Federal Register Vol. 82, No.49,
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 49 (March 15, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 49 (March 15, 2017)
| Page Range | 13741-13957 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2018-02-01 14:44:19
Document Modified: 2018-02-01 14:44:19
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 13876 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13802 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 13753 - Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Turboshaft Engines | |
| 82 FR 13867 - SGS North America, Inc.: Application for Expansion of Recognition | |
| 82 FR 13858 - Delegation of Authorities and Assignment of Responsibilities to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management | |
| 82 FR 13823 - Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 13863 - Authority and Responsibilities for Implementation of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and Related Legislation | |
| 82 FR 13868 - International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials EGS: Application for Expansion of Recognition | |
| 82 FR 13857 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages | |
| 82 FR 13777 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 82 FR 13828 - Towing Safety Advisory Committee; April 2017 Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13856 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Reemployment of Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Recipients | |
| 82 FR 13918 - Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Primary, Cargo, and Non-Primary Entitlement Funds Available to Date for Fiscal Year 2017 | |
| 82 FR 13917 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and Education Requirements | |
| 82 FR 13917 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Medical Standards and Certification | |
| 82 FR 13855 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities | |
| 82 FR 13870 - NASA Advisory Council; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13875 - Assessment of Abnormal Radioactive Discharges in Ground Water to the Unrestricted Area at Nuclear Power Plant Sites | |
| 82 FR 13832 - Kansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 13832 - Nevada; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 13794 - Notice of Scope Rulings | |
| 82 FR 13795 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
| 82 FR 13916 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Photography in Argentina, 1850-2010: Contradiction and Continuity” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 13920 - Environmental Impact Statement: Washoe County, Nevada | |
| 82 FR 13831 - Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy | |
| 82 FR 13916 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Presenting the New Japan: Arts of the Meiji Era, 1868-1912” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 13920 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California | |
| 82 FR 13829 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 13833 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 13853 - Aluminum Foil From China; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
| 82 FR 13854 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
| 82 FR 13914 - Cultural Property Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 13807 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 82 FR 13846 - Information Collection Activities: Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the OCS-General; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13839 - Information Collection Activities: Application for Permit To Modify (APM) and Supporting Documentation; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13792 - Notice of Correction to Federal Register Notice for 2018 End-to-End Census Test- Post-Enumeration Survey Independent Listing Operation | |
| 82 FR 13778 - Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning | |
| 82 FR 13921 - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Lafourche Parish, LA | |
| 82 FR 13919 - Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact Statement: Dane and Columbia Counties, Wisconsin | |
| 82 FR 13922 - Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact Statement: Columbia, Sauk, and Juneau Counties, Wisconsin | |
| 82 FR 13905 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Initial and Continued Listing Standards for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies | |
| 82 FR 13922 - Environmental Impact Statement: Madison County, Illinois | |
| 82 FR 13791 - Request for Information: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Income Conversion Factors for Anticipated Income | |
| 82 FR 13792 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Intent To Rescind in Part: Calendar Year 2015 | |
| 82 FR 13801 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21155 | |
| 82 FR 13799 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews | |
| 82 FR 13802 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for Grants Under the Predominantly Black Institutions Formula Grant Program | |
| 82 FR 13807 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 13805 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 13806 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 13803 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 82 FR 13804 - Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 82 FR 13804 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 13805 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 13924 - Global Positioning System Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment Workshop VI | |
| 82 FR 13871 - DTE Electric Company; Fermi, Unit 2 | |
| 82 FR 13788 - Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): 2017/2018 Income Eligibility Guidelines | |
| 82 FR 13808 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 13808 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 13809 - Draft Current Intelligence Bulletin: The Occupational Exposure Banding Process: Guidance for the Evaluation of Chemical Hazards; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 13924 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection(s): Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs | |
| 82 FR 13913 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request | |
| 82 FR 13914 - Rescission of Social Security Ruling 93-2p; Policy Interpretation Ruling; Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection | |
| 82 FR 13874 - Information Collection: NRC Form 536, “Operator Licensing Examination Data” | |
| 82 FR 13813 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Recommended Glossary and Educational Outreach To Support Use of Symbols on Labels and in Labeling of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Intended for Professional Use | |
| 82 FR 13811 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Juice | |
| 82 FR 13816 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions-Drugs and Biologics | |
| 82 FR 13814 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Food and Drug Administration Safety Communication Readership Survey | |
| 82 FR 13819 - Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 13792 - Humboldt (NV) Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 13822 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Planning for the Effects of High Absenteeism To Ensure Availability of Medically Necessary Drug Products | |
| 82 FR 13816 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Focus Groups About Drug Products as Used by the Food and Drug Administration | |
| 82 FR 13820 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Special Protocol Assessment | |
| 82 FR 13812 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Testing Communications on Medical Devices and Radiation-Emitting Products | |
| 82 FR 13825 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Devices; Pediatric Uses of Devices; Requirement for Submission of Information on Pediatric Subpopulations That Suffer From a Disease or Condition That a Device Is Intended To Treat, Diagnose, or Cure | |
| 82 FR 13817 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Assurance Case | |
| 82 FR 13839 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, Providence, RI | |
| 82 FR 13837 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: St. Joseph Museums, Inc., St. Joseph, MO | |
| 82 FR 13876 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice To Implement the Capped Contingency Liquidity Facility in the Government Securities Division Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 13895 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule Relating to the Professional Rebate Program | |
| 82 FR 13889 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, Amending the NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series | |
| 82 FR 13910 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees | |
| 82 FR 13887 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees | |
| 82 FR 13897 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees for Use on Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 13899 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Qualified Contingent Cross and Solicitation Rebate Tiers | |
| 82 FR 13893 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees | |
| 82 FR 13908 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct a Typographical Error in Section 413 of the Exchange's Rules | |
| 82 FR 13901 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6191 To Implement an Anonymous, Grouped Masking Methodology for Over-the-Counter Activity in Connection With Web Site Data Publication of Appendix B Data Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 13884 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7018(a) To Adopt Two Credits | |
| 82 FR 13803 - Measuring Educational Gain in the National Reporting System for Adult Education; Correction | |
| 82 FR 13803 - Native American Language ([email protected]) Program; Correction | |
| 82 FR 13870 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 82 FR 13758 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR | |
| 82 FR 13757 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR | |
| 82 FR 13801 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish | |
| 82 FR 13808 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the MagMutual Patient Safety Institute, LLC | |
| 82 FR 13838 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 13785 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, St. Augustine, FL | |
| 82 FR 13756 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mianus River, Greenwich, CT | |
| 82 FR 13758 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Smith Point County Park, NY | |
| 82 FR 13925 - Recruitment Notice for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel | |
| 82 FR 13800 - Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting Announcement | |
| 82 FR 13923 - Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Gateway Corridor Project From Saint Paul to Woodbury in Ramsey and Washington Counties, Minnesota | |
| 82 FR 13826 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 13915 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Statement of Non-Receipt of a U.S. Passport | |
| 82 FR 13923 - Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 13782 - Prepaid Accounts Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z); Delay of Effective Date | |
| 82 FR 13918 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo in Hondo, Texas | |
| 82 FR 13752 - Airworthiness Criteria: Glider Design Criteria for Stemme AG Model Stemme S12 Powered Glider | |
| 82 FR 13741 - Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Increased Assessment Rate | |
| 82 FR 13757 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Elizabeth River, Norfolk, VA | |
| 82 FR 13755 - Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits | |
| 82 FR 13765 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Russian River Estuary Management Activities | |
| 82 FR 13743 - Freedom of Information Act Implementation | |
| 82 FR 13759 - Streptomycin; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions | |
| 82 FR 13928 - Proposed Amendments to Municipal Securities Disclosure |
Issue
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Florida Tomato Committee (Committee) for an increase in the assessment rate established for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.035 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers of tomatoes operating within the area of production. Assessments upon Florida tomato handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective March 16, 2017.
Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, both as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Florida tomato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable Florida tomatoes beginning on August 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.035 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes.
The Florida tomato marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of Florida tomatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on August 16, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $1,494,600 and an assessment rate of $0.035 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,513,177. The assessment rate of $0.035 is $0.005 higher than the rate currently in effect. At the current assessment rate, assessment income would equal only $990,000, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures of $1,494,600. The Committee considered the proposed expenses and recommended increasing the assessment rate.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2016-17 year include $450,000 for salaries, $400,000 for research, and $400,000 for education and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $435,377, $400,000, and $400,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Florida tomatoes. Florida tomato shipments for the 2016-17 year are estimated at 33 million 25-pound cartons, which should provide $1,155,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income, block grants, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (approximately $999,361) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of no
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2016-17 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 100 producers of tomatoes in the production area and approximately 80 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2015-16 season was approximately $11.27 per 25-pound carton, and total fresh shipments were approximately 28.2 million cartons. Using the average price and shipment information, number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers have average annual receipts below $7,500,000. In addition, based on production data, an estimated grower price of $6.25, and the total number of Florida tomato growers, the average annual grower revenue is above $750,000. Thus, a majority of the handlers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as small entities while a majority of the producers may be classified as large entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.035 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $1,494,600 and an assessment rate of $0.035 per 25-pound carton handled. The assessment rate of $0.035 is $.005 higher than the 2015-16 rate. The quantity of assessable tomatoes for the 2016-17 season is estimated at 33 million 25-pound cartons. Thus, the $0.035 rate should provide $1,155,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from interest income, MAP funds, and block grants, should provide sufficient funds to meet this year's anticipated expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2016-17 year include $450,000 for salaries, $400,000 for research, and $400,000 for education and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $435,377, $400,000, and $400,000, respectively.
At the current assessment rate, assessment income would equal only $990,000, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures of $1,494,600. The Committee considered the proposed expenses and recommended increasing the assessment rate.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Executive Subcommittee, Research Subcommittee, and Education and Promotion Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the tomato industry. The Committee determined that 2016-17 expenditures of $1,494,600 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rate, along with funds from interest income, block grants, and funds from reserves, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the average grower price for the 2016-17 season could be approximately $6.50 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2016-17 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could be approximately 0.5 percent.
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida tomato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 16, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida tomato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2016, an assessment rate of $0.035 per 25-pound carton is established for Florida tomatoes.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing this interim final rule to amend its existing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulation. The amendments incorporate the requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 by giving notice of the circumstances under which FHFA may extend the time limit for responding to a FOIA request due to unusual circumstance; notifying a requester of their right to seek dispute resolution services; affording a requester a minimum of 90 days to file an administrative appeal; and clarifying and updating the existing regulation.
The interim final rule is effective on March 15, 2017. FHFA will accept written comments on the interim final rule on or before May 15, 2017. For additional information, see
You may submit your comments on the interim final rule, identified by “RIN 2590-AA86,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
David A. Lee, Chief FOIA Officer, (202) 649-3803, or Stacy J. Easter, FOIA Officer (202) 649-3803, (not toll free numbers), Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20219, or
FHFA is amending its FOIA regulation at 12 CFR part 1202 to incorporate changes made to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (June 30, 2016) (Act). The primary changes to the FOIA made by the Act include codifying the foreseeable harm standard when making a determination whether to release agency records under Exemption 5; notifying requesters of the availability of dispute resolutions services at various times throughout the FOIA process; providing a minimum of 90 days for requesters to file an administrative appeal; incorporating the new statutory restrictions on charging fees in certain circumstances, and reflecting recent developments in the case law.
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the interim final rule and will take all relevant comments into consideration before issuing the final regulation. All submissions received must include the agency name or Regulatory Information
FHFA has concluded that good cause exists, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), to waive the notice-and-comment and delayed effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and to proceed with this interim final rule. The amendments to part 1202 primarily address how FHFA will implement the changes made under the Act, make clarifying and general updates to the existing regulation, and add two appendices indicating where to send FOIA requests and appeals to FHFA and FHFA Office of Inspector General, but do not fundamentally alter or change the regulation's nature or scope. Further, in light of the significant need for immediate guidance regarding the changes made under the Act, FHFA has determined that notice-and-comment rulemaking is impracticable and contrary to public policy.
Nevertheless, FHFA is providing the public with a 60-day period following publication of the interim final rule to submit comments. Any comments received will be considered prior to issuing a final regulation.
The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, amended the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) (12 U.S.C. 4501
In 2011, FHFA issued a final FOIA regulation at 12 CFR part 1202 that provided the procedures and guidelines under which FHFA would implement the FOIA, and added provisions to include its newly created component, the Office of Inspector General (FHFA-OIG). This interim final rule amends the existing FOIA regulation at part 1202 to implement the changes made by the Act, remove individual component procedures from the body of the regulation adding them to the newly created appendices, as well as to make clarifying technical amendments.
This section is amended to include new and revised terms. It is also amended to conform to recent decisions of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals addressing two FOIA Fee categories: “educational institution” and “representative of the news media.”
Paragraph (b) is amended to reflect the changes made to the FOIA by the Act, regarding proactive disclosures of records by making them available for public inspection and copying in FHFA's electronic reading room.
Paragraph (a) is amended to reflect the changes made to the FOIA by the Act regarding adding the foreseeable harm standard to the statute. This amendment informs the public how FHFA will use the foreseeable harm standard when determining whether or not to disclose requested information.
Paragraph (a) is amended to reflect the addition of two appendices with information on where to file FOIA requests and appeals for each FHFA component (FHFA-Headquarters and FHFA-OIG).
Paragraph (b) is amended to include a standard for how FHFA will determine the cut-off date for FOIA searches. Also, as required by the Act, paragraph (g)(2) is amended to make available FHFA's FOIA Public Liaison whenever a request is placed in the complex track. Lastly, paragraph (g)(3) is amended to add an explanation on how, why and when FHFA will aggregate a request.
As required by the Act, paragraph (b) is amended to extend the time to file an administrative appeal to 90 days after an adverse determination. Paragraph (g) is also amended to include a requirement that FHFA notify requesters of the availability of assistance from FHFA's FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government Information Services when providing requesters with a response to their requests.
Paragraph (c) is amended to update FHFA's fee schedule. Specifically, a detailed formula on how FHFA's fee schedule is calculated has been added. Going forward fees will be based on this formula and will be published and updated, as required, on FHFA's Web site. Also, as required by the Act, paragraph (j), which discusses
These appendices are new and have been added to describe each FHFA component. Each appendix provides specific information regarding that component to notify the public where to submit a FOIA request for records held or maintained at each component and where to file an appeal.
This interim final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Appeals, Confidential commercial information, Disclosure, Exemptions, Fees, Final action, Freedom of Information Act, Judicial review, Records, Requests.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Preamble, FHFA is revising part 1202 of Chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654; 5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 12 U.S.C. 4526; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235; E.O. 13392, 70 FR 75373-75377, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 216-200.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued this regulation to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552).
(a) The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), is a Federal law that requires the Federal Government to disclose certain Federal Government records to the public.
(b) This part explains the rules that the FHFA will follow when processing and responding to requests for records under the FOIA. It also explains what you must do to request records from FHFA under the FOIA. You should read this part together with the FOIA, which explains in more detail your rights and the records FHFA may release to you.
(c) If you want to request information about yourself that is contained in a system of records maintained by FHFA, you may do so under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). This is considered a first-party or Privacy Act request under the Privacy Act, and you must file your request following FHFA's Privacy Act regulation at part 1204 of this title. If you file a request for information about yourself, FHFA will process your request under both the FOIA and Privacy Act in order to give you the greatest degree of access to any responsive material.
(d) Notwithstanding the FOIA and this part, FHFA may routinely publish or disclose to the public information without following these procedures.
Some of the terms you need to understand while reading this regulation are—
(1) Created or received under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business;
(2) Preserved or determined is appropriate for preservation as evidence of operations or activities of FHFA, or because of the value of the information it contains; and
(3) Controls at the time it receives a request under the FOIA.
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(1) Search for and collect records from agencies, offices, facilities, or locations that are separate from the office processing the request;
(2) Search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records in order to process a single request; or
(3) Consult with another agency or among two or more components of the FHFA that have a substantial interest in the determination of a request.
(a)
(b)
(1) Final opinions or orders made in the adjudication of cases;
(2) Statements of policy and interpretation adopted by FHFA that are not published in the
(3) Administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public and are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA;
(4) Copies of all records, regardless of form or format, that have been released to any person under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3), that because of the nature of their subject matter, FHFA determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records, or that have been requested 3 or more times; and
(5) A general index of the records referred to in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(c)
(a)
(1) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and in fact is properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order;
(2) Related solely to FHFA's internal personnel rules and practices;
(3) Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552a), provided that such statute—
(i) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
(ii) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) Contained in inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that would not be available by law to a private party in litigation with FHFA; provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested.
(6) Contained in personnel, medical or similar files (including financial files) the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) Compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information—
(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(ii) Would deprive a person of a right to fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution or an entity that is regulated and examined by FHFA that furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source;
(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or
(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
(8) Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports that are prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
If FHFA determines that your request does not reasonably describe the records you seek, is overly broad, unduly burdensome to process, cannot yet be processed for reasons related to fees, or lacks required information, you will be informed in writing why your request cannot be processed. You will be given 15 calendar days to modify your request to meet all requirements. This request for additional information tolls the time period for FHFA to respond to your request under § 1202.7 of this part.
(a) If you respond with all the necessary information, FHFA will process this response as a new request and the time period for FHFA to respond to your request will start from the date the additional information is actually received by FHFA.
(b) If you do not respond or provide additional information within the time allowed, or if the additional information you provide is still incomplete or insufficient, FHFA will consider your request withdrawn and will notify you that it will not be processed.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(A) Be voluminous;
(B) Involve two or more FHFA components or units;
(C) Require consultation with other agencies or entities;
(D) Require searches of archived documents;
(E) Seek confidential commercial information as described in § 1202.8 of this part;
(F) Require an unusually high level of effort to search for, review and/or duplicate records; or
(G) Cause undue disruption to the day-to-day activities of FHFA in regulating and supervising the regulated entities or in carrying out its statutory responsibilities.
(ii) FHFA will respond to Complex Track requests as soon as reasonably possible, regardless of the date of receipt.
(d)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(f)
(g)
(i) The reason for the extension; and
(ii) The date on which the determination is expected.
(2) For requests in the Complex Track, FHFA will make available its FOIA Public Liaison or other FOIA contact to assist you in modifying or reformulating your request so that it may be processed on the Standard Track. If the request cannot be modified or reformulated to permit processing on the Standard Track, FHFA will notify you regarding an alternative time period for processing the request.
(3) For the purpose of satisfying unusual circumstances under the FOIA, FHFA may aggregate requests in cases where it reasonably appears that multiple requests, submitted either by a requester or by a group of requesters acting in concert, constitute a single request that would otherwise involve unusual circumstances. FHFA will not aggregate multiple requests that involve unrelated matters.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The submitter has in good faith designated the information as confidential commercial information protected from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and § 1202.4(a)(4) of this part; or
(2) FHFA has reason to believe that the request seeks confidential commercial information, the disclosure of which may result in substantial competitive harm to the submitter.
(d)
(1) A description of the confidential commercial information requested or copies of the records or portions thereof containing the confidential business information; and
(2) An opportunity to object to disclosure within 10 days or such other time period that FHFA may allow by providing to FHFA a detailed written statement demonstrating all reasons the submitter opposes disclosure.
(e)
(1) FHFA determines that information should not be disclosed;
(2) The information has been published lawfully or has been made officially available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by law, other than the FOIA;
(4) The information requested is not designated by the submitter as confidential commercial information pursuant to this section; or
(5) The submitter's designation, under paragraph (b) of this section, appears on its face to be frivolous; except that FHFA will provide the submitter with written notice of any final decision to disclose the designated confidential commercial information within a reasonable number of days prior to a specified disclosure date.
(f)
(g)
(1) A statement of the reasons why the information will be disclosed;
(2) A description of the information to be disclosed; and
(3) A specific disclosure date.
(h)
(1) A written notice that the request encompasses confidential commercial information that may be exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and § 1202.4(a)(4) of this part and that the submitter of the information has been given a Pre-Disclosure Notification with the opportunity to comment on the proposed disclosure of the information; and
(2) A written notice that a Notice of Intent to disclose has been provided to the submitter, and that the submitter has 10 days, or such other time period that FHFA may allow, to respond.
(i)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Affirm, in whole or in part, the initial denial of the request and may include a brief statement of the reason
(2) Reverse, in whole or in part, the denial of a request in whole or in part, and require the request to be processed promptly in accordance with the decision; or
(3) Remand a request to FHFA, as appropriate, for re-processing.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(1) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(2) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity if you are a person primarily engaged in disseminating information;
(3) The loss of substantial due process or rights;
(4) A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exists possible questions about the Federal Government's integrity, affecting public confidence; or
(5) Humanitarian need.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The fees are likely to exceed $500.00. FHFA will notify you of the
(2) You do not have a history of payment, or if the estimate of fees exceeds $1,000.00, FHFA may require an advance payment of fees in an amount up to the full estimated charge that will be incurred;
(3) You previously failed to pay a fee to FHFA in a timely fashion,
(4) You have an outstanding balance due from a prior request. FHFA may require you to pay the full amount owed plus any applicable interest, as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, or demonstrate that the fee owed has been paid, as well as payment of the full amount of anticipated fees before processing your request.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1) Whether the subject of the requested records concerns the operations or activities of the Federal Government;
(2) Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute to an understanding of Federal Government operations or activities;
(3) Whether disclosure of the requested information will contribute to public understanding;
(4) Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of Federal Government operations or activities;
(5) Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and
(6) Whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(i)
(j)
(k) The FOIA Public Liaison or other FOIA contact is available to assist any requester in modifying or reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
This FOIA regulation does not and shall not be construed to create any right or to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA. This regulation only provides procedures for requesting records under the FOIA.
1. This Appendix applies to the Federal Housing Finance Agency's Headquarters Office.
2.
3.
4.
This Appendix applies to the Federal Housing Finance Agency's Office of Inspector General (FHFA-OIG).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Airworthiness design criteria.
These airworthiness criteria are issued for the Stemme AG model Stemme S12 powered glider. The Administrator finds the design criteria, which make up the certification basis for the Stemme S12, acceptable.
These airworthiness design criteria are effective April 14, 2017.
Mr. Jim Rutherford, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106, telephone (816) 329-4165, facsimile (816) 329-4090.
On January 08, 2016, Stemme AG submitted an application for type validation of the Stemme S12 in accordance with the Technical Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification Between the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Revision 5, dated September 15, 2015. The Stemme S12 is a two-seat, self-launching, powered glider with a liquid cooled, turbocharged engine mounted in the center fuselage, an indirect drive shaft, and a fully-foldable, variable-pitch composite propeller in the nose. It is constructed from glass and carbon fiber reinforced composites, features a conventional T-type tailplane, and has a retractable main landing gear. The glider has a maximum weight of 1,984 pounds (900 kilograms) and may be equipped with an optional dual-axis autopilot system. EASA type certificated the Stemme S12 under Type Certificate Number (No.) EASA.A.054 on March 11, 2016. The associated EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) No. EASA.A.054 defined the certification basis Stemme AG submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance.
The applicable requirements for glider certification in the United States can be found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 21.17-2A, “Type Certification—Fixed-Wing Gliders (Sailplanes), Including Powered Gliders,” dated February 10, 1993. AC 21.17-2A has been the basis for certification of gliders and powered gliders in the United States for many years. AC 21.17-2A states that applicants may utilize the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-22, “Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes”, or another accepted airworthiness criteria, or a combination of both, as the accepted means for showing compliance for glider type certification.
The applicant Certification Basis is based on EASA Certification Specification (CS)-22, “Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes”, initial issue, dated November 14, 2003. In addition to CS-22 requirements, the applicant will comply with other requirements from the certification basis referenced in EASA TCDS No. EASA.A.054, including special conditions and equivalent safety findings.
Notice of proposed airworthiness design criteria for the Stemme AG Stemme S12 powered glider was published in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following airworthiness design criteria under the special class provision of 14 CFR 21.17(b) as part of the type certification basis for the Stemme AG Stemme S12 power glider:
1. 14 CFR part 21, effective February 1, 1965, including amendments 21-1 through 21-93 as applicable.
2. EASA CS-22, initial issue, dated November 14, 2003.
3. EASA Special Condition No. SC-A.22.1.01, “Increase in maximum mass for sailplanes and powered sailplanes.”
4. “Preliminary Standard for the Substantiation of Indirect Drive Shafts in Power Plants of Powered Sailplanes Certified to JAR-22” (with a modification for the Stemme AG model Stemme S 10), Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) document number (no.) I231-87, issued August 05, 1988.
5. Installation of a Dual-Axis Autopilot System, including—
• EASA CS-VLA (Very Light Aeroplanes) 1309, “Equipment, systems, and installations”; initial issue, dated November 14, 2003; and
• EASA CS-23.1329, “Automatic pilot system”, amendment 3, dated July 20, 2012.
6. Drop Testing for Retractable Landing Gear (EASA equivalent safety findings) to include CS-VLA 725, “Limit drop tests”; CS-VLA 726, “Ground load dynamic tests”; and CS-VLA 727, “Reserve energy absorption”; initial issue dated November 14, 2003.
7. “Standards for Structural Substantiation of Sailplane and Powered Sailplane Parts Consisting of Glass or Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics”, LBA document no. I4-FVK/91, issued July 1991.
8. “Guideline for the analysis of the electrical system for powered sailplanes”, LBA document no. I334-MS 92, issued September 15, 1992.
9. The following kinds of operation are allowed: VFR-Day.
10. Date of application for FAA Type Certificate: January 08, 2016.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. Emergency AD 2017-04-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these engines. This AD requires inspecting, wrapping, and replacing the affected drain valve assembly (DV) installed on these Arriel 1 engines. This AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks originating from the DV on certain Arriel engines. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 30, 2017 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2017-04-51, issued on February 8, 2017, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication identified in this AD as of March 30, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 1, 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 AD, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
On February 8, 2017, we issued Emergency AD 2017-04-51, which requires inspecting, wrapping, and replacing the DV. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. This action was prompted by reports of fuel leaks originating from the DV on certain Arriel engines. This condition, if not corrected, could result in engine compartment fire, in-flight shutdown, and damage to the helicopter.
We reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin A292 73 0851, Version A, dated January 31, 2017. The MSB describes procedures for inspecting, wrapping, and replacing the DV. 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires inspecting, wrapping, and replacing the DV.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the compliance requirements are within 10 flight hours or 7 days. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 70 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 30, 2017 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2017-04-51, issued on February 8, 2017, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
None.
This AD applies to all Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines equipped with a drain valve assembly (DV) with a part number and a serial number listed in Appendix 5.1 in Safran Helicopter Engines Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A292 73 0851, Version A, dated January 31, 2017.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7321, Fuel Control/Turbine Engines.
This AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks originating from the DV on certain Arriel engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent an engine compartment fire, in-flight shutdown, and damage to the helicopter.
(1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(2) Within 10 flight hours or 7 days, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD:
(i) Replace the affected DV with a DV eligible for installation. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 2, of Safran Helicopter Engines Alert MSB A292 73 0851, Version A, dated January 31, 2017, to do the replacement; or
(ii) Visually inspect the affected DV for fuel leakage.
(A) If a fuel leak is detected, replace the affected DV with a DV eligible for installation, before the next flight.
(B) If no fuel leak is detected, before next flight, wrap the affected DV with a self-amalgamate tape using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2, of Safran Helicopter Engines Alert MSB A292 73 0851, Version A, dated January 31, 2017.
(C) After wrapping an affected DV, as specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD, inspect the DV for fuel leakage before each first flight of the day. If a fuel leak is detected, replace the affected DV with a DV eligible for installation, before the next flight.
(D) After wrapping an affected DV, as specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD, inspect the DV wrapping before each first flight of the day. If the wrapping is found defective (loose, missing, or damaged), before the next flight, remove the wrap and re-wrap the affected DV using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2, of Safran Helicopter Engines Alert MSB A292 73 0851, Version A, dated January 31, 2017.
(E) For an engine on which the affected DV was wrapped, within 180 days after the first wrapping of the affected DV as specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD, replace the affected DV with a DV eligible for installation.
For the purpose of this AD, a DV eligible for installation is:
(1) a DV that is not affected by this AD; or
(2) a DV in which the diaphragm has been replaced in accordance with the instructions in paragraph 4 of Safran Helicopter Engines Alert MSB A292 73 0851, Version A, dated January 31, 2017.
Replacement of an affected DV installed on an engine, with a DV eligible for installation constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 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 further information about this AD, contact: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency AD No. 2017-0019-E, dated February 3, 2017, for more information.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Safran Helicopter Engines Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin A292 73 0851, Version A, dated January 31, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Safran Helicopter Engines service information identified in this AD, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15.
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for valuation dates in April 2017 and interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for valuation dates in the second quarter of 2017. The interest assumptions are used for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective April 1, 2017.
Deborah C. Murphy (
PBGC's regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulations are also published on PBGC's Web site (
The interest assumptions in Appendix B to part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly; assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for April 2017 and updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the second quarter (April through June) of 2017.
The second quarter 2017 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 2.15 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 2.60 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the first quarter of 2017, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), an increase of 0.28 percent in the select rate, and an increase of 0.23 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
The April 2017 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for March 2017, these interest assumptions represent a decrease of 0.25 percent in the immediate rate and no changes in i1, i2, or i3.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during April 2017, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North Bridge across the Mianus River, mile 1.0 at Greenwich, Connecticut. This deviation is necessary in order to complete required maintenance including installation of new timber ties, miter rails, and steel repairs.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on March 27, 2017 through 12:01 a.m. on May 9, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0085 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email
The owner of the bridge, the Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order to facilitate maintenance of the bridge including installation of timber ties, miter rail replacement, and steel repairs.
The Metro-North Bridge across the Mianus River, mile 1.0 at Greenwich, Connecticut is a single-leaf bascule railroad bridge offering mariners a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water and 27 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.209.
