high-speed and high cant deficiency train operations to promote the safe interaction of rail vehicles with the tracks over which they operate. The final rule revised limits for vehicle response to track perturbations and added new limits. The rule accounts for a range of vehicle types currently used and likely may be used in future high-speed or high cant deficiency rail operations, or both. The rule is based on the results of simulation studies designed to identify track geometry irregularities associated with unsafe wheel/rail forces and accelerations, thorough reviews of vehicle qualification and revenue service test data, and consideration of international practices. FRA uses this information collection to ensure and enhance rail safety by monitoring railroads' compliance with regulatory requirements.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the renewal and reinstatement of the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, comment, and approval. The ICR describes the information collections and the expected burden. On December 6, 2016, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2017.
Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6132).
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10, and 1320.12. On December 6, 2016, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Improving FRA's programs requires ongoing assessment of service delivery, meaning a systematic review of the operation of a program compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards as a means of contributing to the continuous improvement of the program. FRA will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback. 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. FRA will assess responses 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 FRA's services will be unavailable.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520; E.O. 12862, 58 FR 48257, Sep. 11, 1993; E.O. 13571, 76 FR 24339, April 27, 2011.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a renewal without revisions to the following information:
Comments must be submitted before May 15, 2017.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Richard Wong, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0675, or email at
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describe the nature of the information collection and their expected burdens. The
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2017.
Tia Swain, Office of Administration, Management Planning Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop TAD-10, Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-0354 or
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On December 9, 2016, FTA published a 60-day notice (81 FR 89182) in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
All written comments must refer to the docket number that appears at the top of this document and be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FTA Desk Officer. Alternatively, comments may be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, at the following address:
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the revisions of the following information collection:
Comments must be submitted before May 15, 2017.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alana Kuhn, Office of Civil Rights, (202) 366-1412, or email at Alana
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
“No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
To achieve this purpose, each Federal department and agency which provides financial assistance for any program or
In this regard, the responsibility of the FTA is to ensure that Federally-supported transit services and benefits are distributed by applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients of FTA assistance in a manner consistent with Title VI. The employment practices of a grant applicant, recipient, or sub-recipient are also covered under Title VI if the primary purpose of the FTA-supported program is to provide employment or if those employment practices would result in discrimination against beneficiaries of FTA-assisted services and benefits.
FTA policies and requirements are designed to clarify and strengthen Title VI (service equity) procedures for FTA grant recipients by requiring submission of written plans and approval of such plans by the agency. All project sponsors receiving financial assistance pursuant to an FTA-funded project shall not discriminate in the provision of services because of race, color, or national origin. Experience has demonstrated that a program requirement at the application stage is necessary to assure that benefits and services are equitably distributed by grant recipients. The requirements prescribed by the Office of Civil Rights are designed to accomplish this objective and diminish possible vestiges of discrimination among FTA grant recipients. FTA's assessment of the requirements indicated that the formulation and implementation of the Title VI Program should occur with a decrease in costs to such applicants and recipients.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew the following information collections:
Comments must be submitted before May 15, 2017.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Over the Road Bus (OTRB) Accessibility Program—Élan Flippin, FTA Office of Program Management (202) 366-2053 or email:
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0032. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel P-SQUARED is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0032 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0027. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ESCAPE is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0039. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SAILOR'S DELIGHT is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0034. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel FINN WAY is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0015. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel BLACKBIRD VII is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2017.
Mike Yarrington, 202-366-1915, Director, Office of Marine Insurance, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0031. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SLO GIN is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0028. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SWEPTAWAY is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0036. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PACIFIC RAIDER is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0029. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel GREYHOUND is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0020. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel FAST MOVING DIME is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0019. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LOTUS is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0041. Written comments may be submitted by
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel BORNEO PRINCESS is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0030. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MOTIVATION is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0033. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel NAUTI MERMAID is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0037. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CLUELESS is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0016. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MEET VIRGINIA is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected will be used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the vessel(s) for participation in the War Risk Insurance program. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2017-0042] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Yarrington, 202-366-1915, Office of Marine Insurance, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0040. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CAROUSEL is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2017.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Lauren Brand, Director, Office of Marine Highways and Passenger Services, MAR-520, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-7057; or email
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0035. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel NOMADE is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0038. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SAPPHIRE is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0017. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LATITUDE ADJUSTMENT is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
ITS Joint Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory Committee (ITSPAC) will hold a meeting on April 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST) in the Doubletree Crystal City Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
The ITSPAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109-59, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-
The following is a summary of the meeting tentative agenda: (1) Welcome, (2) Discussion of Potential Advice Memorandum Topics, (4) Summary and Adjourn.
The meeting will be open to the public, but limited space will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public who wish to present oral statements at the meeting must submit a request to
Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, ITS Joint Program Office, Attention: Stephen Glasscock, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., HOIT, Washington, DC 20590 or faxed to (202) 493-2027. The ITS JPO requests that written comments be submitted not later than April 7, 2017.
Notice of this conference is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration regulations (41 CFR part 102-3) covering management of Federal advisory committees.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces that the Department of the Treasury's Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms (“Committee”) will convene a meeting on Friday, March 31, 2017, in the Cash Room, Room 2121, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220, from 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is open to the public, and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The meeting will be held on Friday, March 31, 2017, from 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms meeting will be held in Room 2121 (Cash Room), Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220. The meeting will be open to the public. Because the meeting will be held in a secured facility, members of the public who plan to attend the meeting must either:
1. Register online. Attendees may visit
(
2. Contact the Federal Insurance Office (FIO), at (202) 622-3220, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 24, 2017, and provide registration information.
Requests for reasonable accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act should be directed to Mariam G. Harvey, Office of Civil Rights and Diversity, Department of the Treasury at (202) 622-0316, or
Lindsey Baldwin, Senior Policy Analyst, FIO, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 1410 MT, Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622-3220 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II 10(a)(2), through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.150.
• Send electronic comments to
• Send paper statements in triplicate to the Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 1410, Washington, DC 20220.
In general, the Department of the Treasury will post all statements on its Web site
| 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 |