The temporary deviation will allow the owner of the Metro-North Bridge to close the span for openings each week beginning 8 a.m. Monday through 4 p.m. Friday from March 27, 2017 to May 8, 2017. The span will open on signal from 4 p.m. Friday through 8 a.m. Monday, provided 24 hours advance notice is given. The regular operating schedule for the span will be restored April 8, 2017 through April 11, 2017 in order to accommodate a previously scheduled boating event.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Berkley (U.S. 460/S.R. 337) Bridge across the Elizabeth River, mile 0.4, at Norfolk, VA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate testing of the emergency drive motors. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
The deviation is effective from 2 a.m. to 9 a.m. on April 9, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0112] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6422, email
The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Berkley (U.S. 460/S.R. 337) Bridge across the Elizabeth River, mile 0.4, at Norfolk, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.1007(b), to facilitate testing of the emergency drive motor on both spans of the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 2 a.m. to 9 a.m. on April 9, 2017. The drawbridge has two spans, each with double-leaf bascule draws, and both spans have a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 48 feet above mean high water.
The Berkley Bridge is used by recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge spans will not be able to open in case of an emergency and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate maintenance and equipment upgrades. This deviation allows the bridge to operate the double bascule span one side at a time, single leaf, to install and test new equipment.
This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on May 26, 2017 to 6 a.m. on September 20, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0164, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Multnomah County requested the Broadway Bridge be authorized to open half the span in single leaf mode. The Broadway Bridge crosses the Willamette River at mile 11.7, and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed-to-navigation position, and provides 125 feet of horizontal clearance with half the span open. This bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897. This deviation allows the double bascule span of the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, to operate the bridge in single leaf mode to marine traffic. This deviation allows the bridge to operate the double bascule span one side at a time, single leaf, to install and test new equipment. The deviation period to open the east span only will cover the following dates: From 7 p.m. on May 26, 2017 to 7 a.m. on May 27, 2017; from 7 p.m. on May 27, 2017 to 7 a.m. on May 28, 2017; from 7 p.m. on June 2, 2017 to 7 a.m. on June 3, 2017; from 7 p.m. on June 3, 2017 to 7 a.m. on June 4, 2017; from 6 a.m. on June 15, 2017 to 6 a.m. on July 20, 2017. The deviation period to open the west span only will cover the following dates: From 7 p.m. on July 28, 2017 to 7 a.m. on July 29, 2017; from 7 p.m. on July 29, 2017 to 7 a.m. on July 30, 2017; from 7 p.m. on August 4, 2017 to 7 a.m. on August 5, 2017; from 7 p.m. on August 5, 2017 to 7 a.m. on August 6, 2017; from 6 a.m. on August 16, 2017 to 6 a.m. on September 20, 2017. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. We have coordinated
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the Portland Race for the Roses event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate the safe movement of event participants across the bridge.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 12 noon on April 2, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0156, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Multnomah County requested for the Broadway Bridge to remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate the safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants in the Portland Race for the Roses event. The Broadway Bridge crosses the Willamette River at mile 11.7, and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed-to-navigation position. This bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897. This deviation allows the bascule span of the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 7 a.m. to 12 noon. on April 2, 2017. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. We have coordinated with the majority of known waterway users and there were no objections to this schedule.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Smith Point Bridge across Narrow Bay, mile 6.1, at Smith Point Park, New York. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate the Smith Point Triathlon Road Race and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for two hours.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 9 a.m. on August 13, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0148 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email
The Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay, has a vertical clearance of 18 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
The temporary deviation will allow the Smith Point Bridge to remain closed from 7 a.m. through 9 a.m. on August 13, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for residues of streptomycin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10, for both fresh fruit and dried pulp. This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide in citrus production. This regulation establishes maximum permissible levels for residues of streptomycin in or on these commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2019.
This regulation is effective March 15, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 15, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0540, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0540 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 15, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0540, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l
Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of FFDCA
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .”
Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) asserted that an emergency situation exists in accordance with the criteria for approval of an emergency exemption, and requested the use of streptomycin (and oxytetracycline, addressed in a separate document) in citrus to suppress the
After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an emergency condition exists for this State, and that the criteria for approval of an emergency exemption are met. EPA has authorized a specific exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of streptomycin on citrus to suppress the CLas bacterium that causes HLB disease in Florida.
As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of streptomycin in or on citrus fruit commodities. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2019, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on citrus fruit commodities after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed levels that were authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether streptomycin meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on citrus fruit or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these time-limited tolerance decisions serve as bases for registrations of streptomycin by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these tolerances by themselves serve as the authority for persons in any State other than Florida to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for streptomycin, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under
Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption use and the time-limited tolerances for residues of streptomycin on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 2 ppm, and the dried pulp of these commodities at 6 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the time-limited tolerances follows.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risks to humans from exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, EPA assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the EPA estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for streptomycin used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
The complete human risk assessment for this action can be found at
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Potential residues resulting in surface water and groundwater were modeled based upon registered and new uses. The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for ground water were higher than for surface water, and thus were used for estimating exposure from drinking water consumption, as the most conservative (worst case) estimate. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model, Ground Water, the EDWC in groundwater (the highest modeled value) for streptomycin for acute exposures is estimated to be 932 parts per billion (ppb), and for chronic exposures (non-cancer) is estimated at 760 ppb. No acute assessment was required as discussed earlier in this document. The modeled estimate of drinking water concentration for chronic exposure was directly entered into the dietary exposure model used to estimate chronic risks presented by potential residues in food and drinking water.
3.
Streptomycin is currently registered for uses on residential gardens and trees which could result in residential exposures. EPA considered residential exposures from these uses and determined the following: Since there is no dermal hazard identified for streptomycin, residential dermal exposures were not assessed. Non-dietary incidental ingestion and inhalation from post-application residential exposures are assumed to be negligible, based upon the use scenarios and chemical properties of streptomycin. However, residential handler inhalation exposures may occur based on the use sites, equipment, and in particular, the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements on certain product labels for residential uses. Risk was therefore evaluated from short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposures for residential (non-professional) handlers/applicators. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at:
4.
EPA has not found streptomycin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and streptomycin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that streptomycin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for streptomycin is complete. An extensive database exists from drug use of streptomycin in humans and animals and all guideline toxicity data requirements for streptomycin have been waived. The toxicity of streptomycin was assessed using toxicity reviews provided by the FDA and from the published literature on drug use. Because the dose selected for risk assessment from agricultural use is based upon a toxicity endpoint (decreased body weight in test animals) that occurs at a much lower oral dose than the injected dose at which prenatal hearing effects occurred in humans, there are no residual concerns and the FQPA safety factor is reduced to 1X.
ii. The extensive database in animals and humans does not demonstrate any potential for streptomycin to cause either peripheral or central nervous system toxicity and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no direct evidence of sensitivity/susceptibility in the developing or young animal. No teratogenic effects were observed in the rabbit. As noted previously, children born to mothers treated with streptomycin injections have sometimes had hearing loss but no teratogenic effects have been attributed to direct streptomycin treatment. Chosen points of departure are expected to be protective of any possible hearing loss effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed assuming 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to streptomycin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to consider potential for post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by streptomycin.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
Therefore chronic aggregate risk was assessed considering only dietary exposures from potential residues in food and drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to streptomycin from potential residues in food and drinking water will not result in risks of concern (
3.
4.
5.
6.
Rather, EPA believes the appropriate way to consider the pharmaceutical use of streptomycin in its risk assessment is to examine the impact that the additional nonoccupational pesticide exposures would have to a pharmaceutical user exposed to a related (or, in some cases, the same) compound. Where the additional pesticide exposure has no more than a minimal impact on the pharmaceutical user, EPA could make a reasonable certainty of no harm finding for the pesticide tolerances of that compound under section 408 of the FFDCA. If the potential impact on the pharmaceutical user as a result of co-exposure from pesticide use is more than minimal, then EPA would not be able to conclude that dietary residues were safe, and would need to discuss with FDA appropriate measures to reduce exposure from one or both sources.
Injected drug doses of streptomycin are approximately 15 mg/kg/day. Because the oral absorption of streptomycin is <1%, this corresponds to an oral equivalent dose of 1,500 mg/kg/day. This oral equivalent dose is over 30,000 times the highest dietary exposure estimate of 0.045 mg/kg/day, the food and water exposure estimate for the highest-exposed population (infants <1 year old). Therefore, dietary exposure from pesticide uses of streptomycin is negligible compared to drug exposure and would not contribute to drug toxicity, so there are no concerns for risks from dietary exposure contribution of streptomycin from pesticide use, in patients receiving streptomycin drug injections. Because the pesticide exposure has no more than a minimal impact on the total dose to a pharmaceutical user, EPA believes that there is a reasonable certainty that the potential dietary pesticide exposure will result in no harm to a user being treated therapeutically with streptomycin.
Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of streptomycin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10, at 2 ppm, and the dried pulp of these commodities at 6 ppm. These tolerances expire on December 31, 2019.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(b) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS, upon request from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), issues these regulations pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to govern the incidental taking of marine mammals incidental to Russian River estuary management activities in Sonoma County, California, over the course of five years (2017-2022). These regulations, which allow for the issuance of Letters of Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during the described activities and specified timeframes, prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, and establish requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Effective from April 21, 2017, through April 20, 2022.
A copy of SCWA's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
These regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
We received an application from SCWA requesting five-year regulations and authorization to take multiple species of marine mammals. Take is anticipated to occur by Level B harassment incidental to estuary management activities due to disturbance of hauled pinnipeds. The regulations are valid from 2017 to 2022. Please see “Background” below for definitions of harassment.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing this final rule containing five-year regulations, and for any subsequent Letters of Authorization. As directed by this legal authority, this final rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
The following provides a summary of some of the major provisions within the final rulemaking for SCWA estuary management activities. We have determined that SCWA's adherence to the planned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures listed below will achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. They include:
• Measures to minimize the number and intensity of incidental takes during sensitive times of year and to minimize the duration of disturbances.
• Measures designed to eliminate startling reactions.
• Eliminating or altering management activities on the beach when pups are present, and setting limits on the frequency and duration of events during pupping season.
Paragraphs 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371 (a)(5)(A) and (D)) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
An 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.”
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 September 2, 2016, we received an adequate and complete request from SCWA for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to estuary management activities. On September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64440), we published a notice of receipt of SCWA's application
SCWA plans to manage the naturally-formed barrier beach at the mouth of the Russian River in order to minimize potential for flooding adjacent to the estuary and to enhance habitat for juvenile salmonids, as well as to conduct biological and physical monitoring of the barrier beach and estuary. Flood control-related breaching of the barrier beach at the mouth of the river may include artificial breaches, as well as construction and maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel. The latter activity, an alternative management technique conducted to mitigate impacts of flood control on rearing habitat for Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonids, occurs only from May 15 through October 15 (hereafter, the “lagoon management period”). Artificial breaching and monitoring activities may occur at any time during the period of validity of the regulations, which are valid for 5 years, from April 21, 2017, through April 20, 2022.
Breaching of the naturally-formed barrier beach at the mouth of the Russian River requires the use of heavy equipment (
Prior to this request for incidental take regulations and a subsequent LOA, we issued seven consecutive incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) to SCWA for incidental take associated with the same ongoing activities. SCWA was first issued an IHA, valid for a period of one year, effective on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 17382; April 6, 2010), and was subsequently issued one-year IHAs for incidental take associated with the same activities, effective on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 23306; April 26, 2011), April 21, 2012 (77 FR 24471; April 24, 2012), April 21, 2013 (78 FR 23746; April 22, 2013), April 21, 2014 (79 FR 20180; April 11, 2014), April 21, 2015 (80 FR 24237; April 30, 2015), and April 21, 2016 (81 FR 22050; April 14, 2016).
Additional detail regarding the specified activity was provided in our
The specified activity involves management of the estuary to prevent flooding while preventing adverse modification to critical habitat for ESA-listed salmonids. Requirements related to the ESA are described in further detail below. During the lagoon management period, this involves construction and maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel that would facilitate formation of a perched lagoon. A perched lagoon, which is an estuary closed to tidal influence in which water surface elevation is above mean high tide, would reduce flooding while maintaining beneficial conditions for juvenile salmonids. Additional breaches of the barrier beach may be conducted for the sole purpose of reducing flood risk. SCWA's activity was described in detail in our notice of proposed authorization prior to the 2011 IHA (76 FR 14924; March 18, 2011); please see that document for a detailed description of SCWA's estuary management activities. Aside from minor additions to SCWA's biological and physical estuary monitoring measures, the specified activity remains the same as that described in the 2011 document.
The specified activity may occur at any time during the five-year period of validity for these regulations (April 21, 2017 through April 20, 2022), although construction and maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel would occur only during the lagoon management period. In addition, there are certain restrictions placed on SCWA during the harbor seal pupping season. These, as well as periodicity and frequency of the specified activities, are described in further detail below.
The estuary is located about 97 kilometers (km) (60 miles (mi)) northwest of San Francisco in Sonoma County, near Jenner, California (see Figure 1 of SCWA's application). The Russian River watershed encompasses 3,847 km
Within the Russian River watershed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), SCWA, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (District) operate and maintain Federal facilities and conduct activities in addition to the estuary management, including flood control, water diversion and storage, instream flow releases, hydroelectric power generation, channel maintenance, and fish hatchery production. As described in the notice of proposed rulemaking, NMFS issued a 2008 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for Water Supply, Flood Control Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the Corps, SCWA, and the District in the Russian River watershed (NMFS, 2008). This BiOp found that the activities—including SCWA's estuary management activities—authorized by the Corps and undertaken by SCWA and the District, if continued in a manner similar to recent historic practices, were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed salmonids and were likely to adversely modify critical habitat. In part, therefore, the BiOp requires SCWA to collaborate with NMFS and modify their estuary water level management in order to reduce marine influence (
There are three components to SCWA's ongoing estuary management activities: (1) Lagoon outlet channel management, during the lagoon management period only, required to accomplish the dual purposes of flood risk abatement and maintenance of juvenile salmonid habitat; (2) traditional artificial breaching, with the sole objective of flood risk abatement; and (3) physical and biological monitoring in and near the estuary, required under the terms of the BiOp, to understand response to water surface elevation management in the estuary-lagoon system. The latter category (physical and biological monitoring) includes all ancillary beach and/or estuary
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The marine mammal species that may be harassed incidental to estuary management activities are the harbor seal, California sea lion, and the northern elephant seal. We presented a detailed discussion of the status of these stocks and their occurrence in the action area in the notice of the proposed rulemaking (81 FR 96415; December 30, 2016).
Ongoing monthly harbor seal counts at the Jenner haul-out were begun by J. Mortenson in January 1987, with additional nearby haul-outs added to the counts thereafter. In addition, local resident E. Twohy began daily observations of seals and people at the Jenner haul-out in November 1989. These datasets note whether the mouth at the Jenner haul-out was opened or closed at each observation, as well as various other daily and annual patterns of haul-out usage (Mortenson and Twohy, 1994). Recently, SCWA began regular baseline monitoring of the haul-out as a component of its estuary management activity. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, we presented average daily numbers of seals observed at the mouth of the Russian River from 1993-2005 and from 2009-2015 (see Table 1; 81 FR 96415; December 30, 2016).
We provided a detailed discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals in the notice of the proposed rulemaking (81 FR 96415; December 30, 2016). A summary of anticipated effects is provided below.
A significant body of monitoring data exists for pinnipeds at the mouth of the Russian River. In addition, pinnipeds have co-existed with regular estuary management activity for decades, as well as with regular human use activity at the beach, and are likely habituated to human presence and activity. Nevertheless, SCWA's estuary management activities have the potential to disturb pinnipeds present on the beach or at peripheral haul-outs in the estuary. During breaching operations, past monitoring has revealed that some or all of the seals present typically move or flush from the beach in response to the presence of crew and equipment, although some may remain hauled-out. No stampeding of seals—a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus—has been documented since SCWA developed protocols to prevent such events in 1999. While it is likely impossible to conduct required estuary management activities without provoking some response in hauled-out animals, precautionary mitigation measures, described later in this document, ensure that animals are gradually apprised of human approach. Under these conditions, seals typically exhibit a continuum of responses, beginning with alert movements (
California sea lions and northern elephant seals, which have been noted only infrequently in the action area, have been observed as being less sensitive to stimulus than harbor seals during monitoring at numerous other sites. For example, monitoring of pinniped disturbance as a result of abalone research in the Channel Islands showed that, while harbor seals flushed at a rate of 69 percent, California sea lions flushed at a rate of only 21 percent. The rate for elephant seals was 0.1 percent (VanBlaricom, 2010). In the event that either of these species is present during management activities, they would be expected to display a minimal reaction to maintenance activities—less than that expected of harbor seals.
Although the Jenner haul-out is not known as a primary pupping beach, pups have been observed during the pupping season; therefore, we have evaluated the potential for injury, serious injury, or mortality to pups. There is a lack of published data regarding pupping at the mouth of the Russian River, but SCWA monitors have observed pups on the beach. No births were observed during recent monitoring, but may be inferred based on signs indicating pupping (
Similarly, the period of mother-pup bonding, critical time needed to ensure pup survival and maximize pup health, is not expected to be impacted by
In summary, and based on extensive monitoring data, we believe that impacts to hauled-out pinnipeds during estuary management activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (
We provided a detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat in the notice of the proposed IHA (81 FR 96415; December 30, 2016). SCWA's estuary management activities will result in temporary physical alteration of the Jenner haul-out. With barrier beach closure, seal usage of the beach haul-out declines, and the three nearby river haul-outs may not be available for usage due to rising water surface elevations. Breaching of the barrier beach, subsequent to the temporary habitat disturbance, will likely increase suitability and availability of habitat for pinnipeds. Biological and water quality monitoring will not physically alter pinniped habitat.
In summary, there will be temporary physical alteration of the beach. However, natural opening and closure of the beach results in the same impacts to habitat. Therefore, seals are likely adapted to this cycle. In addition, the increase in rearing habitat quality has the goal of increasing salmonid abundance, ultimately providing more food for seals present within the action area. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
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).”
In accordance with the regulations implemented by this final rule, we plan to issue an LOA to SCWA to take harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to estuary management activities. These activities, involving increased human presence and the use of heavy equipment and support vehicles, are expected to harass pinnipeds present at the haul-out through disturbance. In addition, monitoring activities prescribed in the BiOp may harass additional animals at the Jenner haul-out and at the three haul-outs located in the estuary (Penny Logs, Patty's Rock, and Chalanchawi). Estimates of the number of harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals that may be harassed by the planned activities is based upon the number of potential events associated with Russian River estuary management activities and the average number of individuals of each species that are present during conditions appropriate to the activity. Monitoring effort at the mouth of the Russian River has shown that the number of seals utilizing the haul-out declines during bar-closed conditions. Methodology of take estimation was discussed in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking (81 FR 96415; December 30, 2016). Table 1 details the total number of estimated takes for harbor seals.
California sea lions and northern elephant seals are occasional visitors to the estuary. Based on limited information regarding occurrence of these species at the mouth of the Russian River estuary, we assume there is the potential to encounter one animal of each species per month throughout the year. Lagoon outlet channel activities could potentially occur over six months of the year, artificial breaching activities over eight months, topographic surveys year-round, and biological and physical monitoring in the estuary over eight months. Therefore, we assume that up to 34 incidents of take could occur per year for both the California sea lion and northern elephant seal. Based on past occurrence records, the take authorization for these two species is likely a precautionary overestimate.
The take numbers described in the preceding text are annual estimates. Therefore, over the course of the 5-year period of validity of the regulations, we will authorize a total of 23,460 incidents of take for harbor seals and 170 such incidents each for the California sea lion and northern elephant seal.
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 (
Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into these analyses via their impacts on the environmental baseline (
Although SCWA's estuary management activities may disturb pinnipeds hauled out at the mouth of the Russian River, as well as those hauled out at several locations in the estuary during recurring monitoring activities, impacts are occurring to a small, localized group of animals. While these impacts can occur year-round, they occur sporadically and for limited duration (
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated, nor is the planned action likely to result in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the haul-out. Injury, serious injury, or mortality to pinnipeds would likely result from startling animals inhabiting the haul-out into a mass movement, or from extended mother-pup separation as a result of such movement. Long-term impacts to pinniped usage of the haul-out could result from significantly increased presence of humans and equipment on the beach. To avoid these possibilities, we have worked with SCWA to develop the previously described mitigation measures. These are designed to reduce the possibility of startling pinnipeds, by gradually apprising them of the presence of humans and equipment on the beach, and to reduce the possibility of impacts to pups by eliminating or altering management activities on the beach when pups are present, and by setting limits on the frequency and duration of events during pupping season. During the past 15 years of flood control management, implementation of similar mitigation measures has resulted in no known mass movement or stampede events and no known injury, serious injury, or mortality. Over the course of that time, management events have generally been infrequent and of limited duration.
No pinniped stocks for which incidental take will be authorized are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or determined to be strategic or depleted under the MMPA. Recent data suggests that harbor seal populations have reached carrying capacity; populations of California sea lions and northern elephant seals in California are also considered healthy.
In summary, and based on extensive monitoring data, we believe that impacts to hauled-out pinnipeds during estuary management activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (
The number of animals expected to be taken for each species of pinniped can be considered small relative to the population size. There are an estimated 30,968 harbor seals in the California stock, 296,750 California sea lions, and 179,000 northern elephant seals in the California breeding population. Based on extensive monitoring effort specific to the affected haul-out and historical data on the frequency of the specified activity, we plan to authorize annual levels of take, by Level B harassment only, of 4,692 incidents of harassment for harbor seals, 34 incidents of harassment for California sea lions, and 34 incidents of harassment for northern elephant seals, representing 15.2, 0.01, and 0.02 percent of the populations, respectively. However, this represents an overestimate of the number of individuals harassed annually over the duration of the regulations, because these totals represent much smaller numbers of individuals that may be harassed multiple times. 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, we find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.” NMFS's implementing regulations require applicants for ITAs 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 and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
SCWA will continue the following mitigation measures, as implemented during the previous ITAs, which are designed to minimize impact to affected species and stocks:
• SCWA crews will cautiously approach (
• SCWA staff will avoid walking or driving equipment through the seal haul-out.
• Crews on foot will make an effort to be seen by seals from a distance, if possible, rather than appearing suddenly, in order to prevent sudden flushes.
• During breaching events, all monitoring will be conducted from the overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 adjacent to the haul-out in order to minimize potential for harassment.
• A water level management event may not occur for more than two consecutive days unless flooding threats cannot be controlled.
In addition, SCWA will continue the following mitigation measures specific
• SCWA will maintain a one-week no-work period between water level management events (unless flooding is an immediate threat) to allow for an adequate disturbance recovery period. During the no-work period, equipment must be removed from the beach.
• If a pup less than one week old is on the beach where heavy machinery would be used or is on the path used to access the work location, the management action will be delayed until the pup has left the site or until the latest day possible to prevent flooding while still maintaining suitable fish rearing habitat. In the event that a pup remains present on the beach in the presence of flood risk, SCWA will consult with NMFS to determine the appropriate course of action. SCWA will coordinate with the locally established seal monitoring program (Stewards' Seal Watch) to determine if pups less than one week old are on the beach prior to a breaching event.
• Physical and biological monitoring will not be conducted if a pup less than one week old is present at the monitoring site or on a path to the site.
Equipment will be driven slowly on the beach and care will be taken to minimize the number of shut-downs and start-ups when the equipment is on the beach. All work will be completed as efficiently as possible, with the smallest amount of heavy equipment possible, to minimize disturbance of seals at the haul-out. Boats operating near river haul-outs during monitoring will be kept within posted speed limits and driven as far from the haul-outs as safely possible to minimize flushing seals.
We have carefully evaluated SCWA's planned mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe 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 number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to goal 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at a biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to goal 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to goal 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of SCWA's planned measures and on SCWA's record of management at the mouth of the Russian River including information from monitoring of SCWA's implementation of the mitigation measures as prescribed under the previous ITAs, we have determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) 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 ITAs 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 proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
SCWA submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the ITA application. It can be found online at
1. Under what conditions do pinnipeds haul out at the Russian River estuary mouth at Jenner?
2. How do seals at the Jenner haul-out respond to activities associated with the construction and maintenance of the lagoon outlet channel and artificial breaching activities?
3. Does the number of seals at the Jenner haul-out significantly differ from historic averages with formation of a summer (May 15 to October 15) lagoon in the Russian River estuary?
4. Are seals at the Jenner haul-out displaced to nearby river and coastal haul-outs when the mouth remains closed in the summer?
This primary haul-out is where the majority of seals are found and where pupping occurs, and SCWA's planned monitoring will allow continued development in understanding the physical and biological factors that influence seal abundance and behavior at the site. In particular, SCWA notes that the planned frequency of surveys will allow them to be able to observe the influence of physical changes that do not persist for more than ten days, like brief periods of barrier beach closures or other environmental changes, and will allow for assessment of how seals respond to barrier beach closures as well as accurate estimation of the number of harbor seal pups born at Jenner each year.
In addition to the census data, disturbances of the haul-out are recorded. The method for recording disturbances follows those in Mortenson (1996). Disturbances will be recorded on a three-point scale that represents an increasing seal response to the disturbance (Table 2). The time, source, and duration of the disturbance, as well as an estimated distance between the source and haul-out, are recorded. It should be noted that only responses falling into Mortenson's Levels 2 and 3 will be considered as harassment under the MMPA, under the terms of these final regulations.
Weather conditions are recorded at the beginning of each census. These include temperature, Beaufort sea state, precipitation/visibility, and wind speed. Tide levels and estuary water surface elevations are correlated to the monitoring start and end times.
In an effort towards understanding possible relationships between use of the Jenner haul-out and nearby coastal and river haul-outs, several other haul-outs on the coast and in the Russian River estuary are monitored as well (see Figure 1 of SCWA's application). Peripheral site monitoring would occur only in the event of an extended period of lagoon conditions (
A one-day pre-event channel survey will be made within one to three days prior to constructing the outlet channel. The haul-out will be monitored on the day the outlet channel is constructed and daily for up to the maximum two days allowed for channel excavation activities. Monitoring will also occur on each day that the outlet channel is maintained using heavy equipment for the duration of the lagoon management period. Monitoring of outlet channel construction and maintenance will correspond with that described above in the “Baseline Monitoring” section, with the exception that management activity monitoring duration will be defined by event duration. On the day of the management event, pinniped monitoring will begin at least one hour prior to the crew and equipment accessing the beach work area, and will continue through the duration of the event, until at least one hour after the crew and equipment leave the beach.
In an attempt to understand whether seals from the Jenner haul-out are displaced to coastal and river haul-outs nearby when management events occur, other nearby haul-outs are monitored concurrently with monitoring of outlet channel construction and maintenance activities. This provides an opportunity to qualitatively assess whether these haul-outs are being used by seals displaced from the Jenner haul-out during lagoon outlet channel excavation and maintenance. This monitoring will not provide definitive results regarding displacement to nearby coastal and river haul-outs, as individual seals are not marked or photo-identified, but is useful in tracking general trends in haul-out use during lagoon outlet channel excavation and maintenance. As volunteers are required to monitor these
Pinniped response to artificial breaching will be monitored at each such event during the period of validity of these regulations. Monitoring methods will follow the census and disturbance monitoring protocols described in the “Baseline Monitoring” section, which were also used for the 1996 to 2000 monitoring events (MSC, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; SCWA and MSC, 2001). The exception, as for lagoon management events, is that the duration of monitoring is dependent upon the duration of the event. On the day of the management event, pinniped monitoring begins at least one hour before the crew and equipment accesses the beach work area, and monitoring continues through the duration of the event, until at least one hour after the crew and equipment leave the beach.
For all counts, the following information will be recorded in thirty-minute intervals: (1) Pinniped counts by species; (2) behavior; (3) time, source and duration of any disturbance; (4) estimated distances between source of disturbance and pinnipeds; (5) weather conditions (
If, during monitoring, observers sight any pup that might be abandoned, SCWA will contact the NMFS stranding response network immediately, and also will report the incident to NMFS's West Coast Regional Office and Office of Protected Resources within 48 hours. Observers will not approach or move the pup. Potential indications that a pup may be abandoned are: (1) No observed contact with adult seals, (2) no movement of the pup, and (3) the pup's attempts to nurse are rebuffed.
Training on the MMPA, pinniped identification, and the conditions of the ITA is held for staff and contractors assigned to estuary management activities. The training includes equipment operators, safety crew members, and surveyors. In addition, prior to beginning each water surface elevation management event, the biologist monitoring the event participates in the onsite safety meeting to discuss the location(s) of pinnipeds at the Jenner haul-out that day and methods of avoiding and minimizing disturbances to the haul-out as outlined in the ITA.
SCWA is required to submit an annual report on all activities and marine mammal monitoring results to NMFS within ninety days following the end of the monitoring period. These reports must contain the following information:
• The number of pinnipeds taken, by species and age class (if possible);
• Behavior prior to and during water level management events;
• Start and end time of activity;
• Estimated distances between source and pinnipeds when disturbance occurs;
• Weather conditions (
• Haul-out reoccupation time of any pinnipeds based on post-activity monitoring;
• Tide levels and estuary water surface elevation; and
• Pinniped census from bi-monthly and nearby haul-out monitoring.
The annual report includes descriptions of monitoring methodology, tabulation of estuary management events, summary of monitoring results, and discussion of problems noted and proposed remedial measures.
SCWA must also submit a comprehensive summary report that includes any future application for renewed regulations and Letters of Authorization.
SCWA complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under previous authorizations. Prior
The regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to SCWA estuary management activities contain an adaptive management component.
The reporting requirements associated with this final rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow consideration of whether any changes are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources
SCWA's monitoring program (see “Monitoring and Reporting”) will be managed adaptively. Changes to the monitoring program may be adopted if they are reasonably likely to better accomplish the MMPA monitoring goals described previously or may better answer the specific questions associated with SCWA's monitoring plan.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results from monitoring reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (3) any information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by the specified activity. Therefore, we have 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 marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not significant.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the proposed rule stage that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information (COI) subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that COI displays a currently valid OMB control number. These requirements have been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0151 and include applications for regulations, subsequent LOAs, and reports.
Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 217 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to estuary management activities.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by SCWA may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs at Goat Rock State Beach or in the Russian River estuary in California.
Regulations in this subpart are effective from April 21, 2017, through April 20, 2022.
Under LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 217.7 of this chapter, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter “SCWA”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 217.1(b) by Level B harassment associated with
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 217.1 and authorized by an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.7 of this chapter, no person in connection with the activities described in § 217.1 may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.7 of this chapter;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.
When conducting the activities identified in § 217.1(a) of this chapter, the mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.7 of this chapter must be implemented. These mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to:
(a)
(2) If SCWA observes a pup that may be abandoned, it shall contact the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator immediately and also report the incident to NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 48 hours. Observers shall not approach or move the pup.
(b) SCWA crews shall cautiously approach the haul-out ahead of heavy equipment.
(c) SCWA staff shall avoid walking or driving equipment through the seal haul-out.
(d) Crews on foot shall make an effort to be seen by seals from a distance.
(e) During breaching events, all monitoring shall be conducted from the overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 adjacent to the haul-out.
(f) A water level management event may not occur for more than two consecutive days unless flooding threats cannot be controlled.
(g) All work shall be completed as efficiently as possible and with the smallest amount of heavy equipment possible.
(h) Boats operating near river haul-outs during monitoring shall be kept within posted speed limits and driven as far from the haul-outs as safely possible.
(i) SCWA shall implement the following mitigation measures during pupping season (March 15-June 30):
(1) SCWA shall maintain a one week no-work period between water level management events (unless flooding is an immediate threat) to allow for an adequate disturbance recovery period. During the no-work period, equipment must be removed from the beach.
(2) If a pup less than one week old is on the beach where heavy machinery will be used or on the path used to access the work location, the management action shall be delayed until the pup has left the site or the latest day possible to prevent flooding while still maintaining suitable fish rearing habitat. In the event that a pup remains present on the beach in the presence of flood risk, SCWA shall consult with NMFS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine the appropriate course of action. SCWA shall coordinate with the locally established seal monitoring program (Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods) to determine if pups less than one week old are on the beach prior to a breaching event.
(3) Physical and biological monitoring shall not be conducted if a pup less than one week old is present at the monitoring site or on a path to the site.
(a) Monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the approved Pinniped Monitoring Plan.
(b) Baseline monitoring shall be conducted each week, with two events per month occurring in the morning and two per month in the afternoon. These censuses shall continue for four hours, weather permitting; the census days shall be chosen to ensure that monitoring encompasses a low and high tide each in the morning and afternoon. All seals hauled out on the beach shall be counted every 30 minutes from the overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 adjacent to the haul-out using high-powered spotting scopes. Observers shall indicate where groups of seals are hauled out on the sandbar and provide a total count for each group. If possible, adults and pups shall be counted separately.
(c) Peripheral coastal haul-outs shall be visited concurrently with baseline monitoring in the event that a lagoon outlet channel is implemented and maintained for a prolonged period of over 21 days.
(d) During estuary management events, monitoring shall occur on all days that activity is occurring using the same protocols as described for baseline monitoring, with the difference that monitoring shall begin at least one hour prior to the crew and equipment accessing the beach work area and continue through the duration of the event, until at least one hour after the crew and equipment leave the beach. In addition, a one-day pre-event survey of the area shall be made within one to three days of the event and a one-day post-event survey shall be made after the event, weather permitting.
(e) For all monitoring, the following information shall be recorded in 30-minute intervals:
(1) Pinniped counts by species;
(2) Behavior;
(3) Time, source and duration of any disturbance, with takes incidental to SCWA actions recorded only for responses involving movement away from the disturbance or responses of greater intensity (
(4) Estimated distances between source of disturbance and pinnipeds;
(5) Weather conditions (
(6) Tide levels and estuary water surface elevation.
(f)
(ii) These reports shall contain, at minimum, the following:
(A) The number of seals taken, by species and age class (if possible);
(B) Behavior prior to and during water level management events;
(C) Start and end time of activity;
(D) Estimated distances between source and seals when disturbance occurs;
(E) Weather conditions (
(F) Haul-out reoccupation time of any seals based on post-activity monitoring;
(G) Tide levels and estuary water surface elevation;
(H) Seal census from bi-monthly and nearby haul-out monitoring; and
(I) Specific conclusions that may be drawn from the data in relation to the four questions of interest in SCWA's Pinniped Monitoring Plan, if possible.
(2) SCWA shall submit a comprehensive summary report to NMFS in conjunction with any future submitted request for incidental take authorization.
(g)
(i) Time and date of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions;
(iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
(vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(2) In the event that SCWA discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(3) In the event that SCWA discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities defined in § 217.1(a) (
(4) Pursuant to paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section, SCWA may use discretion in determining what injuries (
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in this subpart, SCWA must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of the regulations in this subpart.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of the regulations in this subpart, SCWA may apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, SCWA must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 217.8.
(e) The LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations in this subpart.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.7 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 217.1(a) shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for the regulations in this subpart (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under the regulations in this subpart were implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.7 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 217.1(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1)
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA are:
(A) Results from SCWA's monitoring from the previous year(s).
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies.
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by the regulations in this subpart or subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(2)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 610 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 12, 2017, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., May 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The B season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 2,232 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the B season allowance of the 2017 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,132 mt and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 9, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory basis; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting comments on a draft regulatory basis to support a rulemaking that would amend NRC's regulations for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The NRC's goals in amending these regulations would be to provide for an efficient decommissioning process; reduce the need for exemptions from existing regulations; address other decommissioning issues deemed relevant by the NRC staff; and support the principles of good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability. The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to discuss the draft regulatory basis and facilitate public comment.
Submit comments by June 13, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by the following method:
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Alysia G. Bone, telephone: 301-415-1034, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0070 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0070 in your comment submission. If you cannot submit your comments on the Federal rulemaking Web site,
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons to not include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. Please note that the NRC will not provide formal written responses to each of the comments received on the draft regulatory basis. However, the NRC staff will consider all comments received in the development of the final regulatory basis.
On December 30, 2014, in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-14-0118, “Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14364A111), the Commission directed the NRC staff to proceed with a rulemaking on power reactor decommissioning. The Commission also stated that the rulemaking should address: Issues discussed in SECY-00-0145, “Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning” (ADAMS Accession No. ML003721626), such as the graded approach to emergency preparedness (EP); lessons learned from the plants that have already (or are currently) going through the decommissioning process; the
The NRC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the
In the draft regulatory basis, the NRC staff concludes that it has sufficient justification to proceed with rulemaking in the areas of EP, physical security, DTFs, offsite and onsite financial protection requirements and indemnity agreements, and application of the backfit rule. As stated previously, the NRC staff included all of these areas in the ANPR and received stakeholder feedback. Further, the NRC staff is recommending rulemaking to: (1) Require that the PSDAR contain a description of how the spent fuel stored under a general independent spent fuel storage installation license will be removed from the reactor site in accordance with the regulatory requirements in § 50.82 of title 10 of the
At this time, the NRC staff has determined that additional stakeholder input is needed prior to finalizing recommendations related to cyber security, drug and alcohol testing, certified fuel handler training and minimum staffing, aging management, and fatigue management. The NRC received comments in these areas from the ANPR and intends to seek specific public input on these topics as part of the public comment request on the entire draft regulatory basis.
In the draft regulatory basis, the NRC staff concludes that regulatory activities other than rulemaking—such as guidance development—should be used to address concerns expressed in comments received on the ANPR regarding the appropriate role of State and local governments in the decommissioning process, the level of NRC review and approval of the PSDAR, and the 60 year limit for power reactor decommissioning. The NRC is requesting public comment on the draft regulatory basis and its associated appendices. To supplement the draft regulatory basis, the NRC is preparing a preliminary draft regulatory analysis, which will be made available for public comment in the near future.
The NRC is requesting comment on the draft regulatory basis, “Regulatory Improvements for Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning.” As you prepare your comments, consider the following general questions:
1. Is the NRC considering appropriate options for each regulatory area described in the draft regulatory basis?
2. Are there additional factors that the NRC should consider in each regulatory area? What are these factors?
3. Are there any additional options that the NRC should consider during development of the proposed rule?
4. Is there additional information concerning regulatory impacts that NRC should include in its regulatory basis for this rulemaking?
In addition to these general questions, the NRC has identified additional areas of consideration that either could be included in the scope of the power reactor decommissioning rulemaking or addressed through other actions. The NRC may include additional discussion of these issues in the final regulatory basis, and if included, will use any public comments received regarding these issues to inform the development of the final regulatory basis. The NRC requests that members of the public answer the following specific questions regarding these additional regulatory issues.
A licensee in decommissioning may desire to transfer their license under 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” to another entity to perform the decommissioning activities described in the licensee's PSDAR. However, pursuant to § 50.38, “Ineligibility of Certain Applicants,” the receiving entity is ineligible to obtain the license if it is a citizen, national, or agent of a foreign country or if it is any corporation or other entity which the Commission knows or has reason to believe is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government. The NRC has granted exemptions from this requirement for facilities that have been dismantled and removed, such that only independent spent fuel storage installations remained onsite (78 FR 58571; September 24, 2013).
5. Should the NRC address the exemption to § 50.38 for licensees of facilities in decommissioning on a generic basis as a part of this rulemaking? If so, why, and how should the NRC address this issue?
Both operating and decommissioning power reactor licensees are subject to the physical protection programs contained in § 73.55, “Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage,” of 10 CFR part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials;” appendix B, “General Criteria for Security Personnel,” to 10 CFR part 73; and appendix C, “Licensee Safeguards Contingency Plans,” to 10 CFR part 73. These licensees are also subject to 10 CFR part 37, “Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material,” if they possess category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material. Therefore, these licensees are potentially subject to both 10 CFR part 73 and 10 CFR part 37 security regulations.
The NRC issued the regulations in 10 CFR part 37 to establish security requirements for the use and transport of risk significant quantities of category 1 and category 2 radioactive material. Category 1 and category 2 thresholds of radioactive materials in 10 CFR part 37 are consistent with similar categories of
The objective of 10 CFR part 37 is to provide reasonable assurance that licensees can prevent the theft or diversion of category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material. The current 10 CFR part 37 regulation is applicable to any licensee that possesses an aggregated category 1 or category 2 quantity of radioactive material, any licensee that transports these materials using ground transportation, and any licensee that transports small quantities of irradiated reactor fuel.
To address the potential impact of redundant security regulations during decommissioning, the NRC is considering revising security regulations, including addressing the physical security requirements for category 1 and category 2 materials at facilities undergoing decommissioning.
6. Are the physical security protection programs in 10 CFR part 37 an area of regulation that the NRC should address in this rulemaking? If so, why, and how should the NRC address this issue?
7. Should 10 CFR part 50 licensees transitioning from an operating status to decommissioning status be provided specific physical security requirements in 10 CFR part 37 for category 1 and category 2 materials, based on their decommissioning status (
8. Should the NRC establish specific security requirements for the storage of category 1 and category 2 materials contained in large components, robust structures, and in other equipment that are not likely to be subject to theft and diversion due to their inherent self-protecting features (
9. Is a clarification of the exemption in § 37.11(b) needed with respect to facilities with 10 CFR part 73 security plans that are undergoing decommissioning?
In addition to the options proposed in Appendix F of the draft regulatory basis, the NRC is considering an option to amend the regulations in § 50.75, “Reporting and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning Planning,” to require each power reactor licensee to provide and assure to a site-specific cost estimate that is reviewed by the NRC at initial licensing, throughout operations, and while in decommissioning. A future licensee would provide at licensing site-specific decommissioning plans, including an initial site-specific cost estimate that captures the major assumptions, major decommissioning activities, references, and any other bases used to develop this estimate. Each plan would address how the cost estimate will be adjusted for future cost escalation, the mechanism to be established for funding, and a schedule for periodic contributions and assumptions about future decommissioning trust fund growth (
a. The Table of Minimum Amounts in § 50.75(b) would continue to require certification of a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate that meets, or exceeds, the NRC minimum formula amount.
b.
10. Should this area of the regulations be addressed in this rulemaking? If so, why, and how should the NRC address this issue?
The NRC staff is considering a proposal to adjust the amounts of primary liability insurance that power reactor licensees in decommissioning must maintain. The current practice is to exempt these licensees from the § 140.11 requirements (for offsite insurance) and § 50.54(w) (for onsite insurance) so that the amount of offsite and onsite insurance corresponds to the risks of a decommissioning plant. The NRC staff would use this rulemaking to establish regulations for licensees in decommissioning to preclude the need for these licensees to request exemptions. The NRC staff is considering using the amounts approved in several previous exemption actions and adjusting those amounts for inflation.
11. If the NRC takes this approach, should the NRC apply this requirement to licensees who already have exemptions from insurance requirements and whose levels of insurance have not been adjusted for inflation?
Operating reactor licensees that are decommissioning may use the § 50.54(p)(2) process to implement changes to their site security plans (
The NRC staff further notes that the change process in § 50.54(p)(2) is complicated for both licensees and the NRC staff by the fact that the term “decrease in safeguards effectiveness” is not defined in our regulations. Accordingly, the NRC is considering adding the following definition to § 50.2, “Definitions,” or to § 50.54(p)(2): A
12. The NRC staff requests public comments on the following options.
Option 1, no change. Decommissioning licensees continue to implement security plan changes that do not decrease safeguards effectiveness using the provisions of § 50.54(p)(2), reporting changes to the NRC within 2 months. If the NRC staff is unable to verify the licensee's safeguards effectiveness determination through a review of the submitted report, the NRC staff would continue to follow up on the changes through the inspection process.
Option 2, develop regulatory guidance associated with decommissioning
Option 3, revise the requirements in § 50.54(p) to include the aforementioned definition of safeguards effectiveness and revise the specific requirements in § 50.54(p)(2) to more closely reflect the wording found in § 50.54(q), “Emergency Plans,” specifically within paragraphs 50.54(q)(3) and (5).
13. Which option should the NRC pursue to address this issue?
Although not a regulatory requirement, to date all decommissioning licensees have created some form of a community advisory board, with membership and activity levels commensurate with the overall level of public interest in the decommissioning activities at the facility. Currently, the staff doesn't have a compelling safety basis to recommend an option for rulemaking regarding the licensee's establishment of a community advisory board.
14. The staff is seeking public comment on how such a requirement might constitute a cost-justified, substantial increase in protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security.
The cumulative effects of regulation (CER) describe the challenges that licensees or other impacted entities (such as State agency partners) may face while implementing new regulatory positions, programs, and requirements (
(1) In light of any current or projected CER challenges, what should be a reasonable effective date, compliance date, or submittal date(s) from the time the final rule is published to the actual implementation of any new proposed requirements, including changes to programs, procedures, or the facility?
(2) If current or projected CER challenges exist, what should be done to address this situation (
(3) Do other regulatory actions (
(4) Are there unintended consequences? Does the potential proposed action create conditions that would be contrary to the potential proposed action's purpose and objectives? If so, what are the consequences and how should they be addressed?
(5) Please provide information on the costs and benefits of the potential proposed action. This information will be used to support additional regulatory analysis by the NRC.
The NRC may post additional materials related to this rulemaking activity to the Federal rulemaking Web site at
The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2015-0070); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the methods listed in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule with request for public comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) is proposing to delay the October 1, 2017 effective date of the rule governing Prepaid Accounts Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) by six months, to April 1, 2018.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2017-0008 or RIN 3170-AA69, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Thomas L. Devlin or Yaritza Velez, Counsels, or Kristine M. Andreassen, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700.
On October 5, 2016, the Bureau released a final rule to create comprehensive consumer protections for prepaid accounts under Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (Prepaid Accounts Final Rule).
This proposed rule seeks comment on whether the Bureau should extend the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, and if so, whether six months is an appropriate length of time for such an extension. The Bureau is also proposing to make conforming amendments to certain regulatory text and commentary adopted in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule to reflect the proposed effective date delay.
In the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, the Bureau extended Regulation E coverage to prepaid accounts and adopted provisions specific to such accounts, and generally expanded Regulation Z's coverage to overdraft credit features that may be offered in conjunction with prepaid accounts.
Upon issuing the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, the Bureau initiated robust efforts to support industry implementation.
As published, the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule has a general effective date of October 1, 2017. As part of its efforts to support industry implementation, the Bureau has discussed implementation efforts with a number of industry participants. As a result of those discussions, the Bureau has learned that some industry participants are concerned that they will have difficulty in complying with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule while also ensuring continued availability of their prepaid products and with minimal disruption to consumers by October 1, 2017 for a variety of reasons. For example, the Bureau put in place an exception in Regulation E § 1005.18(h)(2) pursuant to which financial institutions are not
In addition, in the course of working to implement the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, some industry participants have raised concerns about what they describe as unanticipated complexities arising from the interaction of certain aspects of the rule with certain business models and practices (including recent changes thereto) that they did not fully address in their comment letters on the Prepaid Accounts NPRM, which may lead to additional complexities for implementation and negative implications for consumers.
The Bureau continues to believe that the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule will provide significant benefits to consumers and that, therefore, expeditious implementation remains essential to provide comprehensive consumer protections to users of prepaid accounts. The Bureau also appreciates the concerns raised by some industry participants that they may have difficulty in complying with the rule by October 1, 2017. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Bureau is proposing to delay the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule for a period of six months, to April 1, 2018. In order to effect this change, the Bureau is also proposing to amend Regulation E §§ 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) and (h), and 1005.19(f)(1), and related commentary, to reflect the delayed effective date.
Furthermore, delaying the effective date will allow the Bureau to more closely evaluate concerns raised by industry participants regarding certain substantive aspects of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule that they assert are posing particular complexities for implementation or may have negative consequences for consumers that were not anticipated or fully explained by commenters in response to the Prepaid Accounts NPRM, and to propose revisions to those provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule if it determines that amendments are necessary and appropriate.
The Bureau believes that, based on its initial outreach to industry, a six-month delay would be sufficient for industry participants to ensure that they can comply with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule with minimal disruption to consumers. In particular, a six-month extension would both allow more time for package printing and allow pull-and-replace processes at retail locations to occur after the winter holiday season, which is a particularly busy time for retailers. Indeed, the Bureau understands that industry often effectuates pull-and-replace processes in the spring for precisely this reason. The Bureau also believes that a six-month delay will allow the Bureau adequate opportunity to consider possible additional amendments to the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, and for industry to implement any such changes, without unnecessary disruption to consumers' access to, and use of, prepaid accounts.
The Bureau solicits comment on whether it should delay the effective date for the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, and if so, whether six months is an appropriate length of time. The Bureau also solicits comment on the potential consequences of not extending the effective date. In particular, the Bureau asks commenters to provide specific detail and any available data regarding current and planned practices, as well as relevant knowledge and specific facts about any benefits, costs, or other impacts of this proposal on industry, consumers, and other stakeholders. Finally, the Bureau solicits comment about the impact of the proposed delay on consumers who use prepaid accounts.
The Bureau is not proposing to delay the effective date of the requirement to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau in Regulation E § 1005.19(f)(2), which is October 1, 2018. The Bureau expects to have its agreement submission process in place by October 1, 2018, and the Bureau's outreach has not indicated that industry participants are concerned that they will not be able to meet the agreement submission effective date. The Bureau nonetheless solicits comment on whether it should delay the effective date of the agreement submission requirement, and if so, for what length of time.
The Bureau is not proposing to amend any substantive requirements of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule at this time. The purpose of this notice is not to seek comment generally on policy decisions made in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule that industry or other stakeholders might wish the Bureau to reconsider. The Bureau will continue its outreach to industry and other stakeholders to understand their experiences in implementing the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. If the Bureau determines that amendments to the substantive provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule are warranted, it will do so through a separate rulemaking.
The Bureau is proposing to exercise its rulemaking authority pursuant to EFTA section 904(a) and (c), Dodd-Frank Act sections 1022(b)(1) and 1032(a), and TILA section 105(a) to delay the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule.
The legal authority for the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule is described in detail in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's
Regulation E § 1005.18(b)(2) describes the short form disclosure requirements for prepaid accounts. Section 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) contains requirements specifically regarding additional fee types. Section 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D) describes the timing requirements for the initial assessment of an additional fee types disclosure, and § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(E) describes the timing for the periodic reassessment and update of additional fee types disclosures. The Bureau is proposing to revise the dates in the regulatory text and headings in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D)(
Regulation E § 1005.18(h) sets forth several provisions to make clearer the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's general October 1, 2017 effective date. The Bureau is proposing to revise the dates in the regulatory text and headings throughout § 1005.18(h) and in comments 18(h)-1, 2, 6.i and 6.ii to reflect the proposed revised effective date of April 1, 2018.
Regulation E § 1005.19(f)(1) sets forth the general effective date for the prepaid account agreement posting requirements in § 1005.19, other than the delayed requirement to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau pursuant to § 1005.19(b), as addressed in § 1005.19(f)(2). The Bureau is proposing to revise the date in the regulatory text of § 1005.19(f)(1) to reflect the proposed revised effective date of April 1, 2018. As discussed above, the Bureau is not proposing to delay the October 1, 2018 date for submission of agreements to the Bureau.
The Bureau is proposing to delay the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule by six months, to April 1, 2018. Additionally, the Bureau is proposing to make conforming amendments to Regulation E §§ 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) and (h), and 1005.19(f)(1), and related commentary. After considering comments received on the proposal, the Bureau will publish a final rule with respect to the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. The Bureau proposes that the final rule with respect to the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule will become effective 30 days after publication in the
In developing the proposed rule, the Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs and impacts required by section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, section 1022(b)(2) calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of consumer access to consumer financial products or services, the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the impact on consumers in rural areas. In addition, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(B) directs the Bureau to consult, before and during the rulemaking, with appropriate prudential regulators or other Federal agencies, regarding consistency with the objectives those agencies administer. The Bureau consulted, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators, the Department of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by these agencies.
The Bureau previously considered the costs, benefits, and impacts of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's major provisions.
The Bureau requests comment on this discussion as well as submission of additional information that could inform the Bureau's consideration of the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this proposed rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In the Prepaid Accounts NPRM, the Bureau concluded that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required.
As discussed above, the proposal would delay the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule to April 1, 2018. The proposed six-month delay in the effective date would benefit small entities by providing additional flexibility with respect to the timing of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's implementation. In addition to generally providing increased flexibility, the delay in the effective date would permit small entities to delay the commencement of any ongoing costs that result from complying with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. Because small entities retain the option of complying with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's original effective date, the proposed rule's delay of the effective date will not increase costs incurred by small entities relative to the baseline established by the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Bureau has determined that this proposed rule would not have any new or revised information collection requirements (recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements) on covered entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of information requiring OMB approval under the PRA. The Bureau welcomes comments on this determination or any other aspects of this proposal for purposes of the PRA. Comments should be submitted to the Bureau as instructed in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is seeking comments and information concerning a proposal to change the operating schedule for the Bridge of Lions across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, St. Augustine, Florida. The City of St. Augustine is concerned that vehicle traffic is becoming exponentially worse with each passing season and that on-demand bridge openings are contributing to vehicle traffic backups. The proposed modification would extend the twice an hour draw opening period from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily, and preclude the bridge draw from opening at 3:30 p.m. on weekends and Federal holidays.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 15, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0723 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this notice, call or email MST1 Timothy Fosdick, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 904-714-7623, email
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 ANPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
In 2015, the City of St. Augustine approached the Coast Guard with a recommendation to amend the Bridge of Lions operating schedule. Shortly thereafter, a meeting was held with the City of St. Augustine, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), bridge owner, and the U.S. Coast Guard to seek improvements to reduce the vehicle traffic backups at the intersection of A1A, the Bridge of Lions, and Avenida Menendez. During the meeting, FDOT agreed to work with the City traffic engineers to develop better traffic signaling techniques to reduce the vehicle traffic backups. In May 2016, the City of St. Augustine proposed an amendment to the bridge operating schedule to reduce vehicle traffic backups in the affected area. The City would like to extend the 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. twice an hour opening schedule to 9 p.m., daily and preclude the bridge draw from opening at 3:30 p.m. on weekends and Federal holidays.
The current operating schedule, as published in 33 CFR 117.261(d), reads as follows: Bridge of Lions (SR A1A) bridge, mile 777.9 at St. Augustine. The draw shall open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour; however, the draw need not open at 8 a.m., 12 noon, and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. From 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays the draw need only open on the hour and half-hour.
In accordance with Nautical Chart 11485, 37th Ed., Nov. 2014, the Bridge of Lions has a vertical clearance of 18 feet in the closed (down) position at mean high water and a horizontal clearance of 79 feet. Additionally, there is a note on the chart stating “Strong tidal currents run perpendicular to the Bridge of Lions opening. Vessels engaged in towing and pushing operations are advised to transit the bridge opening during slack tide and, if necessary, breakdown the tow in small units or use adequate tugs.” In regards to the Bridge of Lions, the U.S. Coast Pilot 4, Chapter 12, Edition 47, 2015 also states “Caution is advised because the tidal currents, particularly ebb, run at right angles to the bridge. It is advisable to drift large tows through this opening at slack water. Normal flood currents of 1 knot and ebb currents of 1.5 knots may be expected. Several mishaps involving the bridge being hit by vessels, which have lost maneuvering control during periods of ebb currents, have occurred. Caution is advised when transiting the area.”
The original Bridge of Lions was built in 1927 and replaced in 2010. The new bridge was completed with no modifications to the vertical or horizontal clearances; therefore, there was no impact to the number of bridge openings due to vessel traffic.
The legal basis and authorities for this ANPRM are found in 33 U.S.C. 499, 33 CFR 1.05-1, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Coast Guard is considering a change to the operating schedule for the Bridge of Lions across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, St. Augustine, Florida. The Coast Guard received a request from the City of St. Augustine to modify the operating schedule for the Bridge of Lions in an effort to decrease vehicle traffic backups caused by the significant increase in vehicle traffic combined with the on-demand bridge openings. The purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit comments on a potential proposed rulemaking concerning a request to change the operating schedule for the Bridge of Lions.
Amending the twice an hour opening schedule to a 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. period should not have an unreasonable impact on navigation. However, amending the bridge operating schedule to exclude a 3:30 p.m. opening on weekends and Federal holidays may have a negative impact to the public, as there are many tourists in vehicles and vessels in St. Augustine during these periods. Additional input will be required from the City of St. Augustine to understand why this particular time was selected. It will also be essential to determine whether any commercial vessel operators would be directly impacted by amending the bridge operating schedule.
To aid the Coast Guard in developing a proposed rule, we seek any comments, whether positive or negative, including but not limited to: The impact on vessel traffic and/or marine businesses in the area when extending the twice an hour opening; any potential negative impact to vessel traffic or marine businesses of not opening the bridge between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.; whether the extension to 9 p.m. of the Bridge of Lions twice an
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“Department”) announces adjusted income eligibility guidelines to be used by State agencies in determining the income eligibility of persons applying to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These income eligibility guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the WIC Regulations.
Effective date July 1, 2017.
Kurtria Watson, Chief, Policy Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, FNS, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 605-4387.
This notice is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act.
This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, 48 FR 29100, June 24, 1983, and 49 FR 22675, May 31, 1984).
Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(A)), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish income criteria to be used with nutritional risk criteria in determining a person's eligibility for participation in the WIC Program. The law provides that persons will be income-eligible for the WIC Program only if they are members of families that satisfy the income standard prescribed for reduced-price school meals under section 9(b) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)). Under section 9(b), the income limit for reduced-price school meals is 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, as adjusted. Section 9(b) also requires that these guidelines be revised annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual revision for 2017 was published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at 82 FR 8831, January 31, 2017. The guidelines published by HHS are referred to as the “poverty guidelines.”
Section 246.7(d)(1) of the WIC regulations (Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations) specifies that State agencies may prescribe income guidelines either equaling the income guidelines established under section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act for reduced-price school meals, or identical to State or local guidelines for free or reduced-price health care. However, in conforming WIC income guidelines to State or local health care guidelines, the State cannot establish WIC guidelines which exceed the guidelines for reduced-price school meals, or which are less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Consistent with the method used to compute income eligibility guidelines for reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, the poverty guidelines were multiplied by 1.85 and the results rounded upward to the next whole dollar.
At this time, the Department is publishing the maximum and minimum WIC income eligibility guidelines by household size for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Consistent with section 17(f)(17) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(17)), a State agency may implement the revised WIC income eligibility guidelines concurrently with the implementation of income eligibility guidelines under the Medicaid Program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396,
The table of this Notice contains the income limits by household size for the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, and all United States Territories, including Guam. Separate tables for Alaska and Hawaii have been
42 U.S.C. 1786.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) seeks input on the use of the current Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) income conversion factors used to anticipate a household's income for the purposes of SNAP eligibility when a household's income is received on a weekly or biweekly basis. FNS hopes to obtain perspective from State agencies and other stakeholders as it considers how to best balance the flexibilities States are granted in calculating anticipated monthly income under current SNAP regulations, while adhering to the legislative intent of reducing administrative burden on State agencies and removing barriers to eligibility for needy households.
Written comments must be received on or before May 15, 2017.
Comments may be sent to Sasha Gersten-Paal, Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 812, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
Requests for additional information or copies of this request for information should be directed to Sasha Gersten-Paal via email to
SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 273.10(c)(2)(i) provide State agencies with three options when converting weekly and biweekly income into anticipated monthly income: Multiplying by 4.3 for weekly income or by 2.15 for biweekly income; using the State agency's public assistance (PA) conversion standard; or, using a household's exact amount, if it can be anticipated. These options have been available to State agencies since the enactment of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, and the majority of States opt to use the first set of conversion factors.
Generally, when calculating a SNAP recipient's benefit amount, the lower the recipient's income, the greater their SNAP benefit will be. Some stakeholders contend that using the first set of conversion factors (4.3 for weekly income or 2.15 for biweekly income) underestimates a recipient's actual monthly income, which in turn raises the amount of the recipient's SNAP benefit. These stakeholders maintain that not only does this result in an overpayment to the recipient, it also creates inequity between SNAP recipients paid on a monthly basis and those paid on a weekly or biweekly basis. These stakeholders recommend that FNS increase income conversion accuracy by amending current SNAP regulations to carry the current factors out by two decimal places, specifically, to 4.33 for weekly income, and 2.17 for biweekly income.
In 1971, Congress amended the Food Stamp Act of 1964 and directed FNS to establish standards of eligibility for the Food Stamp Program. In implementing the amendment, FNS began adjusting a household's monthly income to include income anticipated to be received during the certification period. For income received less frequently than a monthly basis, the factors used to average income were 4.3 for weekly income, and 2.15 for biweekly income.
In the Food Stamp Act of 1977, Congress expanded the definition of anticipated income in Section 5(f) to include “income reasonably anticipated to be received” during the certification period, and again provided FNS the authority to establish standards for calculating anticipated income. The House Committee of Agriculture's Report on the Food Stamp Act of 1977 states that the purpose in adopting this standard was “. . . to smooth the way for participation by the needy, not to place obstacles in their path by making them out to be less needy than they in fact are.”
FNS codified these conversion factors through rulemaking, including a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on May 2, 1978, and a Final Rule published on October 17, 1978. Between the Proposed Rulemaking and the Final Rule, FNS received nearly 500 comments regarding the sections on determining anticipated income. In the preamble to the Final Rule, FNS stated that “State and local agencies were frequently concerned with the use of the proposed multipliers for converting income received on a weekly (4.3) or biweekly (2.15) basis. Some recommended using 4.333 and 2.167 to conform to the [Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)] factors for weekly and biweekly income conversions.” To address this concern, in addition to using the established factors of 4.3 and 2.15, the Final Rule permitted State agencies to align their conversion factors with other public assistance programs, or to use the exact monthly figure if it could be obtained for the entire certification period.
In 1981, Congress added Section 5(f)(4) to the Act and directed FNS to ensure, “to the extent feasible,” that the income of households receiving both Food Stamp benefits and benefits from AFDC, the predecessor to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, were “calculated on a comparable basis under the two Acts.”
With this history in mind, FNS is seeking information from State agency partners and stakeholders on the following particular questions:
1. Of the three income conversion options provided by 7 CFR 273.10(c)(2)(i), which option does your State agency use?
a. Why does your State agency use this particular option?
b. What are the perceived strengths, if any, of this option?
c. What are the perceived weaknesses, if any, of this option?
2. What, if any, administrative challenges would your State agency face in adopting a different income conversion option?
3. What, if any, technological challenges would your State agency face in adopting a different income conversion option?
4. Is there another methodology in converting weekly and biweekly income that FNS should consider?
a. Why should this methodology be used in place of the current options outlined in 7 CFR 273.10(c)(2)(i)?
b. Does this methodology support the legislative intent of Congress in removing barriers to access to households in need of nutritional assistance?
c. Does this methodology support the legislative intent of Congress to grant States more flexibility?
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Humboldt (NV) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Winnemucca, Nevada. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act.
The meeting will be held on March 29, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST). All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the USDA Service Center, 3275 Fountain Way, Winnemucca, Nevada 89445. The meeting can also be attended by teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend by teleconference, please visit
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Joseph Garrotto, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at (775) 352-1215 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Elect Chair/Vice Chairperson, and
2. Review and recommend project proposals for Title II funds.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by March 15, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Wendy Markham, RAC Coordinator; by email to
U.S Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of correction.
On December 28, 2016,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. This review covers multiple exporters/producers; two of which are being individually examined as mandatory respondents. The Department preliminary determines that Hyundai Steel Co. (Hyundai Steel) received countervailable subsidies that are above
Effective March 15, 2017.
John Conniff (for Hyundai Steel) or Jolanta Lawska (for DSM), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1009 and (202) 482-8362, respectively.
The Department initiated a review of 15 companies in this segment of the proceeding.
The merchandise covered by the order is certain cut-to-length plate from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this administrative review,
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
There are five companies for which a review was requested and not preliminarily rescinded, but were not selected as mandatory respondents. We are applying to the non-selected companies the rate preliminarily calculated for Hyundai Steel, which is above
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for DSM and Hyundai Steel. For the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, we preliminarily determine that the following net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
The Department intends to disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above for each company listed on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations made between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2016, inclusive. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.
Brenda E. Waters, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4735.
The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the
Commercial Honing LLC dba Commercial Fluid Power (“Commercial Honing”); Commercial Honing's 12 sizes of mechanical tubing are outside the scope of the Orders on seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from the PRC because they meet the exclusion language of the scope. However, one size of Commerical Honing's mechanical tubing falls within the scope of the Orders because it does not meet the requirements set forth in the exclusion language; February 25, 2016.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, Washington, DC 20230.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with January anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Effective March 15, 2017.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with January anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, except for the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
In the event that the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, for the purposes of this segment of the proceeding,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. In addition, all firms that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate certification or application, as described below, and respond to the additional questions and the Q&V questionnaire on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
Furthermore, this notice constitutes public notification to all firms for which an antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC has been requested, and that are seeking separate rate status in the review, that they must submit a timely separate rate application or certification (as appropriate) as described above, and a timely response to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions in the document package on the Department's Web site in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any timely separate rate certification or application made by parties who failed to respond in a timely manner to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions. All information submitted by respondents in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC is subject to verification. As noted above, the separate rate certification, the separate rate application, the Q&V questionnaire, and the additional questions will be available on the Department's Web site on the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than January 31, 2018.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
The Department's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in April 2017 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews (“Sunset Reviews”).
No Sunset Review of countervailing duty orders is scheduled for initiation in April 2017.
No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in April 2017.
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a public meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) on April 13, 2017. Meeting topics are provided under the
The meeting of the PAC will be held via conference call on April 13, 2017, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded).
The public meeting will be conducted via conference call. For details on how to call in to the conference line, please contact Zora McGinnis, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5037; email:
Zora McGinnis, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 808-725-5037; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email:
In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
The purpose of the April 13, 2017, conference call is to discuss 2017 U.S. priorities in the WCPFC, discuss outcomes of the 2016 regular session of the WCPFC (WCPFC13), and discuss potential conservation and management measures for tropical tunas and other issues of interest.
The conference call is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Zora McGinnis at 808-725-5037 at least 10 working days prior to the meeting.
6 U.S.C. 6902
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability for final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
Notice is hereby given that the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) associated with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)'s Mad River Hatchery Genetics Management Plan (HGMP) for winter-run steelhead hatchery production is now available to the public. The HGMP and associated Biological Opinion are also available to the public.
You may access a copy of the HGMP, Final EA, FONSI, 4(d) Rule decision memo, and other documents by one of the following:
• Visit the NMFS Web site,
• Call (707) 834-7897 and request to have a CD or hard copy mailed to you.
• Obtain a CD or hard copy by visiting the NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region California Coastal Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521.
Wes Smith, Telephone: (707) 834-7897, Fax: 707-825-4840 or email:
NOAA's NMFS is the lead agency responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as it relates to listed salmon, steelhead, and marine species. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered species. Section 4(d) of the ESA also gives NMFS the authority to promulgate a regulation that applies the take prohibitions of section 9 to threatened species. In 2000, NMFS issued a “4(d) rule” (65 FR 42422; 50 CFR 223.203; updated June 28, 2005, 70 FR 37160) which broadly prohibits take of threatened steelhead and salmon species. The 4(d) rule also lists certain “limits” to the take prohibitions. Limit 5 of the 4(d) rule for threatened steelhead and salmon provides that the take prohibition does not apply to activities associated with artificial propagation programs that follow a HGMP that meets certain criteria and has been approved by NMFS. (50 CFR 223.203(b)(5)). The final decision on the HGMP is pursuant to ESA section 4 and documented in a separate decision memo. The memo is also available to the public.
CDFW's HGMP for Mad River winter-run steelhead provides the framework through which CDFW can manage hatchery operations, monitoring, and evaluation activities, while meeting requirements specified under the ESA. The hatchery program will propagate steelhead derived from the local steelhead population in the Mad River, ensuring that at least half of the Mad River Hatchery winter-run steelhead spawning pairs are hatchery spawned natural-origin and match natural-origin steelhead with their natural counterparts whenever possible. Measures will be applied in the hatchery program to reduce the risk of incidental adverse genetic, ecological, and demographic effects on natural-origin steelhead and salmon populations. CDFW runs the hatchery to create a recreational steelhead fishery in the lower Mad River watershed, north coast California. CDFW submitted the Mad River winter-run steelhead HGMP to NMFS to determine as to whether the HGMP meets the criteria of Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule.
NMFS published notification of the HGMP and draft EA's availability for public review and comment on March 28, 2016 for 30 days (81 FR 17143) and, upon request, provided a 15-day extension notice for public review and comment on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26775). NMFS received four comment letters. All comments were directed toward the HGMP and were addressed by CDFW. CDFW's responses and associated changes to the HGMP were reviewed by NMFS. Several minor changes were made to the final EA to ensure a thorough review and to maintain consistency.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Karina Amaral, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Zoology Department, Avenida Bento Goncalves, 9500 Build 43435, Room 206, Porto Alegre, MI, 91.501-970, Brazil, has applied in due form for a permit to import specimens of Atlantic spotted dolphins (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 14, 2017.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Jennifer Skidmore or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant is requesting a permit to import 118 DNA samples from the Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul in Brazil to the University of Michigan, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department in Ann Arbor, MI, for genetics research. The samples were collected between 1996 and 2016 via biopsy sampling or from stranded animals, in accordance with the laws of Brazil. Results will provide insights regarding the population structure of this species in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. The requested duration of the permit is five months.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
11:00 a.m., Thursday, March 23, 2017.
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, enforcement, and examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 15, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Bernadette Miles, (202) 453-7892.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) Will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) Is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) How might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) How might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On March 9, 2017 the U.S. Department of Education published a 60-day comment period notice in the
The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Department of Education (ED).
Correction notice.
On March 9, 2017, the U.S. Department of Education published a 30-day comment period notice in the
The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on February 28, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2016), Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC (Medallion), filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking approval of overall tariff structure and terms of service for expansion of Medallion crude oil pipeline system, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 29, 2017.
A.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 28, 2017.
A.
1.
2.
B.
1.
Notificants also have applied to become members of the Wells Family Group.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 7, 2017.
A.
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, (Patient Safety Act) and the related
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on February 21, 2017.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from the MagMutual Patient Safety Institute, LLC, a component entity of MAG Mutual Insurance Company, PSO number P0159, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the MagMutual Patient Safety Institute, LLC was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on February 21, 2017.
The MagMutual Patient Safety Institute, LLC has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO. In addition, according to sections 3.108(c)(2)(ii) and 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding disposition of PSWP, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of public meeting and availability of draft document for public comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of a draft Current Intelligence Bulletin entitled
A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 23, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or until the last public presenter has spoken, whichever occurs first. Please note that public comments may end before the time indicated following the last call for comments. Members of the public who wish to provide public comments should plan to attend the meeting at the start time listed. Electronic or written comments must be received by June 13, 2017.
The public meeting will be held at the Robert A. Taft Laboratories, Auditorium, 1150 Tusculum Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. The meeting will also be available through a conference call phone number and Webcast live on the Internet for a limited number of participants.
•
•
All information received in response to this notice must include the agency name and docket number [CDC-2017-0028; NIOSH-290]. All relevant comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to
Melissa Seaton, NIOSH, Education and Information Division, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-32, Cincinnati, OH 45226, telephone (513) 533-8248, Fax (513) 533-8230 (not toll free numbers), email
After reviewing the requests for presentations, NIOSH will notify the presenter when his/her presentation is scheduled. If a participant is not in attendance when his/her presentation is scheduled to begin, the remaining participants will be heard in order. After the last scheduled speaker is heard, participants who missed their assigned times may be allowed to speak, limited by time available. Oral comments given at the meeting will be recorded and included in the docket.
Attendees who wish to speak but did not submit a request for the opportunity to make a presentation may be given this opportunity after the scheduled speakers are heard, at the discretion of the presiding officer and limited by time available.
Non-U.S. Citizens must provide the following information in writing to the NIOSH Docket Office at the address above no later than April 7, 2017: Name; gender; date of birth; place of birth (city, province, state, country); citizenship; passport number; date of passport issue; date of passport expiration; type of visa; U.S. naturalization number (if a naturalized citizen); U.S. naturalization date (if a naturalized citizen); visitor's organization; organization address; organization telephone number; visitor's position/title within the organization. This information will be transmitted to the CDC Security Office for approval. Visitors will be notified as soon as approval has been obtained. If access approval is not granted to a non-U.S. Citizen, the individual may participate through a conference call phone number and Webcast live on the Internet.
Occupational exposure banding is a process of quickly assigning chemicals into specific categories or bands. These bands are assigned based on a chemical's potency and the negative health outcomes associated with exposure to the chemical. The output of this process is an occupational exposure band (OEB), which corresponds to a range of exposure concentrations that is expected to be protective to worker health. Recently NIOSH has developed a process to apply the occupational exposure banding process to a broad spectrum of occupational settings. The NIOSH occupational exposure banding process uses available, but often limited, toxicological data to determine a potential range of chemical exposure levels that can be used as targets for exposure controls to reduce risk among workers.
The purpose of the public meeting and public comment period is to obtain comments on the draft document. Comments are being sought from individuals including scientists and representatives from various government agencies, industry, labor, and other stakeholders, and also the public. If there are errors of fact, unsubstantiated claims, evidence of careless experimental work, inclusion of too much information already in the literature, or statements that are inaccurate, please note such in your review comments.
I. Technical Review and Charge Questions. The authors ask that special emphasis be placed on technical review of the following issues:
1. If a chemical can cause an immediate effect (necrosis, sensitization, pulmonary edema, central nervous system (CNS) effects), should there be special guidelines for assigning a short term OEB or emphasizing the importance of keeping even short duration exposures below the OEB for those types of toxicants?
2. If a skin toxicant is a corrosive, irritant, or sensitizer, should there be any special designation assigned along with the occupational exposure band (OEB)? Additionally, please comment on the utility of using skin and eye effects to create inhalation based bands.
3. The comparison of Tier 1 and Tier 2 results for a set of chemicals showed that Tier 1 and Tier 2 produce the same band for 65% of the chemicals tested. Tier 1 is more protective for 17.5% of the chemicals, while Tier 2 is more protective for 17.5% of the chemicals. NIOSH currently recommends that both the tier 1 and tier 2 process be completed for a particular chemical. Do you agree with this recommendation? If not, what approach should NIOSH take?
4. NIOSH has proposed a number of sources of information for the different human health and toxicological endpoints under consideration. Are there other sources of information that should be recommended? Are there some sources that should be omitted?
5. In tier 1, the NIOSH method does not currently assign chemicals to an OEB based on H335 or H336 (drowsiness and dizziness). Should NIOSH include H335/H336 in the tier 1 methodology? If so, what criteria should be used for banding and why?
6. In Section 3.2 the process for assessing whether enough information is available to conduct occupational exposure banding is presented. Please comment on the use of a numerical scale (determinant scores) to document endpoint-specific data availability. Further, is the minimum value of 30 out
7. How should NIOSH consider data collected on structural analogs or related chemicals in the banding scheme?
8. Qualitative and quantitative technical criteria have been adopted for some endpoints. Is this approach adequately justified and suitably explained in the document? If not, how should the explanations be refined?
9. If a chemical has two forms (vapor or particulate) in the workplace, we have recommended that the most protective OEB take precedence. Please comment on the utility and adequacy of that recommendation.
10. Acute toxicity information may be presented in an array of different units. We have attempted to address those possibilities in the banding criteria for the acute toxicity endpoint, especially for inhalation exposures. Is this information sufficiently clear? Are suitable rubrics for unit conversions provided?
11. Does this draft document adequately describe the occupational exposure banding process in a way that supports its use in assigning ranges of exposure concentrations to protect worker health in the occupational setting?
The external review of the draft document has been (1) developed in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, (2) is consistent with NIOSH peer review practice, and (3) is meant to ensure that credible and appropriate science is reflected within the draft document.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA's regulations in part 120 (21 CFR part 120) mandate the application of HACCP procedures to the processing of fruit and vegetable juices. HACCP is a preventative system of hazard control designed to help ensure the safety of foods. The regulations were issued under FDA's statutory authority to regulate food safety under section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)). Under section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, a food is adulterated if it is prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health. The Agency also has authority under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) to issue and enforce regulations to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from one State, territory, or possession to another, or from outside the United States into this country. Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), FDA is authorized to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of that act.
Under HACCP, processors of fruit and vegetable juices establish and follow a preplanned sequence of operations and observations (the HACCP plan) designed to avoid or eliminate one or more specific food hazards, and thereby ensure that their products are safe, wholesome, and not adulterated; in compliance with section 402 of the FD&C Act. Information development and recordkeeping are essential parts of any HACCP system. The information collection requirements are narrowly tailored to focus on the development of appropriate controls and document those aspects of processing that are critical to food safety.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Table 1 provides our estimate of the total annual recordkeeping burden of our regulations in part 120. We base our estimate of the average burden per recordkeeping on our experience with the application of HACCP principles in food processing. We base our estimate of the number of recordkeepers on our estimate of the total number of juice manufacturing plants affected by the regulations (plants identified in our official establishment inventory plus very small apple juice and very small orange juice manufacturers). These estimates assume that every processor will prepare sanitary standard operating procedures and an HACCP plan and maintain the associated monitoring records, and that every importer will require product safety specifications. In fact, there are likely to be some small number of juice processors that, based upon their hazard analysis, determine that they are not required to have an HACCP plan under these regulations.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA is authorized by section 1003(d)(2)(D) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)) to conduct educational and public information programs relating to the safety of regulated medical devices and radiation-emitting products. FDA must conduct needed research to ensure that such programs have the highest likelihood of being effective. Improving communications about medical devices and radiation emitting products will involve many research methods, including individual in-depth interviews, mall-intercept interviews, focus groups, self-administered surveys, gatekeeper reviews, and omnibus telephone surveys.
The information collected will serve three major purposes. First, as formative research it will provide critical knowledge needed about target audiences to develop messages and campaigns about medical device and radiation-emitting product use. Knowledge of consumer and health care professional decision making processes
Second, as initial testing, it will allow FDA to assess the potential effectiveness of messages and materials in reaching and successfully communicating with their intended audiences. Testing messages with a sample of the target audience will allow FDA to refine messages while still in the developmental stage. Respondents will be asked to give their reaction to the messages in either individual or group settings.
Third, as evaluative research, it will allow FDA to ascertain the effectiveness of the messages and the distribution method of these messages in achieving the objectives of the message campaign. Evaluation of campaigns is a vital link in continuous improvement of communications at FDA.
Annually, FDA projects about 30 studies using a variety of research methods and lasting an average of 0.17 hours each (varying from 0.08 to 1.5 hours). FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information based on prior recent experience with the various types of data collection methods described earlier. FDA is requesting this burden so as not to restrict the Agency's ability to gather information on public sentiment for its proposals in its regulatory and communications programs.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: (202) 395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 352), among other things, establishes requirements for the label or labeling of a medical device to avoid misbranding. Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262) establishes requirements that manufacturers of biological products must submit a license application for FDA review and approval prior to marketing a biological product for introduction into interstate commerce.
In the
The guidance document recommends that a glossary of terms accompany each IVD to define the symbols used on that device's labels and/or labeling. Furthermore, the guidance recommends an educational outreach effort to enhance the understanding of newly introduced symbols. Both the glossary and educational outreach information help to ensure that IVD users have enough general familiarity with the symbols used, as well as provide a quick reference for available materials, thereby further ensuring that such labeling satisfies the labeling requirements under section 502(c) of the FD&C Act and section 351 of the PHS Act.
The likely respondents for this collection of information are IVD manufacturers who plan to use the selected symbols in place of text on the labels and/or labeling of their IVDs.
The glossary activity is inclusive of both domestic and foreign IVD manufacturers. FDA receives submissions from approximately 689 IVD manufacturers annually. The 4-hour estimate for a glossary is based on the average time necessary for a manufacturer to modify the glossary for the specific symbols used in labels or labeling for the IVDs manufactured.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 15, 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
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 705(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 375(b)) gives FDA authority to disseminate information concerning suspected or imminent danger to public health by any regulated product. Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) also authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health information.
FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) carries out FDA's regulatory responsibilities regarding medical devices and radiological products. CDRH must be able to effectively communicate risk to health care practitioners, patients, caregivers, and consumers when there is a real or suspected threat to the public's health. CDRH uses safety communications to transmit information concerning these risks to user communities. Safety communications are released and available to organizations such as hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, home health care agencies, manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and other health care providers, as well as patients, caregivers, consumers, and patient advocacy groups. Through a process for identifying and addressing postmarket safety issues related to regulated products, CDRH determines when to release safety communications.
FDA seeks to evaluate the clarity, timeliness, and impact of safety communications by surveying a sample of recipients to determine the impact of safety communications on the knowledge of the recipients. Understanding how the target audiences view these publications will aid in determining what, if any, changes should be considered in their content, format, and method of dissemination. The collection of this data is an important step in determining how well CDRH is communicating risk. The results from this survey will emphasize the quality of the safety communications and customer satisfaction. This will enable us to better serve the public by improving the effectiveness of safety communications.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on the history of the Safety Communication program, it is estimated that an average of three collections will be conducted per year. The total burden of response time is estimated at 10 minutes per survey. This was derived by CDRH staff completing the survey.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Focus groups provide an important role in gathering information because they allow for a more in-depth understanding of individuals' attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative studies. Focus groups serve the narrowly defined need for direct and informal opinion on a specific topic and as a qualitative research tool have three major purposes:
• To obtain information that is useful for developing variables and measures for quantitative studies;
• to better understand people's attitudes and emotions in response to topics and concepts;
• and to further explore findings obtained from quantitative studies.
FDA will use focus group findings to test and refine its ideas and to help develop messages and other communications, but will generally conduct further research before making important decisions such as adopting new policies and allocating or redirecting significant resources to support these policies.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of the Commissioner, and any other Centers or Offices conducting focus groups about regulated drug products may need to conduct focus groups on a variety of subjects related to consumer, patient, or healthcare professional perceptions and use of drug products and related materials, including but not limited to, direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion, physician labeling of prescription drugs, Medication Guides, over-the-counter drug labeling, emerging risk communications, patient labeling, online sales of medical products, and consumer and professional education.
Annually, FDA projects about 20 focus group studies using 160 focus groups with an average of 9 persons per group, and lasting an average of 1.75 hours each. FDA is requesting this burden for unplanned focus groups so as not to restrict the agency's ability to gather information on public sentiment for its proposals in its regulatory and communications programs.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX:
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The FDA has established four programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening conditions: (1) Fast track designation including rolling review, (2) Breakthrough therapy designation, (3) Accelerated approval, and (4) Priority review designation. In support of these, the Agency has developed the guidance document, “GFI: Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics.” The guidance outlines the programs' policies and procedures and describes applicable threshold criteria, including when to submit information to FDA. Respondents to the information collection are sponsors of drug and biological products appropriate for these expedited programs.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection as follows:
The guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 202.1, 314, and 601; sections 505(a), 506(a)(1), 735, and 736 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(a), 356(a)(1), 379(g), and 379(h)) have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0686, 0910-0001, 0910-0338, 0910-0014, and 0910-0297.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 15, 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
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
In January 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its intention to evaluate the use of assurance cases as part of our Plan of Action to strengthen the 510(k) program following the publication of the draft guidance on infusion pumps (April 26, 2010, 75 FR 21632). The initial test assurance case focused on infusion pumps because the Infusion Pump Improvement Initiative was also exploring the use of assurance cases as a means of improving premarket review. The infusion pump assurance case beta testing included infusion pump devices classified under 21 CFR 880.5725.
The assurance case consists of a structured argument, supported by a body of valid scientific evidence that provides an organized and comprehensible case that the infusion pump is comparably safe for its intended use within its environment of use. The argument should be commensurate with the potential risk posed by the infusion pump, the complexity of the infusion pump, and the familiarity with the identified risks and mitigation measures.
Assurance cases are dependent on individual product specifications, hazards, design, and documentation. For this reason, assurance cases are considered to be device-specific, meaning any newly developed device would have its own unique assurance case. If the manufacturer submits a 510(k) for modifications to a legally marketed infusion pump for which no assurance case exists, FDA recommends that manufacturers develop and submit a case for their infusion pump.
Following the completion of the assurance case beta testing, FDA has written an Infusion Pump Total Life Cycle final guidance with recommendations for how manufacturers of infusion pumps should submit an assurance case with their premarket notification (510(k)) submissions. The guidance recommends that an assurance case demonstrate mitigation of infusion pump related hazardous situations through analysis of operational, environmental, electrical, hardware, software, mechanical, biological, chemical, and use hazards, as appropriate.
FDA is requesting extension of approval for the information collection requirements contained within an
The respondents to this collection of information are infusion pump manufacturers subject to FDA's laws and regulations.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's estimate of 31 respondents is based on the number of manufacturers of infusion pumps listed in FDA's Registration and Listing database (FURLS). The estimated average burden per response, 112 hours, is based on FDA's expectation of the amount of information that will be contained in the report, on public comment received regarding the burden, on consultation with stakeholders/industry, and on FDA's experience in the creation of an assurance case argument structures for use in the guidance. Our estimate also reflects that some information used to support the assurance case, such as activities conducted under existing design controls, is already covered in another information collection request (OMB control number 0910-0073) and is therefore not included in the burden estimate in this information collection request. The respondents to this collection of information are infusion pump manufacturers.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the notice published January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5579). Submit either electronic or written comments by May 19, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 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
Sandra Benton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6340, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1042, or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
In the
The Agency has received several requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the notice. The requests conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the notice.
FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the notice for 60 days, until May 19, 2017. The Agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on these important issues.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The “Guidance for Industry on Special Protocol Assessment” describes Agency procedures to evaluate issues related to the adequacy (
As described in the guidance, a sponsor interested in Agency assessment of a carcinogenicity protocol should notify the appropriate division in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) of an intent to request special protocol assessment at least 30 days prior to submitting the request. With such notification, the sponsor should submit relevant background information so that the Agency may review reference material related to carcinogenicity protocol design prior to receiving the carcinogenicity protocol.
The guidance asks that a request for special protocol assessment be submitted as an amendment to the investigational new drug application (IND) for the underlying product and that it be submitted to the Agency in triplicate with Form FDA 1571 attached. The guidance also suggests that the sponsor submit the cover letter to a request for special protocol assessment via fax to the appropriate division in CDER or CBER. Agency regulations (21 CFR 312.23(d)) state that information provided to the Agency as part of an IND is to be submitted in triplicate and with the appropriate cover form, Form FDA 1571. An IND is submitted to FDA under existing regulations in part 312 (21 CFR part 312), which specifies the information that manufacturers must submit so that FDA may properly evaluate the safety and effectiveness of investigational drugs and biological products. The information collection requirements resulting from the preparation and submission of an IND under part 312 have been estimated by FDA and the reporting and
FDA suggests that the cover letter to the request for special protocol assessment be submitted via fax to the appropriate division in CDER or CBER to enable Agency staff to prepare for the arrival of the protocol for assessment. The Agency recommends that a request for special protocol assessment be submitted as an amendment to an IND for two reasons: (1) To ensure that each request is kept in the administrative file with the entire IND and (2) to ensure that pertinent information about the request is entered into the appropriate tracking databases. Use of the information in the Agency's tracking databases enables the appropriate Agency official to monitor progress on the evaluation of the protocol and to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken in a timely manner.
The guidance recommends that the following information should be submitted to the appropriate Center with each request for special protocol assessment so that the Center may quickly and efficiently respond to the request:
• Questions to the Agency concerning specific issues regarding the protocol; and
• All data, assumptions, and information needed to permit an adequate evaluation of the protocol, including: (1) The role of the study in the overall development of the drug; (2) information supporting the proposed trial, including power calculations, the choice of study endpoints, and other critical design features; (3) regulatory outcomes that could be supported by the results of the study; (4) final labeling that could be supported by the results of the study; and (5) for a stability protocol, product characterization and relevant manufacturing data.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The guidance recommends that manufacturers of drug and therapeutic biological products and manufacturers of raw materials and components used in those products develop a written Emergency Plan (Plan) for maintaining an adequate supply of medically necessary drug products (MNPs) during an emergency that results in high employee absenteeism. The guidance discusses the issues that should be covered by the Plan, such as: (1) Identifying a person or position title (as well as two designated alternates) with the authority to activate and deactivate the Plan and make decisions during the emergency; (2) prioritizing the manufacturer's drug products based on medical necessity; (3) identifying actions that should be taken prior to an anticipated period of high absenteeism; (4) identifying criteria for activating the Plan; (5) performing quality risk assessments to determine which manufacturing activities may be reduced to enable the company to meet a demand for MNPs; (6) returning to normal operations and conducting a post-execution assessment of the execution outcomes; and (7) testing the Plan. The guidance recommends developing a Plan for each individual manufacturing facility as well as a broader Plan that addresses multiple sites within the organization. For purposes of this information collection analysis, we consider the Plan for an individual manufacturing facility as well as the broader Plan to comprise one Plan for each manufacturer. Based on FDA's data on the number of manufacturers that would be covered by the guidance, we estimate that approximately 70 manufacturers will develop a Plan as recommended by the guidance (
The guidance also encourages manufacturers to include a procedure in their Plan for notifying the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) when the Plan is activated and when returning to normal operations. The guidance recommends that these notifications occur within 1 day of a Plan's activation and within 1 day of a Plan's deactivation. The guidance specifies the information that should be included in these notifications, such as which drug products will be manufactured under altered procedures, which products will have manufacturing temporarily delayed, and any anticipated or potential drug shortages. We expect that approximately two notifications (for purposes of this analysis, we consider an activation and a deactivation notification to equal one notification) will be sent to CDER by approximately two manufacturers each year, and that each notification will take approximately 16 hours to prepare and submit.
The guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. Under the guidance, if a manufacturer obtains information after releasing an MNP under its Plan leading to suspicion that the product might be defective, CDER should be contacted immediately at
In addition, the following collections of information found in FDA current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations in part 211 (21 CFR part 211) are approved under OMB control number 0190-0139. The guidance encourages manufacturers to maintain records, in accordance with the CGMP requirements (see,
In the
We estimate the burden of this information collection as follows:
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 Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on March 29, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this document by March 28, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before March 28, 2017. The
Sheraton College Park North Hotel, Chesapeake Ballroom, 4095 Powder Mill Road, Beltsville, MD 20705. The hotel's telephone number is 301-937-4422. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
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
Lauren D. Tesh, 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-1063. The docket will close on March 28, 2017. Comments received on or before March 24, 2017, will be provided to the committee. 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 special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lauren D. Tesh 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.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 515A(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e-1) requires applicants who submit certain medical device applications to include readily available information providing a description of any pediatric subpopulations that suffer from the disease or condition that the device is intended to treat, diagnose, or cure, and the number of affected pediatric patients. The information submitted will allow FDA to track the number of approved devices for which there is a pediatric subpopulation that suffers from the disease or condition that the device is intended to treat, diagnose, or cure and the review time for each such device application.
These requirements apply to applicants who submit humanitarian device exemption requests (HDEs), premarket approval applications (PMAs) or PMA supplements, or a product development protocol (PDP).
FDA expects to receive approximately 45 original PMA/PDP/HDE applications each year, 5 of which FDA expects to be HDEs. This estimate is based on the average of FDA's receipt of new PMA applications. The Agency estimates that 10 of the estimated 40 original PMA submissions will fail to provide the required pediatric use information and their sponsors will therefore be required to submit PMA amendments. The Agency also expects to receive approximately 700 supplements that will include the pediatric use information required by section 515A(a) of the FD&C Act and part 814 (21 CFR part 814).
All that is required is to gather, organize, and submit information that is readily available, using any approach that meets the requirements of section 515A(a) of the FD&C Act and part 814. We believe that because the applicant is required to organize and submit only readily available information, no more than 8 hours will be required to comply. Furthermore, because supplements may include readily available information on pediatric populations by referencing a previous submission, FDA estimates the average time to obtain and submit the required information in a supplement to be 2 hours. FDA estimates that the total estimated burden is 1,760 hours.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a revision of the 2016-17 Community Mental Health Services Block Grant (MHBG) and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SABG) Plan and Report Guidance and Instructions.
Currently, the SABG and the MHBG differ on a number of their practices (
Increasingly, under the Affordable Care Act, more individuals are eligible for Medicaid and private insurance. This expansion of health insurance coverage will continue to have a significant impact on how State Mental Health Authorities (SMHAs) and Single State Agencies (SSAs) use their limited resources. In 2009, more than 39 percent of individuals with serious mental illnesses (SMI) or serious emotional disturbances (SED) were uninsured. Sixty percent of individuals with substance use disorders whose treatment and recovery support services were supported wholly or in part by SAMHSA block grant funds were also uninsured. A substantial proportion of this population has gained health insurance coverage through Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance. However, coverage provided by these plans and programs do not necessarily provide access to the full range of support services needed to achieve and maintain recovery for most of these individuals and their families.
Given these changes, SAMHSA has conveyed that block grant funds be directed toward four purposes: (1) To fund priority treatment and support services for individuals without insurance or who cycle in and out of health insurance coverage; (2) to fund those priority treatment and support services not covered by Medicaid, Medicare or private insurance offered through the exchanges and that demonstrate success in improving outcomes and/or supporting recovery; (3) to fund universal, selective and indicated prevention activities and services; and (4) to collect performance and outcome data to determine the ongoing effectiveness of behavioral health prevention, treatment and recovery support services and to plan the implementation of new services on a nationwide basis.
To help states meet the challenges of 2018 and beyond, and to foster the implementation and management of an integrated physical health and mental health and addiction service system, SAMHSA must establish standards and expectations that will lead to an improved system of care for individuals with or at risk of mental and substance use disorders. Therefore, this application package includes fully exercising SAMHSA's existing authority regarding states', territories' and the Red Lake Band of the Chippewa Tribe's (subsequently referred to as “states”) use of block grant funds as they fully integrate behavioral health services into the broader health care continuum.
Consistent with previous applications, the FY 2018-2019 application has sections that are required and other sections where additional information is requested. The FY 2018-2019 application requires states to submit a face sheet, a table of contents, a behavioral health assessment and plan, reports of expenditures and persons served, an executive summary, and funding agreements and certifications. In addition, SAMHSA is requesting information on key areas that are critical to the states success in addressing health care integration. Therefore, as part of this block grant planning process, SAMHSA is asking states to identify both their promising or effective strategies as well as their technical assistance needs to implement the strategies they identify in their plans for FYs 2018 and 2019.
To facilitate an efficient application process for states in FYs 2018-2019, SAMHSA convened an internal workgroup to review and modify the application for the block grant planning section. In addition, SAMHSA utilized the questions and requests for clarification from representatives from SMHAs and SSAs to inform the proposed changes to the block grants. Based on these discussions with states, SAMHSA is proposing several changes to the block grant programs as discussed in greater detail below.
The proposed revisions reflect changes within the planning section of the application. The most significant change involves a movement away from a request for multiple narrative descriptions of the state's activities in a variety of areas to a more quantitative response to specific questions, reflecting statutory or regulatory requirements where applicable, or reflecting specific uses of block grant funding. In addition, to respond to the requests from states, the required and requested sections have been clearly identified.
The FY 2016-2017 application sections that gave states policy guidance on the planning and implementation of system issues which were not authorized services under either block grant have been eliminated to avoid confusion. In addition, the statutory criteria which govern the plan, report and application have been included in the document as references.
Other specific proposed revisions are described below:
•
•
States can implement models across a continuum, which have demonstrated efficacy, including the range of services and principles identified by NIMH. Utilizing these principles, regardless of the amount of investment, and with leveraging funds through inclusion of services reimbursed by Medicaid or private insurance, every state will be able to begin to move their system toward earlier intervention, or enhance the services already being implemented.
•
While the statutory deadlines and block grant award periods remain unchanged, SAMHSA encourages states to turn in their application as early as possible to allow for a full discussion and review by SAMHSA. Applications for the MHBG-only is due no later than September 1, 2017. The application for SABG-only is due no later than October 1, 2017. A single application for MHBG
The estimated annualized burden for the uniform application is 33,374 hours. Burden estimates are broken out in the following tables showing burden separately for Year 1 and Year 2. Year 1 includes the estimates of burden for the uniform application and annual reporting. Year 2 includes the estimates of burden for the recordkeeping and annual reporting. The reporting burden remains constant for both years.
Link for the application:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 14, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Towing Safety Advisory Committee will meet in Memphis, Tennessee, to review and discuss recommendations from its Subcommittees and to receive briefs on items listed in the agenda under
The Subcommittees will meet on Tuesday, April 11, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The full Towing Safety Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 12, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. These meetings may close early if the Subcommittees or Committee have completed its business.
All meetings will be held at the Doubletree Hotel by Hilton, 5069 Sanderlin Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38117. The telephone number for the Doubletree Hotel is 800-222-8733. The hotel Web site is:
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the individual listed in
Commandant (CG-OES-2) ATTN: Mr. William J. Abernathy, Towing Safety Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone 202-372-1363, fax 202-372-8387, or email at
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the
Further information about the Towing Safety Advisory Committee is available here:
A copy of each draft report and presentation as well as the meeting agenda will be available at:
On April 11 and 12, 2017, the Towing Safety Advisory Committee and its subcommittees will meet to review, discuss, deliberate, and formulate recommendations, as appropriate, on the following:
Public comments or questions will be taken throughout the meeting as the committee discusses the issues and prior to deliberations and voting. There will also be a public comment period at the end of the meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed in the
To receive automatic email notices of future Towing Safety Advisory Committee meetings in 2017, go to the online docket, USCG-2016-1059(
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before June 13, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1703, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; request for applicants for appointment to the Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy.
The National Fire Academy (Academy) is requesting individuals who are interested in serving on the Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board) to apply for appointment as identified in this notice. Pursuant to the
Applications will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. EST March 30, 2017.
The preferred method of submission is via email. However, applications may also be submitted by mail. Please only submit by ONE of the following methods:
•
•
Kirby Kiefer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, National Fire Academy, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727-8998; telephone 301-447-1117; and email
The Board is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provision of the
Individuals who are interested in serving on the Board are invited to apply for consideration for
The Board shall meet as often as needed to fulfill its mission, but not less than twice each fiscal year to address its objectives and duties. The Board will meet in person at least once each fiscal year with additional meetings held via teleconference. Board members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the Board. All travel for Board business must be approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer. To the extent practical, Board members shall serve on any subcommittee that is established.
FEMA does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. FEMA strives to achieve a diverse candidate pool for all its recruitment actions.
Current DHS employees, contractors, and potential contractors will not be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists will not be considered for membership.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4304-DR), dated February 24, 2017, and related determinations.
Effective February 24, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 24, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Kansas resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of January 13-16, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L. Parker, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Kansas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Barton, Clark, Comanche, Edwards, Ellsworth, Ford, Hodgeman, Jewell, Kiowa, Meade, Ness, Pawnee, Pratt, Rush, Seward, Sheridan, Stafford, and Trego Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Kansas are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Nevada (FEMA-4303-DR), dated February 17, 2017, and related determinations.
Effective February 17, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 17, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Nevada resulting from severe winter storms, flooding, and mudslides during the period of January 5-14, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Rosalyn L. Cole, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Nevada have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
The counties of Douglas, Lyon, Storey, and Washoe; the independent city of Carson City; and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Nevada are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.3 dual community.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The St. Joseph Museums, Inc., in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., at the address in this notice by April 14, 2017.
Trevor Tutt, St. Joseph Museums, Inc., P.O. Box 8096, St. Joseph, MO 64508, telephone (816) 232-8471, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., St. Joseph, MO, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 1942, seven unassociated funerary objects were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., by William M. Wyeth, having been removed from the King Hill site (23BN1) in Buchanan County, MO. The site was known to be a burial mound. The seven unassociated funerary objects are 2 celts; 1 stone implement; 1 projectile point; 1 knife; 1 hoe; and 1 shell necklace.
In 1951, three unassociated funerary objects were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., by Claude Madison, having been removed from the King Hill site (23 BN 1) in Buchanan County, MO. The site was known to be a burial mound. The three unassociated funerary objects are 1 scraper or knife and 2 axe heads.
In June of 1981, four unassociated funerary objects were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., by Lester Watkins, having been removed from the King Hill site (23 BN 1) in Buchanan County, MO. The site was known to be a burial mound. The four unassociated funerary objects are 4 shell tempered pot sherds.
In May of 1982, 97 unassociated funerary objects were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., having been removed from the King Hill site (23 BN 1) in Buchanan County, MO. The site was known to be a burial mound. The 97 unassociated funerary objects are 8 stone artifacts, 1 shell, 8 scrapers, 19 pottery sherds, 26 projectile points, 4 grind stones, 3 handles, 28 animal bones.
In September of 1992, four unassociated funerary objects were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., by Bobby Sipes, having been removed from the King Hill site (23 BN 1) in Buchanan County, MO. The site was known to be a burial mound. The four unassociated funerary objects are 3 projectile points and 1 drill.
In 1995, four unassociated funerary objects were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., having been removed from the King Hill site (23 BN 1) in Buchanan County, MO. The site was known to be a burial mound. The four
In 1999, 105 unassociated funerary objects were donated to the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., as part of the Shippee Collection, having been removed from the King Hill site (23 BN 1) in Buchanan County, MO; site 23 CP 1 in Cooper County, MO; and sites 23 PL 1, 23 PL 20, 23 PL 21 A, 23 PL 25, 23 PL 29, 23 PL 30, 23 PL 38, 23 PL 4, and 23 PL 6 in Platte County, MO. The sites were known to be burial mounds, but no human remains were donated in affiliation with these sites. The 105 unassociated funerary objects are 9 stones, 31 pottery sherds, 5 scrapers or knives, 1 pumice, 25 projectile points, 16 pieces of rock and plant samples, 1 lead nugget, 2 metate, 2 manos, 1 bag of hammer stones, 1 chopper, 5 boxes and 1 sack of pottery sherds, 1 bag of bones, 2 artifacts, 2 abraders.
Officials of the St. Joseph Museums, Inc., have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 224 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; and The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Trevor Tutt, St. Joseph Museums, Inc., P.O. Box 8096, St. Joseph, MO 64508, telephone (816) 232-8471, email
The St. Joseph Museums, Inc., is responsible for notifying the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; and The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before February 18, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by March 30, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before February 18, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The New York State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and objects to the Period of Significance and the area of significance of the nominated property. The National Register of Historic Places will address the objection in a subsequent
The New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the nomination and responded to the
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, at the address in this notice by April 14, 2017.
Michael W. Kieron, Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, 100 Elmwood Avenue, Providence, RI 02907, telephone (401) 680-7248, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, six cultural items were removed from the Mix Cave site (PU 93) in Pulaski County, MO, by Mr. and Mrs. Edward H. Nadeau. The six unassociated funerary objects are 5 potsherds and 1 worked white-tailed deer ulna. The objects were donated to the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, by Mr. and Mrs. Nadeau on January 23, 1933. The objects are all labeled “Mix Cave, Pulaski Co., Mo.” They were given the catalog number E2706 and the accession number 8918. The objects were part of a collection of 50 lots of American Indian objects and geological specimens collected in the 1920s by the Nadeaus. No other records related to this donation have been located.
Following an examination by representatives of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) in January 2016, the Osage Nation and the museum concurred that the objects are unassociated funerary objects. The Osage Nation considers the Mix Cave site (PU 93) a sacred site and a burial located on Osage ancestral lands.
Officials of the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 6 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Michael W. Kieron, Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, 100 Elmwood Avenue, Providence, RI 02907, telephone (401) 680-7248, email
The Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.
30-Day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements
You must submit comments by April 14, 2017.
Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email (
• Electronically go to
• Email
Nicole Mason, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1607, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to
In addition to the general rulemaking authority of the OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334, section 301(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 30 U.S.C. 1751(a), grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out FOGRMA's provisions. While the majority of FOGRMA is directed to royalty collection and enforcement, some provisions apply to offshore operations. For example, section 108 of FOGRMA, 30 U.S.C. 1718, grants the Secretary broad authority to inspect lease sites for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance with the mineral leasing laws. Section 109(c)(2) and (d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 1719(c)(2) and (d)(1), impose substantial civil penalties for failure to permit lawful inspections and for knowing or willful preparation or submission of false, inaccurate, or misleading reports, records, or other information. Because the Secretary has delegated some of the authority under FOGRMA to BSEE, 30 U.S.C. 1751 is included as additional authority for these requirements.
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's implementing policy, BSEE is required to charge fees for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those which accrue to the public at large. Applications for permits to modify approvals are subject to cost recovery, and BSEE regulations specify service fees for these requests.
These authorities and responsibilities are among those delegated to BSEE. The regulations at 30 CFR 250 stipulate the various requirements that must be submitted with form BSEE-0124, Application for Permit to Modify (APM). The form and the numerous submittals that are included and/or attached to the form are the subject of this collection. This request also covers any related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations.
The changes to the form in this ICR include updating the citations listed under No. 18; as well as, adding several additional questions (G through M) pertaining to shearing data, BOP testing, casing pressure issues, etc. Responses are mandatory and no questions of a sensitive nature are asked. The BSEE will protect any confidential commercial or proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR 2); section 26 of OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1352); 30 CFR 250.197,
The BSEE uses the information on the APM form (BSEE-0124) to ensure the well completion, workover, and decommissioning unit is fit for the intended purpose; equipment is maintained in a state of readiness and meets safety standards; each well completion, workover, and decommissioning crew is properly trained and able to promptly perform well-control activities at any time during well operations; and compliance with safety standards. The current regulations provide for safe and proper field or reservoir development, resource evaluation, conservation, protection of correlative rights, safety, and environmental protection. We also review well records to ascertain whether the operations have encountered hydrocarbons or H2S and to ensure that H2S detection equipment, personnel protective equipment, and training of the crew are adequate for safe operations in zones known to contain H2S and zones where the presence of H2S is unknown. The information on the form is as follows:
To comply with the public consultation process, on September 22, 2106, we published a
60-Day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) concerns a renewal to the paperwork requirements in the regulations under subpart A,
You must submit comments by May 15, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods listed below.
• Electronically go to
• Email
Nicole Mason, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1607, to request additional information about this ICR.
In addition to the general rulemaking authority of the OCS Lands Act at 43 U.S.C. 1334, section 301(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 30 U.S.C. 1751(a), grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out FOGRMA's provisions. While the majority of FOGRMA is directed to royalty collection and enforcement, some provisions apply to offshore operations. For example, section 108 of FOGRMA, 30 U.S.C. 1718, grants the Secretary broad authority to inspect lease sites for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance with the mineral leasing laws. Section 109(c)(2) and (d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 1719(c)(2) and (d)(1), impose substantial civil penalties for failure to permit lawful inspections and for knowing or willful preparation or submission of false, inaccurate, or misleading reports, records, or other information. Because the Secretary has delegated some of the authority under FOGRMA to BSEE, 30 U.S.C. 1751 is included as additional authority for these requirements.
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's implementing policy, BSEE is required to charge fees for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those which accrue to the public at large. A request for approval required in 30 CFR 250.171 is subject to cost recovery, and BSEE regulations specify service fees for these requests in 30 CFR 250.125.
Regulations implementing these responsibilities are among those delegated to BSEE. The regulations at 30
The BSEE uses the information collected under the subpart A regulations to ensure that operations on the OCS are carried out in a safe and pollution-free manner, do not interfere with the rights of other users on the OCS, and balance the protection and development of OCS resources. Specifically, we use the information collected to:
• Review records of formal crane operator and rigger training, crane operator qualifications, crane inspections, testing, and maintenance to ensure that lessees/operators perform operations in a safe and workmanlike manner and that equipment is maintained in a safe condition. The BSEE also uses the information to make certain that all new and existing cranes installed on OCS fixed platforms must be equipped with anti-two block safety devices, and to assure that uniform methods are employed by lessees for load testing of cranes.
• Review welding plans, procedures, and records to ensure that welding is conducted in a safe and workmanlike manner by trained and experienced personnel.
• Provide lessees/operators greater flexibility to comply with regulatory requirements through approval of alternative equipment or procedures and departures to regulations if they demonstrate equal or better compliance with the appropriate performance standards.
• Ensure that injection of gas promotes conservation of natural resources and prevents waste.
• Record the agent and local agent empowered to receive notices and comply with regulatory orders issued.
• Provide for orderly development of leases through the use of information to determine the appropriateness of lessee/operator requests for suspension of operations, including production.
• Improve safety and environmental protection on the OCS through collection and analysis of accident reports to ascertain the cause of the accidents and to determine ways to prevent recurrences.
• Ascertain when the lease ceases production or when the last well ceases production in order to determine the 180th day after the date of completion of the last production. The BSEE will use this information to efficiently maintain the lessee/operator lease status.
• Allow lessees/operators who exhibit unacceptable performance an incremental approach to improving their overall performance prior to a final decision to disqualify a lessee/operator or to pursue debarment proceedings through the execution of a performance improvement plan (PIP). The subpart A regulations do not address the actual process that we will follow in pursuing the disqualification of operators under §§ 250.135 and 250.136; however, our internal enforcement procedures include allowing such operators to demonstrate a commitment to acceptable performance by the submission of a PIP.
The forms associated with this information collection request are as follows:
The BSEE Environmental Compliance Division has decided to discontinue use of BSEE Form-0011,
Form BSEE-1832,
Form BSEE-0132,
Form BSEE-0143,
Most responses are mandatory, while others are required to obtain or retain benefits, or are voluntary. No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. The BSEE protects information considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197,
Agencies must also estimate the non-hour paperwork cost burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have other non-hour burden costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. For further information on this burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and (2), or contact the Bureau representative listed previously in this notice.
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.
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 investigations Nos. 701-TA-570 and 731-TA-1346 (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 aluminum foil from China, provided for in subheadings 7607.11.30, 7607.11.60, 7607.11.90, and 7607.19.60 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 alleged to be subsidized by the government of China. 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.
Justin Enck ((202) 205-3363), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these 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.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-564 and 731-TA-1338-1340 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey, provided for in subheadings 7213.10.00, 7214.20.00, and 7228.30.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized by the government of Turkey and sold at less-than-fair-value from Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey.
March 2, 2017.
Joanna Lo ((202) 205-1888), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the 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.
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by May 15, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Ericka Parker by telephone at 202-693-3208, TTY 1-877-889-5627 (these are not toll-free numbers), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-4519, Washington, DC 20210; by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure 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 can be properly assessed.
Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act requires a state's unemployment insurance UI law to include provisions for:
Such methods of administration . . . as are found by the Secretary of Labor to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due . . .
Section 303(a)(5) of the Social Security Act further requires a state's UI law to include provisions for:
Expenditure of all money withdrawn from an unemployment fund of such State, in the payment of unemployment compensation . . .
Section 3304(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides that:
The Secretary of Labor has interpreted the above sections of federal law in Section 7511, Part V, ES Manual to further require a state's UI law to include provisions for such methods of administration as are, within reason, calculated to: (1) Detect benefits paid through error by the State Workforce
The ETA 227 contains data on the number and amounts of fraud and non-fraud overpayments established, the methods by which overpayments were detected, the amounts and methods by which overpayments were collected, the amounts of overpayments waived and written off, the accounts receivable for overpayments outstanding, and data on criminal/civil actions. These data are gathered by 53 SWAs and reported to the Department of Labor following the end of each calendar quarter. The overall effectiveness of SWAs' UI integrity efforts can be determined by examining and analyzing the data. These data are also used by SWAs as a management tool for effective UI program administration.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Reemployment of UI Benefit Recipients.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by May 15, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Valerie Rodall by telephone at 202-693-3194, TTY 1-877-889-5627 (these are not toll-free numbers), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-4519, Washington, DC 20210; by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure 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 can be properly assessed.
Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department's Strategic Plan is an integral part of the budget process. Among the purposes of the GPRA are to improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by focusing on program results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.
Strategic Objective 4.1 in the Department's fiscal year (FY) 2014-2018 Strategic Plan is to provide income support when work is impossible or unavailable and facilitate return to work, which focuses on improving the operational performance and effectiveness of the Federal/state UI program. This goal is supported in part by the performance measure indicating the percentage of UI claimants reemployed by the end of the first quarter after the quarter in which they received their initial first UI benefit payment. ETA collects the data to measure the facilitation of
ETA has also included UI reemployment as a performance measure for UI Performs, the Department's performance management system for the UI program. Per UI Program Letter (UIPL) No. 17-08 (May 14, 2008), Acceptable Levels of Performance (ALP), the minimum performance criteria for UI Performs Core Measures are set annually for each state. The ALPs take into account a state's total unemployment rate and the percentage of UI claimants who are exempt from active work search or Employment Service (ES) registration requirements because they are job-attached. Analyses of the data indicate that UI reemployment is strongly related to these two factors.
Each calendar quarter, states report on the ETA 9047 report separate counts for individuals receiving their first UI payments who are exempt from active work search or ES registration requirements, in most cases because they are job-attached with definite recall dates, and those not exempt from active work search or ES registration requirements.
States also report on the ETA 9047 report the number of those first payment recipients for whom intrastate or out-of-state employers reported wages in the subsequent quarter. States obtain these counts by crossmatching the Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of claimants who received UI first payments with the UI wage records for the subsequent calendar quarter. ETA issued instructions on obtaining out-of-state reemployment data through matching the SSNs of UI first payment recipients with UI wage records in the National Directory of New Hires in UIPL No. 1-06, Change 1 (August 2, 2006).
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by May 15, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documents; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Corey Pitts by telephone at 202-693-3357, TTY 1-877-889-5627 (these are not a toll-free numbers), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or request a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-4524, Washington, DC 20210; by email at:
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to
Section 3304(a)(9)(B), of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, requires states to participate in an arrangement for combining employment and wages covered under the different state laws for the purpose of determining unemployed workers' entitlement to unemployment compensation. The Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages for combined wage claims (CWC), promulgated at 20 CFR 616, requires the prompt transfer of all relevant and available employment and wage data between states upon request. The Benefit Payment Promptness Standard, 20 CFR 640, requires the prompt payment of unemployment compensation including benefits paid under the CWC arrangement. The ETA 586 report provides the ETA/Office of Unemployment Insurance with information necessary to measure the scope and effect of the CWC program and to monitor the performance of each state in responding to wage transfer data requests and the payment of benefits.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Agency: DOL-ETA.
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
1.
2.
A. This Order repeals and supersedes Secretary's Order 05-2009 (Delegation and Assignment of Responsibilities to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management).
B. The following Secretary's Order is referenced herein and remains in effect: 2-2009 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Chief Acquisition Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, and Related Matters).
C. This Order does not affect the authorities and responsibilities assigned by any other Secretary's Order, including without limitation 9-1989 (Data Integrity Board), 5-2001 (MRB), 1-2006 (Emergency Management) and 6-2006 (Regional Executive Committees), unless otherwise expressly so provided in this or another Order.
3.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
1. Voluntary Health and Wellness Programs:
a.
b.
c.
2.
J.
K.
L.
4.
5.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
6.
A.
1. Overseeing the preparation of the Department's strategic plans, performance plans and performance reports consistent with statutory and OMB requirements and directions.
2. Directing the preparation of responses to OIG reports regarding top management challenges.
3. Soliciting, procuring and overseeing studies by independent entities evaluating the impact and effectiveness of Departmental programs.
B.
1. Serving as the Designated Agency Safety and Health Official (DASHO)
2. Ensuring appropriate policy development, planning, implementation, coordination, and evaluation of the Department-wide safety, occupational health and workers' compensation program; securing the services of full-time professional staff qualified to provide technical assistance and training in the areas of safety (including ergonomics), industrial hygiene, and workers' compensation, and return-to-work services.
3. Ensuring that the Department's Office of Worker Safety and Health provides operational safety and occupational health services to agencies within the Department that do not perform these functions internally.
C.
1. Serving as the Department's Senior Real Property Officer (SRPO) and, as such, developing policy and implementing an asset management planning process that meets the form, content and other requirements established by the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC).
2. As SRPO, monitoring the real property assets of the Department so that Departmental assets are managed consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the Department's strategic plan prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 306, the principles developed by the FRPC, and reflected in the Department's asset management plan, and such other duties and responsibilities incumbent upon the SRPO.
3. Consistent with legal authorities, including agreements and other arrangements with the General Services Administration and with other applicable lease documents relating to buildings in which the Department is the primary tenant, assuring the operation and maintenance of the Frances Perkins Building and other Departmental buildings in which the Department is the primary tenant—or has received delegated authority from the General Services Administration for operations and maintenance—including making arrangements for appropriate cleaning, utilities, fire and life safety arrangements, security arrangements, office space assignments, any parking areas (including space assignments), mail service, duplication services, building space alterations, any abatement work as appropriate.
D.
1. Developing policy and directives for the Department of Labor regarding compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and any regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act.
2. Monitoring, investigating, and enforcing the provisions of the statute and regulations mentioned in paragraph a, above, with respect to the accessibility of buildings and facilities constructed, altered, or renovated by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient of Federal financial assistance, except for those facilities referred to in Paragraph 7.A., below relating to the Employment and Training Administration.
3. Serving as the Department's Accessibility Compliance Officer.
E.
F.
1. In consultation with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), establishing, administering, and managing the Department's Records Management Program.
2. Periodically evaluating the Department's Records Management Program to ensure that the Department's component agencies are in compliance with relevant Federal records management laws, regulations, and procedures related to the creation, maintenance and use, and disposition of Federal records, and agency recordkeeping requirements. Evaluations shall be scheduled to cover all agencies on a five-year cycle on an on-going basis. Records management program evaluations shall assess the effective implementation of the basic components of a records management program, as prescribed by NARA regulations and policies.
3. Assigning a Departmental Records Officer who will manage the day-to-day administration and management of all matters related to the Department's Records Management Program. The Departmental Records Officer shall be responsible for all matters related to the Department's Records Management Program and will coordinate with the National Archives and Records Administration.
G.
1. Overseeing the operation of a headquarters printing service and determining the duplicating and printing for the Department and its agencies, including making arrangements for scheduling and delivery to meet Departmental needs and notifying agencies of changes in printing operations.
2. Formulating policy and supervising operations relating to Departmental printing, duplicating, copying, centralized mailing and distribution and related equipment programs in the National Office and the regions.
3. Implementing and guiding enforcement within the Department of all Government printing, binding, duplication, and related laws and regulations.
4. Exclusively representing, directly or through a delegee, the Department with the Joint Committee on Printing on all matters pertaining to printing.
5. Exercising technical control over all copying, printing, binding, publishing, and related or auxiliary equipment and serving as the technical or final approving authority for all requests.
H.
1. Serving as the Department's Environmental Executive and, as such, providing management oversight of all Department environmental programs, including ensuring compliance with relevant Executive Orders, and coordinating such efforts with the Chief Acquisition Officer.
2. Establishing model facility demonstration programs that include comprehensive waste reduction and recycling programs and emphasizing the procurement of recycled materials and environmentally preferable products and services.
3. Designating a Department of Labor Recycling Coordinator who shall be responsible for: (a) Coordinating the development of an effective agency waste reduction and recycling program, and the affirmative procurement plan developed in accordance with OFPP guidelines, (b) coordinating Departmental action to develop benefits, costs and savings data to measure the effectiveness of the DOL program, and (c) coordinating the development of reports required by Executive Order and OFPP policy.
I.
J.
K.
L.
1. Providing appropriate services to the child care providers located in the FPB, the BLS building and at any regional buildings where child care services are provided within Departmental offices.
2. Establishing, administering and managing the Department's child care subsidy program in accordance with all statutory, regulatory and administrative requirements.
M.
1. The ASAM will work in consultation and coordination with, as appropriate, the other Departmental officials who have authority and responsibility in the areas addressed by this order, including without limitation the Chief Acquisition Officer, the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer.
2. The ASAM will perform any additional duties that are assigned to the ASAM by applicable law or regulation.
7.
A.
B.
1.
2.
a. Giving full management support to the Department's safety, occupational health and workers' compensation program as provided in this Order and assuring that identified hazards are abated.
b. Operating occupational safety and occupational health programs in their national and field offices in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory, administrative, and contractual requirements.
c. Appointing and arranging training for sufficient numbers of staff throughout their organizations to perform collateral or full-time safety/occupational health duties and to serve on safety/occupational health committees to assist managers, employees and full-time safety/health staff in the implementation of the responsibilities outlined in this Order.
d. Providing documentation of attainment of the Department's annual safety/health and workers' compensation program goals developed to reduce employee accidents, injuries and illnesses, and contain workers' compensation costs.
e. Holding managers, supervisors and employees accountable for their adherence to established safety/health policies, rules, regulations, and procedures, especially their participation in agency Accident Review Boards (ARBs) and safety and health training.
f. Providing employees appropriate personal protective and safety/occupational health equipment.
g. Conducting analyses of Agency jobs and ensuring that all workplaces are surveyed to identify and eliminate or minimize possible ergonomic risk factors.
h. Acquiring, to the extent practicable, tools, equipment and computer accessory furniture that is adjustable and adaptable to those using them.
i. Assuring that agency employees participate in educational and training experiences necessary to carry out their assigned duties in a safe and healthful manner.
j. Assuring, through partnership with appropriate unions, that employee representatives have the opportunity to participate in educational training experiences necessary to carry out their responsibilities.
3.
4.
a. Developing and implementing effective Records Management Programs within their respective organizations that are consistent with Departmental policy and directives.
b. Assigning an Agency Records Officer for the management and execution of the Agency's Records Management Program.
c. Ensuring that the appropriate Agency staff receives adequate records management training and participates in Departmental as well as Agency training and awareness activities.
5.
6.
a. Promoting waste reduction and recycling of reusable materials within their agencies;
b. Requiring consideration of the following factors in acquisition planning for all agency procurement actions, and in the evaluation and award of contracts: Elimination of virgin material requirements; use of recovered materials; reuse of products; life cycle costs; recyclability; environmental preferability; waste prevention; and ultimate disposal, if appropriate;
c. Developing and implementing an agency plan for energy conservation through changes in procurement practices, investment in energy efficient technology, and reduction of demand;
d. Designating an Agency Recycling Coordinator to coordinate the development of an effective agency waste reduction and recycling program, and emphasize agency purchase and use of recycled and environmentally preferable products and services;
e. Providing data and information on agency activity for incorporation into Departmental reports;
f. Designating facility energy supervisors in Department operated facilities and ensuring a sufficient number of trained energy managers throughout the Department to implement the provisions of law and regulation relating to energy and water conservation;
g. Where programs include a project or activity involving construction or leasing of property, ensuring that the responsible program manager conducts an environmental assessment; and, analyzes findings of environmental assessments and makes final decisions regarding the significance of environmental consequences;
7.
8.
a. Establishing agency procedures necessary to carry out the provisions of the law, regulation and Departmental directives relating to commercial services management.
b. Designating an agency official as the central point of contact for commercial services management and ensuring the timely and appropriate completion of required activities and notices.
8.
9.
A. The submission of reports and recommendations to the President and the Congress is reserved to the Secretary.
B. This Secretary's Order does not affect the authorities and responsibilities of the Office of Inspector General under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, or under Secretary's Order 4-2006.
10.
11.
To delegate authority and assign responsibilities for implementation of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and related legislation.
1. Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended (Pub. L. 101-576).
2. Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-255).
3. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62).
4. Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-356).
5. Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-106, Division E).
6. Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-208, Title VIII).
7. Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-531).
8. Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-300).
9. Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-289).
10. 29 U.S.C. 563, 563a, and 564, authorizing the Working Capital Fund at the Department of Labor.
11.
12. OMB Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control (July 15, 2016).
13. OMB Circular No. A-134, Financial Accounting Principles and Standards (May 20, 1993).
14.
15. Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508, Title VIII), as amended.
16. Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
17. Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
18. 31 U.S.C. Chapter 11.
1. Secretary's Order 04-2009 is superseded and canceled.
2. This Order does not affect Secretary's Order 14-2006, Internal Control Program (June 20, 2006).
3. All references to the Office of the Comptroller, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM), in Secretary's Orders, DLMS Chapters, and other Departmental issuances shall be considered to refer to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
4. Directives inconsistent with this Order are rescinded to the extent of the inconsistency.
The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as part of overall Federal financial management reforms, mandated the establishment of a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Deputy Chief Financial Officer in all Cabinet-level Federal agencies, including the Department of Labor (DOL). The CFO is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and by statute reports directly to the Secretary. The Deputy CFO is a career-reserved position in the Senior Executive Service who reports directly to the CFO. The CFO heads the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), which has such component organization units, staffing, and funding as are authorized.
As specified in the CFO Act, at 31 U.S.C. 902, and as detailed in Paragraph 5 of this Order, the Chief Financial Officer is delegated authority to oversee the financial management functions of the Department.
A. As required by the CFO Act, the CFO shall—
1. Report directly to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary regarding financial management matters;
2. Oversee all financial management activities relating to the programs and operations of the Department;
3. Develop and maintain an integrated Departmental accounting and financial
a. Complies with applicable accounting principles, standards, and requirements, and internal control standards;
b. Complies with such policies and requirements as may be prescribed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
c. Complies with any other requirements applicable to such systems; and
d. Provides for—
1. Complete, reliable, consistent, and timely information which is prepared on a uniform basis and which is responsive to the financial information needs of Departmental management;
2. The development and reporting of cost information;
3. The integration of accounting and budgeting information; and
4. The systematic measurement of financial performance;
4. Make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the selection of the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the Department, who will have the qualifications outlined in the CFO Act at 31 U.S.C. 903;
5. Direct, manage, and provide policy guidance and oversight of Departmental financial management personnel, activities, and operations, including—
a. The preparation and annual revision of a Departmental plan to—
1. Implement the 5-year financial management plan prepared by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under 31 U.S.C. 3512(a)(3); and
2. Comply with the requirements for financial statements and audits established under 31 U.S.C. 3515, 3521(e), and 3521(f);
b. The development of Departmental financial management budgets;
c. The recruitment, selection, and training of personnel to carry out Departmental financial management functions;
d. The approval and management of Departmental financial management systems design or enhancement projects;
e. The implementation of Departmental asset management systems, including systems for cash management, credit management, debt collection, and property and inventory management and control;
f. Prepare and transmit an annual report to the Secretary and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, consistent with the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-136, which shall include—
1. A description and analysis of the status of financial management of the Department;
2. The annual financial statements prepared under 31 U.S.C. 3515;
3. The audit report transmitted to the Secretary under 31 U.S.C. 3521(
4. A summary of the reports on internal accounting and administrative control systems submitted to the President and the Congress under the amendments made by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-255); and
5. Other information the Secretary considers appropriate to fully inform the President and the Congress concerning the financial management of the Department;
6. Monitor the financial execution of the budget of the Department in relation to actual expenditures and prepare and submit to the Secretary timely financial performance reports; and
7. Review, on a biennial basis, the fees, royalties, rents, and other charges imposed by the Department for services and things of value it provides, and make recommendations on revising those charges to reflect costs incurred by it in providing those services and things of value.
B. The CFO will have the following additional responsibilities:
a. Issuing policy guidance and instructions to prepare the Department's performance budgets for internal decision-making, for OMB, and for the Congress.
b. Reviewing and analyzing agency budget requests to the Department.
c. Reviewing, analyzing, consolidating and packaging all Departmental budget submissions to the OMB and Congress to ensure technical accuracy and conformance with established policy.
d. Coordinating all information developed in support of budget requests to OMB and to Congress.
e. Providing staff support in preparing lead Departmental representations for press briefings and Congressional hearings on the Department's budget.
f. Assisting the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs in coordinating the preparation of briefing materials for the Secretary and Agency heads.
g. Issuing policy guidance and instructions on the preparation of apportionments.
h. Monitor the financial execution of the budget of the Department in relation to actual expenditures, and prepare and submit to the Secretary timely financial performance reports.
i. Provide leadership, direction, coordination, and related services concerning budget execution for the Department and its component agencies.
j. Participate with Departmental Agency heads and other staff at a policy and decision-making level in the Departmental budget execution review process.
k. Review the budget requests for all Departmental and component agency financial management functions; recommend to the Secretary their modification as necessary to ensure that appropriate resources are requested to effectively and efficiently perform necessary financial and related functions.
l. Promote the development and reporting of cost information in support of the systematic measurement of performance in appropriate budget documents.
m. Manage and oversee the Department's administrative control of funds from the time funds are allotted to the DOL agencies.
a. Develop and promulgate accounting and financial management policies for DOL and its component agencies, and review and approve component agency financial policies, procedures, and structures for adherence to the policies of DOL and other Federal agencies.
b. Ensure compliance throughout DOL, and its component agencies, with applicable accounting standards and principles, and financial information and system functional standards, including the standards promulgated by the Federal Accounting Systems Advisory Board, the Federal Government's Standard General Ledger, the core requirements for financial systems, and the financial statement form and content guidance issued by OMB.
c. Exercise overall responsibility for the Department's compliance with FMFIA and for the Department's fiscal integrity; serve on the Department's Internal Control Board; report directly to the Secretary on internal control matters; carry out the responsibilities specified in Secretary's Order 14-2006, Internal Control Program, for the CFO and the Internal Control Principal for financial systems and mixed systems that are significantly financial.
d. Ensure adequate controls are in place over asset management, including cash management operations, credit management and debt collection operations, and real property, equipment, and inventories.
e. Participate with Departmental Agency heads and other staff in the policy review of proposed legislative
f. Ensure that component agencies gather timely and accurate financial information to manage and oversee major procurements.
g. Develop policies and procedures for investigating potential violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act; working under policies established by the CFO, and in cooperation with the ASAM and the Solicitor of Labor, notify the Secretary of Anti-Deficiency Act violations, and transmit agency reports of Anti-Deficiency Act violations to the Secretary for transmittal to the President, Congress, OMB, and the Government Accountability Office, as applicable.
. Review and approve the design and operation of component agency financial, accounting, and asset systems, specifically including the financial aspects of grant management systems, debt collection systems, and other systems defined by FFMIA.
a. Provide oversight of, and issue core requirements and standards related to, component agency financial systems, activities, and operations, including preparation and revision of agency financial management plans and financial performance reports.
b. In coordination with the ASAM, establish policies, procedures, and other guidelines to prescribe the form, content, and frequency of accounting information to be reported from component agency systems to meet DOL and central Federal agency information requirements.
c. Participate in the review and approval process of information systems that provide, at least in part, financial and/or program performance data.
d. In consultation with the Chief Information Officer (CIO), ensure that the accounting, financial, asset management, and other information systems of the Department are designed, developed, maintained, and used effectively to provide financial or program performance data for financial statements of the Department.
e. Ensure, in consultation with the CIO, that program information systems provide financial, budget, and programmatic data on a reliable, consistent and timely basis to agency financial management systems.
f. Recommend to the Secretary any information resource management and budget decisions affecting financial management processes, systems, and operations.
g. Consult with the CIO to ensure sufficient oversight and security exist to maintain the integrity of information systems that affect the preparation and presentation of the Department's financial statements.
. Prepare the financial management components of the annual Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for transmittal to the Secretary and the Director of OMB. The PAR will meet the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-136, and shall include, in part—
1. A description and analysis of the status of financial management of the Department;
2. The Department's annual financial statements and accounting reports, including, where appropriate, pertinent performance measures;
3. The audit report transmitted to the Secretary;
4. The annual report required to be submitted to the President and the Congress under the FMFIA;
5. The report required by the Improper Payments Information Act;
6. The Management Assurance Statement required by OMB Circular No. A-123;
7. The annual financial management report required by the Chief Financial Officers Act; and
8. Other information the Secretary considers appropriate to fully inform the President and the Congress concerning the financial management of the Department.
a. Prepare the semi-annual audit resolution reports required by the Amendments to the Inspector General Act.
b. Coordinate and manage financial management reporting requirements as may be imposed by OMB, the Department of the Treasury, other central Federal agencies, and Congress.
c. In coordination with the ASAM and Agency heads, develop reporting mechanisms that integrate program performance and financial data, and facilitate the display of such data in budget documents, financial statements, and other pertinent communications.
d. In consultation with the CIO, ensure financial statements support:
1. Assessments and revisions of mission-related and administrative processes of the Department; and
2. Measurement of the performance of investments made by the Department in information systems.
. Provide oversight of, and issue core requirements and standards related to, component agency financial management personnel.
a. Provide policy advice and assistance to DOL executives, including component agency heads, on all personnel matters affecting financial management personnel throughout the DOL and its component agencies, and on budget and staffing levels for component agency financial functions.
b. Review all proposed personnel selections, skill requirements, performance standards, and position descriptions for financial management personnel at the GS-15 level and above throughout the DOL and its component agencies; discuss any problems with the component agency head and appeal any unresolved issue to the Secretary through the Deputy Secretary.
c. Manage a comprehensive training and development program for budget analysts, accountants, financial managers, and financial technicians; ensure that staff skills are commensurate with requirements; and implement a Continuing Professional Education (or similar) program.
. Manage Departmental programs on audit resolution, travel management, cash management, debt collection, asset management, and financial management activities.
a. Manage centralized Departmental accounting functions for fund and cost accounting, capitalized assets accounting, grant accounting, DOL employee compensation and benefits, and voucher, commercial bill, and other payments.
b. Exercise Departmental approval authority over interagency transactions involving component agency program funds, such as for investment or transfer.
c. Establish and chair a CFO Advisory Council within DOL to provide a forum for component organizations to advise and support the CFO in matters affecting the financial community. The Advisory Council will facilitate the dissemination of financial policies established by the CFO to component agencies.
d. Maintain and operate a Working Capital Fund (WCF) and related accounts offering, as appropriate and advantageous to the Department, a comprehensive program of centralized services funded by customer agency reimbursements in advance that:
1. Ensures customer agencies access to meaningful information on the full costs of those centralized services, conditions for usage, and the cost allocation formulas employed in the lawful distribution of annual charges against the respective agency appropriation accounts; and
2. Ensures, through the creation and regular convening of a Working Capital Fund Committee, the opportunities for meaningful and informed customer agency participation or representation in reviewing WCF activities, costs, and charges, and in recommending changes or improvements to the CFO.
3. Is operated on the basis of agency reimbursement agreements between customers and service providers and timely cost assessments and related adjustments for services provided or offered.
e. Provide technical reviews of finance offices in the DOL and its component agencies, and oversee component agency financial systems as defined in the FFMIA.
f. Appraise centralized and decentralized operations and organizations to determine more effective and cost-efficient methods of performing required financial functions.
g. Serve as the Department's Improper Payment Reduction Coordinator, with responsibilities including, but not limited to:
1. Coordinating the establishment of policies and procedures for assessing Departmental, component agency, and program risks of improper payments;
2. Coordinating Departmental, component agency, and program management actions to reduce improper payments. These duties include:
i. Assigning responsibility for specific areas of improper payment-related activities to appropriate component agency, program, or activity officials;
ii. Coordinating the development of detailed action plans to determine the nature and extent of possible improper payments for all DOL programs and activities spending Federal funds;
iii. Assisting component agency and program management in identifying cost-effective control activities to address identified risk areas;
iv. Assisting component agency and program management in establishing improper payment reduction goals or targets and measuring performance against those goals to determine progress made and areas needing additional action;
v. Developing procedures for working with OMB and the Congress to address barriers encountered that inhibit actions to reduce improper payments; and
vi. Coordinating periodic reporting, through publicly available documents, to the Secretary, OMB, and the Congress on the progress made in achieving improper payment reduction targets and future action plans for controlling improper payments; and
3. Providing a quarterly status report to the Deputy Secretary on Departmental activities to identify and reduce improper payments.
C. In addition to the authority otherwise provided in this Order, the CFO—
1. Shall have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material which are the property of the Department or which are available to the Department, and which relate to programs and operations with respect to which the CFO has responsibilities;
2. May request such information or assistance as may be necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities provided by this Order from any Federal, State, or local governmental entity; and
3. To the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, may—
a. Enter into contracts and other arrangements with public agencies and with private persons for the preparation of financial statements, studies, analyses, and other services; and
b. Make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Order.
A. Unless modified by this Order, the heads of component Agencies retain previously delegated responsibilities and authority. In the context of the Department's financial management program, they are specifically charged with the responsibility to—
1. In consultation with the CFO and the CIO, define program information needs and develop strategies, systems, and capabilities to meet those needs.
2. Perform transaction and operational level financial functions in accordance with policies, requirements, and procedures established by the CFO.
3. Direct financial staffs and functions in their respective component agencies consistent with those policies and procedures established by the CFO.
4. Facilitate the CFO's oversight responsibilities with respect to financial operations and component agency program financial systems by providing and maintaining system documentation, audit trails, summary or detailed transaction data, and such other information as the CFO may require.
5. Fully solicit, consider, and cooperate with the CFO in the review of proposed appointment, promotion, and other personnel actions affecting financial management staff at the GS-15 level and above.
6. Manage grants, procurement, property, debt management/accounts receivable, and other management systems for their respective component agencies, in a manner consistent with the CFO's responsibilities prescribed in this Order.
B. Agency Heads are delegated authority and assigned responsibility for:
1. Budget
a. In accordance with established policies and guidelines, developing agency budget proposals for the budget years for consideration during the internal decision process and for the Department's submission to OMB based on the Secretary's decisions.
b. Providing information in support of budget proposals, through the ASAM or identified designee, for the OMB submission and Budget Justifications for Congress.
c. Ensuring information provided in the agency budget is consistent with the Department's strategic plan and performance requirements.
d. Meeting with OMB staff and testifying before Congress to expand upon and answer questions pertaining to the Department's budget request in support of their respective agency programs.
C. The Inspector General—
1. Retains full responsibility for previously delegated budget and financial management activities pertaining to his or her own office, but will participate with the CFO in integrating such delegated assignments with the overall financial management program of the Department.
2. Will participate, where appropriate, in joint reviews with the CFO of selected financial management functions, operations, and systems.
3. Will participate with the CFO in the resolution of audit issues, findings, and recommendations, including those involved in the annual financial statements, consistent with its statutory responsibilities for managing an audit program.
D. The Solicitor of Labor is responsible for providing legal advice and assistance to the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, CFO, Working Capital Fund Committee established pursuant to paragraph 5 above, and all other Department of Labor officials who are assigned responsibilities for implementation of this Order, except as provided in Secretary's Order 4-2006 with respect to the Office of Inspector General.
In consonance with the assignments of responsibility above, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer shall ensure that the Agency Administrative Officers are apprised of communications to
A. Unless otherwise stated in this Order, the submission of reports and recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the administration of statutory or administrative provisions is reserved to the Secretary.
B. Except as provided in Paragraph (5)(D)(1), this Order does not provide to the CFO any access greater than permitted under any other law to records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material of the Office of Inspector General.
Unless provided otherwise in this or another Secretary's Order, the authority delegated in this Order may be redelegated or transferred, as permitted by law or regulation.
This Order is effective immediately.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of SGS North America, Inc., for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 30, 2017.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. SGS requests the addition of two test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
SGS currently has nine facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: SGS North America, Inc. 620 Old Peachtree Road, Suwanee, Georgia 30024. A complete list of SGS's scope of recognition is available at
SGS submitted an application, dated May 28, 2014 (OSHA-2006-0040-0032), to expand its recognition to include two additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in SGS's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
SGS submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent information, indicate that SGS can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these two test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of SGS's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether SGS meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-3508, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant SGS's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials EGS (IAPMO) for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 30, 2017.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials EGS (IAPMO) is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. IAPMO requests the addition of four test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
IAPMO currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials EGS, 5001 East Philadelphia Street, Ontario, CA 91761. A complete list of IAPMO's scope of recognition is available at
On January 12, 2016, IAPMO submitted an application to expand its recognition to include eight additional test standards (OSHA-2013-0030-0006). OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packed and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA also performed an on-site review of IAPMO's testing facility on March 1-2, 2016, in which assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. IAPMO addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application to expand IAPMO's recognition to include four of the eight requested standards.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in IAPMO's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
IAPMO submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, other pertinent documentation, and its detailed on-site assessment indicate that IAPMO can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these four test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of IAPMO's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether IAPMO meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office,
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant IAPMO's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC).
Thursday, March 30, 2017, 1:00-5:30 p.m.; and Friday, March 31, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. All times are Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 9H40 (Program Review Center), 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Marla King, NAC Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1148.
This meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the toll-free number 1-888-957-9873 or toll number 1-210-234-0004, numeric passcode: 4568996, followed by the # sign, on both days. If dialing in, please “mute” your phone. To join via WebEx, the link is
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with driver's licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, and Washington. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees that are U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to provide full name and citizenship status 3 working days in advance. Information should be sent to Ms. Marla King via email at
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification request received and permit issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated and permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification and permit issued.
March 9, 2017-September 1, 2021.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
The Foundation issued a permit (ACA 2017-019) to Jerry McDonald, Principal in Charge, Leidos Innovations Group, Antarctic Support Contract, on October 30, 2016. The issued permit allows the permit holder entry into five Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) in the Antarctic Peninsula region. The Antarctic Support Contractor's staff provides routine logistics support in the transport of science teams and supporting personnel, and in field camp put-in and take-out. Entry into an ASPA would occur only to support a science project for which a permit has been issued. Entry needs and requirements will be reviewed by ASC Environmental
Now the applicant proposes a permit modification to enter APSA No. 126 (Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island) for the purposes described in this permit. The Environmental Officer has reviewed the modification request and has determined that the amendment is not a material change to the permit, and it will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43, issued to DTE Electric Company (DTE), for operation of the Fermi, Unit 2. The proposed amendment revises technical specifications (TS) for emergency core cooling system (ECCS) instrumentation (TS 3.3.5.1) and reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system instrumentation (TS 3.3.5.2). The proposed changes add footnotes indicating that the injection functions of “Drywell Pressure—High” for high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI) and “Manual Initiation” for HPCI and RCIC are not required to be operable under low reactor pressure conditions.
Submit comments by April 14, 2017. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by May 15, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0072 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:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Sujata Goetz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8004, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0072 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-2017-0072 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NFP-43, issued to DTE, for operation of the Fermi, Unit 2, located in Monroe County, Michigan. The proposed amendment requests modification of the TSs for emergency core cooling system (ECCS) instrumentation (TS 3.3.5.1) and reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system instrumentation (TS 3.3.5.2). The proposed changes add footnotes indicating that the injection functions of “Drywell Pressure—High” for HPCI and “Manual Initiation” for HPCI and RCIC are not required to be operable under low reactor pressure conditions.
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes involve the addition of clarifying footnotes to the HPCI [High Pressure Cooling Injection] and RCIC [Reactor Core Isolation Cooling] actuation instrumentation TS [Technical Specification] to reflect the as-built plant design and operability requirements of HPCI and RCIC instrumentation as described in the Fermi 2 UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
HPCI is an initiator of the increase in reactor coolant inventory accident in UFSAR (Reference 7.1) Section 15.5.1. However, the accident assumes inadvertent manual startup of HPCI. The change being requested in this amendment is administrative in nature and does not make any changes to the HPCI system or procedures that would increase the probability for inadvertent manual startup of HPCI. RCIC is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. In addition, the manual initiation of HPCI and RCIC are not credited to mitigate the consequences of design basis accidents or transients within the current Fermi 2 design and licensing basis and automatic actuation of the HPCI system on the high drywell pressure signal is not required for the HPCI to perform its system safety functions in mitigating the consequences of a LOCA initiating at low reactor pressure.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes do not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes have no adverse effect on plant operation. The plant response to the design basis accidents does not change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 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 notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the 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. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:
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 this action, see the application for license amendment dated February 23, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, NRC Form 536, “Operator Licensing Examination Data.”
Submit comments by May 15, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0219 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-2016-0219 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(a) All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors under the provision of title 10 of the
(b) All holders of, or applicants for, a limited work authorization, early site permit, or combined licenses issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approval for Nuclear Power Plants.”
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.25, “Assessment of Abnormal Radioactive Discharges in Ground Water to the Unrestricted Area at Nuclear Power Plant Sites,” as a new guide (Revision 0). The guide describes an approach that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in assessing abnormal discharges of radionuclides in ground water from the subsurface to the unrestricted area at commercial nuclear power plant sites.
Revision 0 to RG 4.25 is available on March 15, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0272 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:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Thomas Nicholson, telephone: 301-415-2471, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 0 of RG 4.25 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-4025. The guide is being issued to provide guidance to licensees on acceptable methods to determine the quantity of licensed material (
The DG-4025 was published in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Regulatory Guide 4.25 describes a method that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable for assessing abnormal, inadvertent radioactive releases which may result in discharges of contaminated ground water from the subsurface to the unrestricted area at commercial nuclear power plant sites. Issuance of this RG does not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this RG, the NRC has no current intention to impose this guide on holders of current operating licenses or combined licenses.
This RG may be applied to applications for operating licenses, combined licenses, early site permits, and certified design rules docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final regulatory guide, as well as future applications submitted after the issuance of the regulatory guide. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in the Backfit Rule or be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants or potential applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by the Backfit Rule or the relevant issue finality provisions in part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
Washington, DC.
Closed.
1. Strategic Issues.
2. Financial Matters.
3. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
4. Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Temporary Emergency Committee governance.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This Advance Notice consists of amendments to FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (the “GSD Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FICC has received feedback that the proposed rule change seeks to address a risk that is not reasonable given the current structure of the short-term tri-party repurchase market (“repo”) in U.S. Government securities. Commenters have explained that a committed liquidity tool such as CCLF is unnecessary because the repo market remained robust during periods of historical market stress and would continue to adequately perform during the next crisis. They have also noted that U.S. Treasury securities continue to be considered a “risk-free” instrument.
While FICC believes that historical market behavior allows market participants to observe trends in the repo market, FICC also believes that the adoption of CCLF would better position FICC to protect itself and its Netting Members should the repurchase financing market materially contract in the future. Additionally, the proposed rule change would adhere to the Commission's Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) which requires FICC to maintain sufficient liquid resources to effect same-day settlement of payment obligations in the event of a default of the participant family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
FICC has also received feedback that the proposed rule change would create concentration risk by forcing smaller Netting Members to clear through large financial institutions or exit the business. Commenters have explained that the funding obligation under the CCLF proposal may significantly impact their available capital or operating profiles. As a result, the CCLF proposal may force certain Netting Members to (1) clear through other financial institutions or (2) terminate their membership with FICC and engage in bilateral arrangements.
FICC values each Netting Member and does not wish to force any Netting Member to clear through larger Netting Members or exit the business as a result of this proposed rule change. However, FICC believes that all Netting Members should endeavor to maintain suitable capital to meet FICC's enhanced participation requirements so that such Members do not have to clear through larger financial institutions or exit the business. Because each Netting Member is in the best position to monitor and manage the liquidity risks presented by its own activity, FICC believes that Netting Members should endeavor to manage their own liquidity. In an effort to enable each Netting Member to prepare for its liquidity funding obligation, FICC would provide a liquidity funding report to each Netting Member on a daily basis. This report would enable each Netting Member to prepare for its maximum funding obligations and alter its trading behavior should it desire to minimize the liquidity risk that it presents to FICC.
FICC is cognizant that Netting Members would need to incorporate their respective funding obligation into their internal liquidity plans and evaluate the appropriate course of action for their firm based on the economic impact that such Netting Members believe the funding obligation imposes. Given the added liquidity cost, as noted in the feedback, FICC would implement the proposed rule change 12 months after the later date of the Commission's no objection of this Advance Notice filing or its approval of FICC's related proposed rule change (“Rule Filing”). During this 12-month period, FICC would periodically provide Netting Members with estimates of their Individual Total Amounts. The deferred implementation and the estimate Individual Total Amounts are designed to give Netting Members the opportunity to assess the impact of their Individual Total Amount on their business profile and make any changes that such Netting Members deem necessary to lower their respective allocation.
As noted above, FICC understands that Netting Members must be able to plan for their funding obligations. At the same time, FICC also believes that it is critical that Netting Members understand the risks that their own activity presents to FICC, and be prepared to monitor their own activity and alter their behavior in order to minimize the liquidity risk they present to FICC.
FICC is proposing to amend the GSD Rules to include CCLF, which would be a rules-based committed liquidity facility designed to help ensure that FICC maintains sufficient liquid financial resources to meet its cash settlement obligations in the event of a default of the Affiliated Family to which FICC has the largest exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions, as required by Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).
FICC occupies an important role in the securities settlement system by interposing itself as a central counterparty between Netting Members that are counterparties to transactions cleared by GSD (“GSD Transactions”), thereby reducing the risk faced by Netting Members.
CCLF would only be invoked if FICC declared a “CCLF Event,” that is, if FICC has ceased to act for a Netting Member in accordance to GSD Rule 22A
Following a default, FICC would first obtain liquidity through other available liquid resources, as described above. If and only if, FICC determines that these sources of liquidity are not able to generate sufficient cash to pay the non-defaulting Netting Members, FICC would declare a CCLF Event by issuing an Important Notice informing all Netting Members of FICC's need to make such a declaration and enter into CCLF Transactions, as necessary.
During a CCLF Event, FICC would meet its liquidity need by initiating CCLF Transactions with non-defaulting Netting Members. Each CCLF Transaction would be governed by the terms of the September 1996 Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Master Repurchase Agreement,
Each Netting Member would be obligated to enter into CCLF Transactions up to a capped dollar amount. FICC would first identify the non-defaulting Netting Members that are obligated to deliver securities destined for the defaulting Netting Member (“Direct Affected Members”) and FICC's cash payment obligation to such Direct Affected Member that FICC would need to finance through CCLF to cover the defaulting Netting Member's failure to deliver cash (the “Financing Amount”). FICC would notify each Direct Affected Member of its Financing Amount and whether such Direct Affected Member should deliver to FICC or suppress any securities that were destined for the defaulting Netting Member. FICC would then initiate CCLF Transactions with each Direct Affected Member for its purchase of the securities (the “Financed Securities”) that were destined for the defaulting Netting Member.
If any Direct Affected Member's Financing Amount exceeds its Individual Total Amount (the “Remaining Financing Amount”), FICC would advise (A) each other Direct Affected Member whose Financing Amount is less than its Individual Total Amount, and (B) each Netting Member that has not otherwise entered into CCLF Transactions with FICC (the “Indirect Affected Members,” and together with the Direct Affected Members, “Affected Members”) that FICC intends to initiate CCLF Transactions with them for the Remaining Financing Amount.
The order in which FICC would enter into CCLF Transactions for the Remaining Financing Amount would be based upon the Affected Members that have the most funding available within their Individual Total Amounts. No Affected Member would be obligated to enter into CCLF Transactions greater than its Individual Total Amount.
During a CCLF Event, FICC would engage its investment advisor subject to the approval of its Board and seek to minimize liquidation losses on the Financed Securities through hedging, strategic dispositions, or other investment transactions as determined by FICC under relevant market conditions. Once FICC completes the liquidation of the underlying securities by selling them to a new buyer, FICC would instruct the Affected Member to close the repo trade and deliver the Financed Securities to FICC to complete settlement on the contractual settlement date of the liquidating trade. FICC would endeavor to unwind the CCLF Transactions based on the order that it enters into the Liquidating Trades. Each CCLF Transaction would remain open until the earlier of (x) such time that FICC has liquidated the Affected Member's Financed Securities, (y) such time that FICC has obtained liquidity through its available liquid resources or (z) 30 or 60 calendar days after entry into the CCLF Transaction for U.S. government bonds and mortgage-backed securities, respectively.
The original GSD Transactions, which FICC is obligated to settle, are independent from the CCLF Transactions. The proposed rule change would clarify that, under the original GSD Transaction, FICC's obligation to pay cash to a Direct Affected Member, and the Direct Affected Member's obligation to deliver securities, would be deemed satisfied by entry into CCLF Transactions, and that such settlement would be final.
As noted above, FICC would only enter into CCLF Transactions with a Netting Member in an amount that is up to such Netting Member's maximum funding obligation. This amount would be based on each Netting Member's observed peak historical liquidity need. Initially, FICC would calculate the Netting Member's peak historical liquidity need based on a six-month look-back period.
FICC's liquidity need during a CCLF Event would be determined by the cash settlement obligations presented by the default of a Netting Member and an Affiliated Family. FICC would include an additional amount (
Listed below are the steps that FICC would take to size and allocate each Netting Member's CCLF requirement.
FICC's historical liquidity need for the six-month look-back period would be an amount equal to the dollar amount of the largest sum of an Affiliated Family's obligation to receive GSD eligible securities plus the net dollar amount of its Funds-Only Settlement Amount
The Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement would be based on the largest Affiliated Family's activity during a six-month look-back period. However, FICC is cognizant that the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement would not account for changes in a Netting Member's current trading behavior, which may result in a liquidity need that is greater than the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement. As a result, FICC proposes to add an additional amount to the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement as a buffer (the “Liquidity Buffer”) to arrive at FICC's anticipated total liquidity need for GSD during a CCLF Event.
Under the proposed rule change, the Liquidity Buffer would be 20% to 30% of the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement, subject to a minimum amount of $15 billion. FICC believes that 20% to 30% of the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement is appropriate based on its analysis of the calculated coefficient of variation
FICC would have the discretion to adjust the Liquidity Buffer based on its analysis of the stability of the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement over the look-back periods of 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-months. Should FICC observe changes in the stability of the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirements, FICC would have the discretion to increase the six-month look-back period to help ensure that the calculation of its liquidity need appropriately accounts for variability in the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement. This would help FICC to ensure that its liquidity resources are sufficient under a wide range of potential market scenarios that may lead to a change in Netting Member behavior. FICC would also analyze the trading behavior of Netting Members that present larger liquidity needs than the majority of the Netting Members (as described below).
FICC's anticipated total liquidity need during a CCLF Event (
After FICC determines the Aggregate Total Amount, which initially would be set to the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement plus the greater of 20% of the Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement or $15 billion. FICC would allocate the Aggregate Total Amount among Netting Members in order to arrive at each Netting Member's Individual Total Amount. FICC would take a two-tiered approach in its allocation of the Aggregate Total Amount. First, FICC would determine the portion of the Aggregate Total Amount that should be allocated among all Netting Members (“Aggregate Regular Amount”). Then, FICC would allocate the remainder of the Aggregate Total Amount (the “Aggregate Supplemental Amount”) among Netting Members that incur liquidity needs above the Aggregate Regular Amount within the six-month look-back period. FICC believes that this two-tiered approach reflects FICC's consideration of fairness, transparency and the burdens of the funding obligations on each Netting Member's management of its own liquidity.
Under the proposed rule change, FICC would set the Aggregate Regular Amount at $15 billion. FICC believes that this amount is appropriate because FICC observed that from 2015 to 2016, the average Netting Member's liquidity need was approximately $7 billion, with a majority of Netting Members' liquidity needs not exceeding an amount of $15 billion.
Under the proposal, the Aggregate Regular Amount would be allocated among all Netting Members, but Netting Members with larger Receive Obligations would be required to contribute a larger amount. FICC believes that this approach is appropriate because a defaulting Netting Member's Receive Obligations are the primary cash settlement obligations that
Initially, FICC would assign a 20% weighting percentage to a Netting Member's aggregate Deliver Obligations (the “Deliver Scaling Factor”) and the remaining percentage difference, 80% in this case, to a Netting Member's aggregate Receive Obligations (“Receive Scaling Factor”). FICC would have the discretion to adjust these scaling factors based on a quarterly analysis that would, in part, assess Netting Members' observed liquidity needs that are at or below $15 billion. This assessment would ensure that the Aggregate Regular Amount would be appropriately allocated across all Netting Members.
FICC would calculate a Netting Member's portion of the Aggregate Regular Amount (its “Individual Regular Amount”) by adding (a) and (b) below.
(a) FICC would (x) divide the absolute value of a Netting Member's peak Receive Obligations by the absolute value of the sum of all Netting Members' peak Receive Obligations, then (y) multiply such resulting value by the Aggregate Regular Amount, then (z) multiply the resulting value by the Receive Scaling Factor (which would initially be 80%).
(b) FICC would (x) divide the absolute value of a Netting Member's peak Deliver Obligations by the absolute value of the sum of all Netting Members' peak Deliver Obligations, then (y) multiply such resulting value by the Aggregate Regular Amount, then (z) multiply the resulting value by the Deliver Scaling Factor (which would initially be 20%).
The remainder of the Aggregate Total Amount (
FICC would allocate the Aggregate Supplemental Amount across liquidity tiers (“Liquidity Tiers”). The allocation to each Liquidity Tier would be based on how many times (
FICC would set the Liquidity Tiers in $5 billion increments. FICC believes that this increment would appropriately distinguish Netting Members that present the highest liquidity needs on a frequent basis and allocate more of the Individual Supplemental Amount to Netting Members in the top Liquidity Tiers. Increments set to an amount greater than $5 billion would provide FICC with less ability to allocate the Aggregate Supplemental Amount to Netting Members with the highest liquidity needs.
FICC would have the discretion to reduce any one or all of the Liquidity Tiers to $2.5 billion if FICC determines that the majority of the Netting Members' liquidity needs in such Liquidity Tiers are above or below the midpoint of the Liquidity Tier.
Once the Liquidity Tiers are set, FICC would first allocate the Aggregate Supplemental Amount to each Liquidity Tier in proportion to the total number of observations across all Liquidity Tiers. Next, FICC would allocate the Individual Supplemental Amount to each Netting Member in accordance with each Netting Member's liquidity needs within each Liquidity Tier. This allocation would be based on such Netting Member's number of observations within each Liquidity Tier in proportion to the aggregate of all Netting Member's observations within a particular Liquidity Tier. The sum of a Netting Member's allocation across all Liquidity Tiers would be such Netting Member's Individual Supplemental Amount.
FICC would sum each Netting Member's Individual Regular Amount and its Individual Supplemental Amount (if any) to arrive at such Netting Member's Individual Total Amount.
Table 1 includes the actual values FICC would set for each step described above, as of January 1, 2017.
The example in Table 2 reflects the allocation of the CCLF size for a hypothetical Netting Member. This example is based on a six-month look-back period of July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.
As described above, the Aggregate Total Amount and each Netting Member's Individual Total Amount (
• Peak daily liquidity need for the largest Affiliated Family;
• the Liquidity Buffer;
• the Aggregate Regular Amount;
• the Aggregate Supplemental Amount;
• the Deliver Scaling Factor and the Receive Scaling Factor used to allocate the Aggregate Regular Amount;
• the increments for the Liquidity Tiers; and
• the length of the look-back period and the reset period for the Aggregate Total Amount.
In the event that any changes to the above-referenced parameters result in an increase in a Netting Member's Individual Total Amount, such increase would be effective as of the next reset.
Additionally, on a daily basis, FICC would examine the Aggregate Total Amount to ensure that such amount is sufficient to satisfy FICC's liquidity needs. If FICC determines that the Aggregate Total Amount is insufficient to satisfy its liquidity needs, FICC may modify the length of the look-back or reset periods or otherwise increase the Aggregate Total Amount.
Any increase in the Aggregate Total Amount resulting from the Liquidity Product Risk Unit's quarterly assessments or FICC's daily monitoring would be subject to the approvals, as set forth in Table 3 below.
If FICC increases a Netting Member's Individual Total Amount as a result of its daily monitoring, such increase will not be effective until ten (10) Business Days after FICC provides an Important Notice regarding the increase.
If FICC determines that its liquidity needs may be satisfied with a lower Aggregate Total Amount, a reduction in the Aggregate Total Amount would be reflected at the conclusion of the reset period.
The CCLF proposal would become operative 12 months after the later date of the Commission's no objection of this Advance Notice and its approval of the Rule Filing. During this 12-month period, FICC would periodically provide each Netting Member with estimated Individual Total Amounts. The delayed implementation and the estimated Individual Total Amounts are designed to give Netting Members the opportunity to assess the impact that the CCLF proposal would have on their business profile.
Prior to the effective date, FICC would add a legend to the GSD Rules to state that the specified changes to the GSD Rules are approved but not yet operative and to provide the date such approved changes would become operative. The legend would also include the file numbers of this Advance Notice and the approved Rule Filing and would state that once operative, the legend would automatically be removed from the GSD Rules.
As of the implementation date and annually thereafter, FICC would require that each Netting Member attest that its Individual Total Amount has been incorporated into its liquidity plans.
In addition to the above, on a quarterly basis, FICC's Counterparty Credit Risk Management group would conduct due diligence to assess each Netting Member's ability to meet its Individual Total Amount. This due diligence would include a review of all information that the Netting Member has provided FICC in connection with its ongoing reporting obligations pursuant to the GSD Rules and a review of other publicly available information. Additionally, FICC would test its operational procedures for invoking a CCLF Event. Pursuant to GSD Rule 3 Section 6, Netting Members would be required to participate in such tests. If a Netting Member fails to participate in such testing when required by FICC, FICC may take disciplinary measures as set forth in GSD Rule 3 Section 7.
FICC understands that each Netting Member must be able to evaluate the risks of its membership and plan for its funding obligations. Additionally, FICC believes that it is critical that each Netting Member understands the risks that its activity presents to FICC, and that each Netting Member should be prepared to monitor its activity and alter its behavior in order to minimize the liquidity risk that it presents to FICC. Accordingly, on each Business Day, FICC would make a liquidity funding report available to each Netting Member that would include the following:
1. The Netting Member's Individual Total Amount, Individual Regular Amount and, if applicable, its Individual Supplemental Amount;
2. FICC's Aggregate Total Amount, Aggregate Regular Amount and Aggregate Supplemental Amount; and
3. FICC's regulatory liquidity requirements as of the prior Business Day.
The liquidity funding report would be provided for informational purposes only. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, upon a CCLF Event, each Netting Member would be required to enter into CCLF Transactions having an aggregate purchase price up to its Individual Total Amount as calculated by FICC.
In order to help effectuate the proposed changes, FICC proposes to add the following defined terms to the GSD Rule 1: Affected Member; Aggregate Regular Amount; Aggregate Supplemental Amount; Aggregate Total Amount; CCLF Event; CCLF MRA; CCLF MRA Termination Date; CCLF Transaction; Deliver Scaling Factor; Direct Affected Member; Financed Securities; Financing Amount; Historical Cover 1 Liquidity Requirement; Indirect Affected Member; Individual Regular Amount; Individual Supplemental Amount; Individual Total Amount; Liquidating Trade; Liquidity Buffer; Liquidity Need; Liquidity Percentage; Liquidity Tier; Look-Back Period; Observation; Receive Scaling Factor; Relative Inter-Tier Frequency; Relative Intra-Tier Frequency; Relevant Securities; Remaining Financing Amount; Required Attestation; and SIFMA MRA.
FICC is proposing to amend Rule 22A to include a new section in this Rule. This new section would be entitled “Section 2a.” Proposed Section 2a would incorporate the CCLF MRA into the GSD Rules subject to the amendments proposed therein. In addition, the proposed section would include (1) the notification process that
FICC believes that the proposed change to amend the GSD Rules to include the CCLF, a committed liquidity resource in the event of a Netting Member default, would provide FICC with sufficient committed liquid financial resources to meet the cash settlement obligations of a defaulting Netting Member.
FICC's proposed change comprises a rules-based committed liquidity facility that is designed to help ensure that FICC maintains sufficient liquid financial resources to meet its cash settlement obligations of a Netting Member. This change would affect FICC's management of risk because it would provide additional liquidity resources if FICC could not to obtain sufficient liquidity from GSD's Clearing Fund, by entering into repurchase transactions using securities in the Clearing Fund or securities that were destined to the defaulting Netting Member, or through uncommitted bank loans with its Clearing Agent Banks. Thus, the proposed change would enhance FICC's risk management capabilities because it provide committed liquidity resources from its Netting Members based on each Netting Member's observed peak historical liquidity need.
FICC has also managed the effect of the overall proposal by conducting extensive outreach with Netting Members regarding the proposed changes, educating such Members on reasons for these proposed changes, and explaining the importance of this proposal to FICC's overall risk management functions. FICC has invited all Netting Members to customer forums in an effort to provide transparency regarding the changes and the expected impact across the membership, and has provided each Netting Member with an individual impact study. In addition, FICC's Financial Risk Management team and Relationship Management team have been available to answer all questions. Such communication gives Netting Members the opportunity to manage any impact to their own risk profile.
In an effort to help Netting Members further manage the effect of this proposal, FICC would delay the implementation of the CCLF proposal as described above. During the 12-month implementation period, FICC would periodically provide each Netting Member with estimated Individual Total Amounts. The delayed implementation and the estimated Individual Total Amounts are designed to give Netting Members the opportunity to assess the impact that the CCLF proposal would have on their business profile.
The proposed changes, which have been described in detail above, would be consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) requires a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the participant family to which it has the largest exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions.
Commission Rule 17Ad-22(d)(9) requires a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures to provide market participants with sufficient information for them to identify and evaluate the risks and costs associated with using its services.
Commission Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) which was recently adopted by the Commission, will require FICC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by FICC, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity.
Commission Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) will require FICC to maintain sufficient liquid resources to effect same-day settlement of payment obligations in the event of a default of the participant family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for the covered clearing agency in extreme but
Commission Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) will require FICC to hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to satisfy payment obligations owed to clearing members.
Commission Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(iv) will require FICC to undertake due diligence that confirms that it has a reasonable basis to believe each of its liquidity providers has: (a) Sufficient information to understand and manage the liquidity provider's liquidity risks; and (b) the capacity to perform as required under its commitments to provide liquidity.
Additionally, Commission Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(v) will require FICC to maintain and test with each liquidity provider, to the extent practicable, FICC's procedures and operational capacity for accessing its relevant liquid resources.
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the Advance Notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance Notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018(a) to adopt two new credits provided to a member for displayed quotes/orders that provide liquidity.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 7018(a), concerning the fees and credits provided for the use of the order execution and routing services of the Nasdaq Market Center by members for all securities priced at $1 or more that it [sic] trades. The Exchange is proposing to adopt two new credits provided to a member for displayed quotes/orders that provide liquidity. Currently under Rules 7018(a)(1)-(3), the Exchange provides credits ranging from $0.0015 per share executed to $0.00305 per share executed to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) if they qualify by meeting the requirements of the various credit tiers under the rules.
The Exchange is proposing to provide a new credit to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) under Rule 7018(a), which will apply to securities of all three Tapes
The Exchange is proposing to provide a new credit to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) under Rule 7018(a), which will apply to securities of all three Tapes under Rule 7018(a)(1)-(3). Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to provide a $0.0026 per share executed to a member for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity if the member: (i) Has shares of liquidity provided in securities that are listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represents [sic] at least 800,000 shares a day on average during the month, and (ii) doubles the daily average share volume provided in securities that are listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs during the month versus the member's daily average share volume provided in securities that are listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE in January 2017.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the $0.0027 per share executed credit of the proposed credit tier is reasonable because it is consistent with other credits that the Exchange provides to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity. As a general principle, the Exchange chooses to offer credits to members in return for market improving behavior. As noted above, the Exchange provides credits ranging from $0.0015 per share executed to $0.00305 per share executed to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders), and the Exchange applies progressively more stringent requirements in return for higher per share executed credits. Accordingly, the $0.0027 per share executed credit is reasonable.
The proposed $0.0027 per share executed credit tier is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because it is similar to other credit tiers provided under Rule 7018(a). The proposed credit will be provided to members that not only
The Exchange currently provides a $0.0027 per share executed credit to a member with shares of liquidity accessed in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.65% of Consolidated Volume during the month, and (ii) with shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume during the month. The proposed credit tier requires the member to access less liquidity and provide more liquidity, as measured by Consolidated Volume, but also requires the member to additionally maintain a significant level of non-displayed liquidity. Moreover, since a member achieving this credit tier will be both accessing and providing liquidity, the proposed credit tier will benefit other members by encouraging more liquidity on the Exchange, as well as increasing the likelihood that members [sic] resting limit orders may be accessed by members seeking to attain this credit tier. The Exchange seeks to encourage such behavior. As a consequence, the Exchange believes that the proposed credit tier is comparable to the existing credit and therefore an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory. Last, the Exchange believes the new credit is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because it is one of many possible means by which a member may qualify for a credit for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) under Rule 7018(a).
The Exchange believes that the $0.0026 per share executed credit of the proposed credit tier is reasonable because it is consistent with other credits that the Exchange provides to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity. As noted above, the Exchange provides credits ranging from $0.0015 per share executed to $0.00305 per share executed to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders), and the Exchange applies progressively more stringent requirements in return for higher per share executed credits. Accordingly, the $0.0026 per share executed credit is reasonable.
The proposed $0.0026 per share executed credit tier is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with other credits provided under Rule 7018(a). The proposed credit will be provided to members that have shares of liquidity provided in securities that are listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE through one or more of its [sic] Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represents at least 800,000 shares a day on average during the month and also doubles the daily average share volume provided in securities that are listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE through one or more of its [sic] Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs during the month versus the member's daily average share volume provided in securities that are listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE in January 2017. The Exchange notes that requiring a member to increase its participation in Tape B securities as measured by its daily average share volume compared to its daily average share volume in the month of January 2017 will ensure that the member [sic] increasing its participation in the market in securities that are listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE. The Exchange is also requiring the member provide a significant level of liquidity [sic] provided in securities that are listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represents at least 800,000 shares a day on average. The Exchange does not currently have a credit under Rule 7018(a) that measures a member's eligibility for a credit based on activity compared to a prior month's activity; however, the Exchange does use a benchmark date against which performance is measured under the Nasdaq Growth Program.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed new credits provided to a member for execution of securities of each of the three Tapes do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The proposed changes are designed to reward market-improving behavior by providing two new credit tiers based on various measures of such behavior, which may encourage other market venues to provide similar credits to improve their market quality. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impose any burden on competition, but may rather promote competition.
In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule to enhance its pricing for orders executed at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”) by: (i) Adopting new fee codes MM and MT; (ii) modifying footnote 2 to reflect new fee codes MM and MT; and (iii) adding two new tiers under new footnote 13, entitled “Midpoint Add and Remove Tiers.”
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to add two new fee codes, MM and MT. Fee code MM would be appended to non-displayed orders that
In addition, the Exchange proposes to expand the volume requirements for fee codes HA
The Exchange proposes to amend footnote 2 of the fee schedule to state that the Exchange will assess a charge of $0.0030 per share for Member' orders that yield fee codes MM or MT in securities over $1.00 and a fee of 0.30% of the dollar value of the transaction for Members' orders that yield Flags MM or MT in securities priced below $1.00 where Members do not satisfy the volume requirement of the footnote 2. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to revise footnote 2 to state, “[r]ates for fee codes HA and HR, MM and MT are contingent upon Member adding or removing an ADV of at least 1,000,000 shares non-displayed (hidden) (yields fee codes HA, HR, DM, DT, MM, MT and RP) or Member adding an ADV of at least 8,000,000 shares (displayed and non-displayed). For securities priced at or above $1.00, Members not meeting either minimum will be charged $0.0030 per share for fee codes HA, and HR, MM and MT. For securities priced below $1.00, Members not meeting either minimum will be charged 0.30% of the dollar value of the transaction.”
The Exchange proposes to offer two additional tiers under a new footnote 13 of the fee schedule, entitled “Midpoint Add and Remove Tiers.” Under proposed Tier 1, orders that yield new fee codes MM or MT would be charged a reduced fee of $0.0006 per share where the Member has an ADV
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee schedule March 1, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
Lastly, the Exchange further believes that the proposed Midpoint Add and Remove tiers which would provide a reduced fee for orders that yield fee codes MM or MT where that Member satisfies certain ADV requirements in orders yielding fee codes MM or MT will further incentivize Members entering orders seeking an execution at the midpoint of the NBBO. In sum, the proposed tiers are designed to promote functionality and, in particular, to attract liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing additional trading opportunities at the midpoint of the NBBO and increased price improvement opportunities.
In addition, volume-based rebates such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by equities and options exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns; and (iii) the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that the proposed tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates, because it will provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on the Exchange.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change provides pricing incentives that will enhance competition amongst exchange [sic] for orders eligible to execute at the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or from pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 6, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series to specify continued listing requirements for ETPs listed under those rules, which include products listed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act (“generically-listed products”) and products listed pursuant to proposed rule changes filed with the Commission (“non-generically-listed products”).
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series to specify issuer notification requirements related to failures to comply with continued listing requirements. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.2(b) to require an issuer with securities listed under Rule 5.2 or Rule 8 to promptly notify the Exchange after the issuer becomes aware of any non-compliance by the issuer with the applicable continued listing requirements of Rule 5.2, Rule 5.5, or Rule 8.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 5.5(m) to specify the delisting procedures for products listed under the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series. According to the Exchange, listed ETPs are currently subject to the delisting procedures in Rule 5.5(m). The Exchange notes that, under Rule 5.5(m), it has the discretion to offer non-compliant issuers the opportunity to submit a plan to regain compliance.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming and technical changes throughout the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series to maintain consistency in its rules. For example, the Exchange proposes to consistently use the language “initiate delisting proceedings under Rule 5.5(m)” when describing the delisting procedures for a product that fails to meet continued listing requirements;
The Exchange proposes to implement the rule changes by October 1, 2017.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission received nine comment letters that express concerns regarding the proposal.
The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act. As the Commission previously stated, the development, implementation, and enforcement of standards governing the initial and continued listing of securities on an exchange are activities of critical importance to financial markets and the investing public.
With respect to commenters' concerns regarding the inability of certain ETFs to assure compliance with the proposal, the Commission believes that a variety of means are available to ETP (including ETF) issuers to monitor for a product's compliance with the continued listing standards. For example, information regarding the composition of a third party index may be publicly available, or may be obtained from the index provider pursuant to provisions in the index licensing agreement, so that the ETP issuer can monitor its compliance on an ongoing basis. If an index approaches the thresholds set forth in the continued listing standards, the issuer may decide to engage in discussions with the index provider regarding potential modifications to the index so that the ETP can continue to be listed on the Exchange. If an index provider is unwilling to modify the index in order to comply with the Exchange's listing requirements, the Exchange may submit a rule proposal to continue to list the product based on the index.
For an example of an exchange rule proposal to continue the listing of a product that no longer meets generic listing standards,
With respect to commenters' concerns that the proposed listing standards would treat ETPs fundamentally differently than other types of listed equity securities, the Commission notes that ETPs and other types of equity securities each have certain listing standards that are higher on an initial basis and lower on a continuing basis.
Finally, with respect to commenters' questions regarding the purpose of the proposal and its impact on the potential for manipulation and investor protection, the Commission notes that, in approving a wide variety of ETP listing standards, including standards that apply to underlying indexes or portfolios, the Commission has consistently explained that these standards, among other things,
For exchange listing standards to effectively achieve their goals, including to effectively address the potential for manipulation of a listed ETP, their application cannot be linked to only a single point in time (
Because the proposal specifies continued listing requirements for products listed pursuant to the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series, the Commission believes the proposal is designed to achieve on a continuing basis the goals of the listing requirements, including ensuring that the Exchange lists products that are not susceptible to manipulation and maintaining fair and orderly markets for the listed products. In particular,
The Commission also believes that the proposal to delete the threshold of “30 or more consecutive trading days” in the requirements for the number of beneficial and/or record holders is consistent with the goal of ensuring that there is adequate liquidity in the listed product on an ongoing basis. As proposed, the Exchange would initiate delisting proceedings for a product if it fails to comply with the minimum number of beneficial and/or record holder requirement, even if the non-compliance does not continue for 30 consecutive trading days.
As noted above, the proposal specifies the delisting procedures for products listed pursuant to the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 5.5(m) would provide transparency regarding the process that the Exchange will follow if a listed product fails to meet its continued listing requirements. Also, as noted above, the proposed delisting procedures already exist and are not novel.
Finally, the Commission believes that the conforming and technical proposed changes do not raise novel issues, are designed to further the goals of the listing standards, and provide clarity and consistency in the Exchange's rules.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act.
As noted above, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (i) Further amended rules within the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series to reflect that certain listing requirements (including certain statements or representations in rule filings for the listing and trading of specific products) apply on an initial and ongoing basis; (ii) further amended rules within the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series to consistently state that the Exchange will maintain surveillance procedures for listed products and will initiate delisting proceedings if continued listing requirements are not maintained; (iii) further amended rules within the Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series to provide that, in
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2 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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to (1) eliminate fees and rebates for trades in Calpine Corporation executed on February 27-28, 2017, and (2) modify the Exchange's average daily volume calculation for March 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of Fees to (1) eliminate fees and rebates for trades in Calpine Corporation (“CPN”) executed on February 27-28, 2017, and (2) modify the Exchange's average daily volume (“ADV”) calculation for March 2017. These changes are both being made in connection with the migration of the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq INET technology, which is scheduled to begin on February 27, 2017.
The Exchange will launch its re-platformed INET trading system beginning with a single symbol—CPN—on February 27, 2017. The Exchange proposes to eliminate fees and rebates for trades in options overlying Symbol CPN executed on the INET trading system during the last two trading days of the month,
In addition, the Exchange currently provides volume-based maker rebates to Market Maker
The highest tier threshold attained above applies retroactively in a given month to all eligible traded contracts and applies to all eligible market participants.
Any day that the market is not open for the entire trading day or the Exchange instructs members in writing to route their orders to other markets may be excluded from the ADV calculation; provided that the Exchange will only remove the day for members that would have a lower ADV with the day included.
The Exchange proposes to provide two alternatives for calculation of ADV during the month of March,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to eliminate fees and rebates for CPN during the first two days of trading on the Exchange's re-platformed trading system. Eliminating fees and rebates for CPN during those two days will simplify the Exchange's billing and serve as an inducement for members to trade the first symbol migrated to the INET trading system. Because the Exchange is offering free executions in CPN, volume executed in CPN on February 27-28, 2017 will not be counted towards any volume based tiers. The Exchange believes that these two changes will be attractive to members that trade on the new INET trading system. The Exchange also believes that this proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to trades in CPN that are executed by all members. As noted above, CPN was selected for this treatment as it will be the first symbol traded on the INET trading system, and will be the only symbol traded on INET during February.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the ADV tier calculation for March 2017 is reasonable and equitable as it will give members the opportunity to trade on the INET trading system while, if more favorable to the member, keeping their ADV tier based on the first portion of the month where most trading occurred on T7. The Exchange believes that this change is appropriate given the pending migration of the Exchange's trading system to INET. Come the first trading day of April,
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to make adjustments to its Professional Rebate Program (the “Program”). Under the Program, which is set forth in Section (1)(a)(iv) of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange credits each Member
The percentage thresholds in each tier are based upon the increase in the total volume submitted by a Member and executed for the account(s) of a Professional on MIAX Options (not including Excluded Contracts) during a particular month, as a percentage of the total volume reported by OCC in MIAX Options classes during the same month (the “Current Percentage”), less the total volume submitted by that Member and executed for the account(s) of a Professional on MIAX Options (not including Excluded Contracts) during the fourth quarter of 2015 as a percentage of the total volume reported by OCC in MIAX Options classes during the fourth quarter of 2015 (the “Baseline Percentage”). For Members who did not execute contracts for the account(s) of a Professional during the fourth quarter of 2015, the Exchange currently assigns such Member a Baseline Percentage of .03%. The Member's percentage increase is calculated as the Current Percentage less the Baseline Percentage. Members receive rebates for contracts that they submit on behalf of a Professional(s) that are executed within a particular percentage tier based upon that percentage tier only, and do not receive rebates for such contracts that apply to any other tier.
The purpose of the Program is to encourage Members to direct greater Professional order flow to the Exchange. Increased Professional order flow provides for greater liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The practice of incentivizing increased retail customer order flow in order to attract liquidity is, and has been, commonly practiced in the options markets. As such, marketing fee programs,
The Exchange now proposes to adjust the method of calculating the Baseline Percentage, for purposes of determining whether the Member qualifies for rebates under the Program. Pursuant to the new calculation, the Baseline Percentage shall now be the greater of (x) total volume submitted by that Member and executed for the account(s) of a Professional on MIAX Options (not including Excluded Contracts) during the fourth quarter of 2015 as a percentage of the total volume reported by OCC in MIAX Options classes during the fourth quarter of 2015, and (y) 0.065%. The Exchange also proposes to change the default Baseline Percentage (for Members who did not execute contracts for the account(s) of a Professional during the fourth quarter of 2015) to 0.065%, so that it is consistent with the new calculation method.
The purpose for making these adjustments is to update the Program to better reflect the Exchange's current operating environment and business strategy. It is intended to continue to incentivize Members to send a greater amount of Professional order flow to the Exchange so that they can achieve rebates under the Program, as adjusted and in line with current market conditions. The Baseline Percentage and other thresholds amounts contained in the Program were initially established over a year ago, and thus were based on the then-current business and economic conditions. The Exchange believes that a number of events have occurred and certain business factors have change since the establishment of the Program (including, but not limited to, the launch of complex orders on the Exchange), and thus the Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate to update the Program to align it with current economic conditions and business strategy. The Exchange notes that the Baseline Percentage definition is also used as a factor for determining whether a Member qualifies for certain additional credits under the Exchange's Priority Customer Rebate Program (“PCRP”), which is contained in Section (1)(a)(iii) of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, and the Exchange incorporated this indirect impact into its determination as well. As overall market conditions continue to evolve, the Exchange will continue to analyze and re-assess the calculation of the Baseline Percentage and other threshold amounts contained in the Program, and if its analysis justifies a further change, the Exchange will submit a proposed rule change reflecting this.
The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the general revenues of the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Program are fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Program itself is reasonably designed because it encourages providers of Professional order flow to send that Professional order flow to the Exchange in order to receive credits, in a manner that enables the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. The proposed changes to the Program are fair and equitable and
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 believes that the proposed rule change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting Members to direct orders for the account(s) of Professionals to the Exchange, which should enhance the quality of the Exchange's markets and increase the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it reduces the Exchange's fees through rebates in a manner that encourages market participants to direct their customer order flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction volume to the Exchange. Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many of which offer the same products, implementing a volume increase based rebate program to attract order flow like the one being proposed in this filing is consistent with the above-mentioned goals of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to remove the Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier under footnote 1, Add Volume Tiers. The Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that it will provide to Members using the Exchange's tiered pricing structure. Currently, the Exchange offers enhanced rebates under ten Add Volume Tiers set forth in footnote 1 of the fee schedule for orders that yield fee codes B,
The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its fee schedule on March 1, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed removal of the Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe its proposal to remove the Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier under footnote 1 would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. But rather, this proposal would enhance the Exchange's ability to compete with other market centers. As described above, the Exchange believes that it is offering enhanced rebates for orders that would be submitted to the Exchange without the enhanced rebate, which prevents the Exchange from being able to offer other rebates or reduced fees that might be able to enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members. As such, removing the Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier will allow the Exchange other opportunities to enhance market quality on the Exchange and ultimately, better compete with other market centers.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes a rule change to amend the Schedule of Fees to modify the Qualified Contingent Cross and Solicitation rebate tiers.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, members using QCC and/or other solicited crossing orders, including solicited orders executed in the Solicitation, Facilitation or Price Improvement Mechanisms, receive rebates for each originating contract side in all symbols traded on the Exchange. Once a member reaches a certain volume threshold in QCC orders and/or solicited crossing orders during a month, the Exchange provides rebates to that Member for all of its QCC and solicited crossing order traded contracts for that month. The applicable rebates are applied on QCC and solicited crossing order traded contracts once the volume threshold is met. Members receive the Non-“Customer to Customer” rebate for all QCC and/or other solicited crossing orders except for QCC and solicited orders between two Priority Customers. QCC and solicited orders between two Priority Customers receive the “Customer to Customer” rebate or “Customer to Customer” Rebate PLUS, respectively.
The Exchange now proposes to make two changes to the QCC and Solicitation rebate. First, the Exchange proposes to aggregate volume from affiliates in determining the Member's tier for purposes of the QCC and Solicitation rebate. As proposed, all eligible volume from affiliated Members will be aggregated in determining QCC and Solicitation volume totals, provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the Members as reflected on each Member's Form BD, Schedule A. The Exchange believes that aggregating volume across Members that share at least 75% common ownership will allow Members to continue to execute trades on the Exchange through separate broker-dealer entities for different types of volume, while receiving rebates based on the aggregate volume being executed across such entities. The Exchange currently aggregates volume from affiliated Members in determining applicable fees and rebates, including, for example, the Crossing Fee Cap,
In addition, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the current tier 4—
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to aggregate volume amongst corporate affiliates for purposes of the QCC and Solicitation rebate as this change is intended to avoid disparate treatment of firms that have divided their various business activities between separate corporate entities as compared to firms that operate those business activities within a single corporate entity. By way of example, many firms that are Members of the Exchange operate several different business lines within the same corporate entity. In contrast, other firms may be part of a corporate structure that separates those business lines into different corporate affiliates, either for business, compliance or historical reasons. Those corporate affiliates, in turn, are required to maintain separate memberships with the Exchange in order to access the Exchange. The Exchange currently aggregates volume executed by affiliates for other fees and rebates,
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the QCC and Solicitation rebate tier schedule are reasonable and equitable as the proposed changes simplify the Exchange's tier structure, and provide more favorable rebates to members due to the reduced volume thresholds for achieving current tier 5 rebates. As explained above, the Exchange is eliminating the current tier 4 and merging it into current tier 5, thereby giving members a higher rebate for the same volume. The Exchange believes that this change will incentivize members to bring additional QCC and/or other solicited crossing order volume to the Exchange in order to benefit from the enhanced rebates. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 6191 to implement an anonymous, grouped masking methodology for over-the-counter (“OTC”) activity in connection with Web site data publication of Appendix B data 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)
In consultation with SEC staff, FINRA is proposing new supplementary material to Rule 6191 to implement the aggregation methodology described further below. Specifically, FINRA is proposing to provide for an anonymous, grouped masking methodology for Appendix B.I., B.II. and B.IV. data in furtherance of the Plan's requirement that the data made publicly available will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data.
For purposes of the data to be made available on the FINRA Web site pursuant to the Plan, FINRA proposes to aggregate individual OTC Trading Center Appendix B data within groupings of Trading Centers by ATS and non-ATS categories, using an undisclosed methodology for assigning each Trading Center to a group. FINRA believes that an anonymous, grouped masking methodology for purposes of publishing the required data related to OTC activity will support the Plan's requirement that the data to be made publicly available will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data.
Trading Center group assignments will not be published and generally will remain unchanged for the duration of the data publication period, with the exception of the entrance of a new Trading Center (new FINRA member). The anonymized identifier used for each group will remain unchanged for the duration of the data publication period and the same groups and group identifiers will be used for all Appendix B data sets. The number of Trading Centers assigned to each group will not specifically be disclosed; however, each group will contain between five and 25 market participant identifiers (MPIDs). In addition, for each day's statistics, the number of MPIDs in each group with activity in any Pilot Security for that day will be disclosed. Disclosing the number of active MPIDs each day is intended to inform evaluators of the data of whether the number of Trading Centers reflected in the statistics each day has changed—for example, because a Trading Center in the group didn't register activity on a given day.
FINRA proposes to aggregate the Appendix B.I. data to be made publicly available on the FINRA Web site by aggregating statistics within each group by Pilot Security for each trading day. The methodology used for computing the statistics at the group level will be the same methodology used to compute these statistics at the Trading Center level in the non-public version of the data (and in the public version of the exchange data).
Appendix B.II. data
FINRA
If the Commission
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 consulted extensively with SEC staff in connection with the instant proposal to design a grouped masking methodology that is consistent with the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan to make Appendix B data publicly available while not identifying 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.
The Commission previously received comment letters from FIF and Citadel Securities expressing concern over FINRA's intent to publish Appendix B data on a Trading Center-by-Trading Center basis.
In consultation with SEC staff, FINRA is filing the instant proposed rule change to mitigate the confidentiality concerns raised by commenters by providing for an anonymized, grouped masking methodology for Appendix B data for all OTC activity in furtherance of the objectives of the Plan.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 8, 2016, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
A SPAC is a special purpose company that raises capital in an initial public offering (“IPO”) to enter into future undetermined business combinations through mergers, capital stock exchanges, assets acquisitions, stock purchases, reorganizations or similar business combinations with one or more operating businesses or assets. In its filing, the Exchange stated that in the IPO, a SPAC typically sells units consisting of one share of common stock and one or more warrants (or fraction of a warrant) to purchase common stocks. The units are separable at some point after the IPO. The Exchange also noted that management of the SPAC typically receives a percentage of the equity at the outset and may be required to purchase additional shares in a private placement at the time of the IPO. Due to their unique structure, SPACs do not have any prior financial history, at the time of their listing, like operating companies.
NYSE Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) Section 102.06 sets forth the listing standards that apply to SPACs.
In addition to these safeguards, a SPAC must also meet minimum quantitative initial and continued listing standards to list, and remain listed on the Exchange, as well as specified continued listing standards to remain listed after consummation of a business combination.
The Exchange proposes to add an option for the SPAC to conduct a tender offer in lieu of a shareholder vote to complete a business combination. First, under the proposal if a shareholder vote is not held on a business combination for which the SPAC must file and furnish a proxy or information statement subject to Regulation 14A or 14C under the Exchange Act, the SPAC must provide all shareholders with the opportunity to redeem all their shares for cash equal to their pro rata share of the aggregate amount then in the deposit account pursuant to Rule 13e-4 and Regulation 14E under the Exchange Act.
Second, the proposal also specifies that shareholder vote provisions requiring the business combination to be approved by a majority of the shares voting at the meeting only apply to shareholder votes where the SPAC must file and furnish a proxy or information statement subject to Regulation 14A or 14C under the Exchange Act in advance of the shareholder meeting.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the provision that prevents a business combination if public shareholders owning a threshold amount (not to exceed 40%) of the shares of common stock issued in the IPO exercise their conversion rights in connection with the business combination.
The Exchange proposes to amend the quantitative requirements for initial, and continued, SPAC listings. Currently, at the time of its initial listing, a SPAC must demonstrate, among other things, an aggregate market value of $250 million and a market value of publicly-held shares of $200 million.
Currently, once listed but prior to the consummation of a business combination, a SPAC is subject to suspension and delisting if it does not maintain an average aggregate global market capitalization of at least $125 million, or an average aggregate global market capitalization attributable to its publicly-held shares of at least $100 million, in each case over 30 consecutive trading days.
Currently, the Exchange will notify a SPAC if its average aggregate global market capitalization falls below $150 million, or if its average aggregate global market capitalization attributable to its publicly-held shares falls below $125 million. In conjunction with the proposed changes to the continued listing standards noted above, the Exchange proposes to lower these notification standards to $75 million average aggregate global market capitalization, and to $60 million average aggregate global market capitalization attributable to its publicly-held shares.
Currently, under the Manual, the post-business combination company of a SPAC would be subject to the continued listing standards applicable to operating companies that require $50 million average global market capitalization along with stockholders' equity of at least $50 million.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
The development and enforcement of adequate standards governing the initial and continued listing of securities on an exchange is an activity of critical importance to financial markets and the investing public. Listing standards, among other things, serve as a means for an exchange to screen issuers and to provide listed status only to bona fide companies that have, or in the case of an IPO, will have sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly
As noted above, SPACs are companies that raise capital in IPOs, with the purpose of purchasing existing operating companies or assets within a certain time frame. Because of the unique structure of SPACs, investors do not know the ultimate business of the company before a business combination, similar to a blank check company. Therefore, the Commission approved the Exchange's listing standards for SPACs containing certain provisions that were similar in some respects to the investor protection measures contained in Rule 419 under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).
The proposal would provide an option for the SPAC to hold a tender offer in lieu of a shareholder vote on a proposed business combination. The Exchange noted that certain hedge funds and other activist investors have sometimes employed a strategy of acquiring an interest in a SPAC and then using their ability to vote against a proposed business combination to obtain additional consideration not available to other shareholders in a practice known as “greenmail.”
The Commission notes that shareholders will receive redemption rights and comparable financial and other information about the business combination irrespective of whether the SPAC's business combination is consummated through a tender offer or a shareholder vote. The Commission believes that shareholders who are not in favor of a business combination should continue to have an adequate remedy under the Exchange's proposal if they disagree with management's decision with respect to a business combination, and that the Exchange's SPAC rules will continue to have safeguards to address investor protection, while at the same time allowing the greenmail abuses noted by the Exchange to be addressed. Based on the above, the Commission finds that this proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular the investor protection standards under Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange is also proposing to add language to Section 102.06 of the Manual which concerns the shareholder voting requirements applicable to business combinations of SPACs. Under this change if a SPAC holds a shareholder vote to approve a business combination, the provisions only apply when the SPAC must file and furnish a proxy or information statement subject to Regulation 14A or 14C under the Exchange Act in advance of the shareholder meeting. This change, viewed together with the changes discussed above, allowing a SPAC to consummate a business combination through a tender offer rather than a shareholder vote, mean that certain SPACs that are not required under the Federal securities laws to comply with the Commission's proxy solicitation rules when soliciting proxies, will have to follow the tender offer provisions under the Exchange's rules.
Further, the Exchange has also proposed to eliminate the provision that a business combination cannot be consummated by the SPAC if the public shareholders owning in excess of a threshold amount (to be set no higher than 40%) of the shares of common stock exercise their conversion rights. The Commission notes that we have approved SPAC listing rules on other markets that do not contain a similar requirement. If a SPAC wants to adopt such a provision, however, it will still be permitted to do so. Based on the above, it is reasonable to allow the Exchange to not mandate such a requirement. The Commission, therefore, finds this change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
The proposal would also lower the initial listing standards applicable to SPACs from an aggregate market value of least $250 million to $100 million and market value of publicly-held shares of at least $200 million to $80 million. Under the proposal, a SPAC would be promptly suspended from trading and delisted if, over any 30 day consecutive trading period, its average aggregate global capitalization falls below $50 million or its average
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add additional continued listing standards after the consummation of a business combination in connection with the lowering of the initial listing standards for a SPAC. These new standards, as noted above, will be in addition to the existing continued listing standards that currently apply to the post-business combination company.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed changes to listing standards are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act.
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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 413 of the Exchange's Rules, as described in further detail below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to correct a typographical error. Rule 413(a) of the Rules of the
Paragraph (6) of Rule 413(a) provides for a position limit exemption for a long call position accompanied by a short put position with the same strike price and a short call position accompanied by a long put position with a different strike price (a “box spread”). Paragraph (8) provides for a position limit exemption for a listed option position hedged on a one-for-one basis with an over-the-counter (“OTC”) option position on the same underlying security. Meanwhile, paragraph (9) merely states that for strategies described under paragraphs (2)-(5) of subsection (a) of the Rule, one component of the option strategy can be an OTC option contract guaranteed or endorsed by the firm maintaining the proprietary position or carrying the customer account.
The Exchange notes that the position limit exemptions set forth in the rules of other options exchanges, including ISE's sister exchange, Phlx, as well as CBOE, provide for position limit exemptions for OTC and box spread hedges of up to five times the standard limits.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as it is designed to correct a typographical error.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees, as described in further detail below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to make changes to (1) the Market Maker Plus
In order to promote and encourage liquidity in Select Symbols, the Exchange offers Market Makers
The Exchange charges a taker fee for regular orders in Select Symbols. This fee is $0.44 per contract for Market Maker orders, and $0.45 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker,
Currently, the Exchange provides rebates to Priority Customer complex orders that trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book or trade with quotes and orders on the regular order book. Rebates are tiered based on a member's ADV executed during a given month as follows: 0 to 29,999 contracts (“Tier 1”), 30,000 to 59,999 contracts (“Tier 2”), 60,000 to 99,999 contracts (“Tier 3”), 100,000 to 149,999 (“Tier 4”), 150,000 to 199,999 contracts (“Tier 5”), and 200,000 or more contracts (“Tier 6”). In Select Symbols the rebate is $0.30 per contract for Tier 1, $0.35 per contract for Tier 2, $0.41 per contract for Tier 3, $0.44 per contract for Tier 4, $0.46 per contract for Tier 5, and $0.47 per contract for Tier 6. In Non-Select Symbols the rebate is $0.63 per contract for Tier 1, $0.71 per contract for Tier 2, $0.79 per contract for Tier 3, $0.81 per contract for Tier 4, $0.83 per contract for Tier 5, and $0.84 per contract for Tier 6.
The Exchange now proposes to (i) introduce two additional volume-based tiers of Priority Customer complex order rebates and (ii) in the existing tiers, amend the volume requirements necessary for achieving higher Priority Customer complex order rebates. As proposed, the ADV thresholds will be as follows: 0 to 14,999 contracts (“Tier 1”), 15,000 to 44,999 contracts (“Tier 2”), 45,000 to 59,999 contracts (“Tier 3”), 60,000 to 74,999 contracts (“Tier 4”), 75,000 to 99,999 contracts (“Tier 5”), 100,000 to 124,999 contracts (“Tier 6”), 125,000 to 224,999 contracts (“Tier 7”), and 225,000 or more contracts (“Tier 8”).
Under the proposal, the rebate amounts provided for Priority Customer complex orders in both Select Symbols and Non-Select Symbols will be amended to reflect the tier changes described above. In Select Symbols, the proposed rebate will be $0.26 per contract for Tier 1, $0.30 per contract for Tier 2, $0.36 per contract for Tier 3, $0.41 per contract for Tier 4, $0.42 per contract for Tier 5, $0.44 per contract for Tier 6, $0.46 per contract for Tier 7, and $0.49 per contract for Tier 8. In Non-Select Symbols, the proposed rebate will be $0.40 per contract for Tier 1, $0.60 per contract for Tier 2, $0.70 per contract for Tier 3, $0.75 per contract for Tier 4, $0.75 per contract for Tier 5, $0.80 per contract for Tier 6, $0.81 per contract for Tier 7, and $0.85 per contract for Tier 8. Other rebate amounts—specifically, the Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”) Break-up Rebates for both Select and Non-Select Symbols and the Facilitation and Solicitation Break-up Rebate for Select Symbols—will remain unchanged from their current levels, including the rebate amounts for the two proposed additional tiers.
Today, the Exchange does not provide rebates for Priority Customer complex orders that trade at a net price at or near $0.00 (
The Exchange now proposes to lower the threshold of net zero complex contracts from 10,000 to 2,000 contracts. As such, net zero priced complex orders that leg into the regular order book and are entered by firms with an ADV in this type of activity of 2,000 contracts or more in a given month will not earn the Priority Customer complex order rebate.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to increase the Tier 1 Market Maker Plus rebate because it will encourage Market Makers to post tighter markets in Select Symbols and thereby maintain liquidity and attract additional order flow to the ISE, which will ultimately benefit all market participants that trade on the Exchange. The Tier 1 Market Maker Plus rebate has proven to be an effective incentive for Market Makers to provide liquidity in Select Symbols. The Exchange believes that the proposed Tier 1 Market Maker Plus rebate is reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that direct orders to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Tier 1 Market Maker Plus rebate is not unfairly discriminatory because all Market Makers can achieve the higher rebate by satisfying the applicable Market Maker Plus requirements.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to increase the Priority Customer taker fee and eliminate the Priority Customer taker fee discount program for members with a total affiliated Priority Customer ADV of more than 200,000 contracts are reasonable and equitable because the proposed fees remain lower than the fees charged to other market participants that remove liquidity on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to provide lower fees for Priority Customer orders. A Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place more than
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to make the proposed changes, both to the volume requirements necessary to achieve the Priority Customer complex order rebates and to the rebate amounts, as the proposals are designed to attract additional Priority Customer complex order volume to the Exchange. Although the Exchange is lowering the rebates for Priority Customer complex orders, it is also generally lowering the associated volume thresholds to make it easier for members to achieve the higher tiers. While the proposed rebate amounts are lower in some categories, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable and equitable when looking at the overall program for both Non-Select Symbol and Select Symbol rebates. For example, a member who received a $0.71 Non-Select Symbol rebate for executing an ADV of 45,000 Non-Select Symbol contracts in a given month under the existing program would receive a $0.70 Non-Select Symbol rebate under the proposed program. However, a member who would have received a $0.35 Select Symbol rebate under the existing program for executing the same ADV for Select Symbol contracts in a given month would receive a $0.36 Select Symbol rebate under the proposed program. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the overall amendments to its rebate program for Priority Customer complex orders is reasonable and equitable as proposed. In addition, the Exchange believes that introducing an additional volume-based tier with higher rebate amounts will incentivize members to send additional order flow to the Exchange in order to achieve these rebates for their Priority Customer complex order volume, creating additional liquidity to the benefit of all members that trade complex orders on the Exchange.
The Exchange further believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to provide a rebate only for Priority Customer complex orders. A Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). This limitation does not apply to participants whose behavior is substantially similar to that of market professionals, including Professional Customers, who will generally submit a higher number of orders (many of which do not result in executions) than Priority Customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to lower the threshold of net zero complex contracts is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed to remove financial incentives for market participants to engage in rebate arbitrage by entering valueless complex orders on the Exchange that do not have any economic purpose. The Exchange has determined that the current threshold is still too high to effectively discourage market participants from engaging in rebate arbitrage, and believes that the lower threshold proposed in this filing more accurately reflects the Exchange's original intent. No market participants meet the current ADV threshold, as firms have modified their activity to ensure that their complex ADV in the net zero range is lower than the 10,000 ADV threshold set in the original net zero filing. In January 2017, for example, the market participant with the largest ADV in net zero contracts executed an ADV of 1,250 net zero contracts. By comparison the average net zero ADV of market participants that traded complex orders in January 2017 was only 12 contracts, with the vast majority of these market participants executing no net zero contracts. The continued submission of a high volume of net zero complex orders that leg into the regular order book by these firms has generated complaints from the Market Makers that trade against these orders in the regular order book, as firms recognize these net zero complex orders as essentially non-economic.
The Exchange believes that lowering the threshold will make it more difficult for firms to continue to enter net zero complex orders purely to earn a rebate. In particular, the Exchange notes that any firm that engages in this activity will be prevented from doing so with an ADV of more than 2,000 net zero complex orders. This will reduce the cost of these trades to the Exchange and its members as firms are limited in the amount of this net zero complex order activity that they can conduct on the Exchange. While the proposed threshold is still higher than current activity seen in January 2017, the Exchange believes that it is important to lower the ADV threshold to ensure that market participants do not further increase this activity. The Exchange believes that market participants will stop entering net zero complex orders when they reach the proposed ADV threshold as these firms are entering these orders solely for the purpose of earning a rebate. Indeed, this is consistent with the Exchange's experience with this rule to date, as firms that were previously entering a high volume of net zero complex orders have reduced their volume in activity covered by this rule.
To the extent that market participants enter legitimate complex orders, however, they will continue to receive the same rebates that they do today. In addition, market participants that enter an insubstantial volume of net zero complex orders will also continue to receive rebates. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to provide rebates where appropriate based on the market participant executing only a low ADV of net zero complex orders. While the Exchange could prohibit rebates for any net zero complex orders without an ADV threshold, doing so would disadvantage innocent market participants that are not engaged in rebate arbitrage. The Exchange believes that the decision to allow rebates for firms with a limited ADV in net zero complex orders properly balances the need to encourage market participants to send order flow to the Exchange, and the need to prevent activity that is harmful to the market. Moreover, all market participants will be treated the same based on their net zero ADV.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes a new information collection.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 15, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
The public will be able to complete form SSA-8240 using the following modalities: a paper form; the Internet; and an in-office or telephone interview, during which an SSA employee will document the wage and employment information authorization information on one of SSA's internal systems ((the Modernized Claims System (MCS); the Modernized Supplemental Security Income Claims System (MSSICS); eWork; or iMain)). The individual's authorization will remain effective until one of the following four events occurs:
• SSA makes a final adverse decision on the application for benefits, and the
• the individual's eligibility for payments ends, and the individual has not filed other claims or appeals under the Title for which SSA obtained the authorization;
• the individual revokes the authorization verbally or in writing; or
• the deeming relationship ends (for SSI purposes only).
SSA will request authorization on an as-needed basis as part of the following processes: (a) SSDI and SSI initial claims; (b) SSI redeterminations; and (c) SSDI Work Continuing Disability Reviews. The respondents are individuals who file for or are currently receiving SSDI or SSI payments, and any person whose income and resources SSA counts when determining an individual's SSI eligibility or payment amount.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of rescission of Social Security Ruling, 93-2p.
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of the rescission of Social Security Ruling (SSR) 93-2p.
Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Disability Policy, Office of Medical Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-4163. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security online, at
Through SSRs, we make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of General Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations.
SSR 93-2p provides guidance about evaluating duration in cases meeting or equaling the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection listings. It instructs that with acceptable documentation of HIV infection as described in the introductory text to the listings in the Immune body system, an individual who has an impairment that meets or equals one of the criteria in the listings for HIV infection has an impairment that is considered permanent or expected to result in death. In these cases, a separate durational finding is not required, and evidence showing that the impairment has lasted or expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months is unnecessary.
On December 2, 2016, we published a final rule, Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection and for Evaluating Functional Limitations in Immune System Disorders, in the
Department of State.
Notice of meeting and request for comment from outside parties.
The Department of State is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the next meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee.
•
•
•
The open meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of State, SA-5 (American Pharmacists
Methods of written comment submission are as follows:
•
•
To pre-register for the open session or for general questions concerning the meeting, contact the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs—Cultural Heritage Center by phone: 202-632-6301, or email:
Pursuant to section 306(e)(2) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (5 U.S.C. 2601
If you wish to attend the open portion of the meeting of the Committee on March 21, 2017, registration is required. Please notify the Cultural Heritage Center of the U.S. Department of State at (202) 632-6301 no later than 5:00 p.m. (EDT) March 20, 2017, to arrange for admission. Seating is limited. When calling, please request reasonable accommodation if needed. The open portion will be held at the U.S. Department of State, SA-5 (American Pharmacists Association building), 2200 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20037. Please enter using the C Street entrance, and plan to present a valid photo ID and arrive 30 minutes before the beginning of the open session.
Personal information regarding attendees is requested pursuant to the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, as amended (Pub. L. 99-399), the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56), and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities. The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS-D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
If you wish to make an oral presentation at the open portion of the meeting, you must request to be scheduled by the above-mentioned date and time, and you must submit a written summary of your oral presentation, ensuring that it is received no later than March 20, 2017, at 11:59 p.m. (ET), via the
This announcement will appear in the
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to May 15, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to PPT Forms Officer, U.S. Department of State, CA/PPT/S/L 44132 Mercure Cir, P.O. Box 1227, Sterling, VA 20166-1227, or
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Statement of Non-Receipt of a U.S. Passport, Form DS-86 is used by the U.S. Department of State to collect information for the purpose of issuing a replacement passport to customers who have not received the passport for which they originally applied.
Passport applicants who do not receive their passport documents are required to complete a Statement of Non-Receipt of a U.S. Passport form DS-86, which can be downloaded from
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S.
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 establish a new information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by April 14, 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:
• Possess a valid driver's license;
• Have held a medical certificate at any time after July 15, 2006;
• Have not had the most recently held medical certificate revoked, suspended, or withdrawn;
• Have not had the most recent application for airman medical certification completed and denied;
• Have taken a medical education course within the past 24 calendar months;
• Have completed a comprehensive medical examination within the past 48 months;
• Be under the care of a physician for certain medical conditions;
• Have been found eligible for special issuance of a medical certificate for certain specified mental health, neurological, or cardiovascular conditions;
• Consent to a National Driver Register check;
• Fly only certain small aircraft, at a limited altitude and speed, and only within the United States;
• Not fly for compensation or hire.
The FAA notes that the use of section 2307 by any eligible pilot is voluntary. Persons may elect to use these alternative pilot physical examination and education requirements or may continue to operate using any FAA medical certificate.
On January 11, 2017, the FAA published a final rule, Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and Education Requirements, to implement the provisions of section 2307 (RIN 2120-AK96). 82 FR 3149. The FAA recognizes that many persons will choose to use the provisions of section 2307 in lieu of holding a FAA-issued medical certificate. Accordingly, the FAA is providing notice of its intent to establish a new collection of information, Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and Education Requirements (OMB control number 2120-XXXX), to reflect the burden associated with the requirements of section 2307.
In a separate notice, the FAA is providing notice of its intent to reduce the burden associated with the existing information collection, Medical Standards and Certification (OMB control number 2120-0034) by the population anticipated to use the provisions of section 2307.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
Written comments should be submitted by April 14, 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:
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
The FAA is publishing a final rule, Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and Education Requirements, to implement the provisions of section 2307 (RIN 2120-AK96).
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 Sweetwater Municipal 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 14, 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. Kirk Harris, City Services Director, at the following address: 200 East 4th Street, P.O. Box 450, Sweetwater, Texas 79556.
Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development 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 South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo under the provisions of the AIR 21.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
City of Sweetwater requests the release of 11.083 acres of non-aeronautical airport property. The property is located along the entrance/access road to the airport. This is a retroactive land release that occurred in 1999. The Texas State Technical College (TSTC) has provided over $140,000 of drainage improvements, widened and provided a new roadway surface, and added curb and gutter improvements along the roadway.
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 and other documents relevant to the application in person at the Sweetwater Municipal Airport, telephone number (325) 236-6313.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces May 1, 2017, as the deadline for each airport sponsor to notify the FAA whether or not it will use its fiscal year 2017 entitlement funds available under Section 47114 of Title 49, United States Code, to accomplish Airport Improvement Program (AIP) eligible projects that the airport sponsor previously identified through the Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) process during the preceding year.
The airport sponsor's notification must address all entitlement funds available to date for fiscal year 2017, as well as any entitlement funds not obligated from prior years. After Friday, July 7, 2017, the FAA will carry-over the remainder of currently available entitlement funds, and these funds will not be available again until at least the beginning of fiscal year 2018. Currently, the AIP has approximately 56 percent of the entitlements available through April 28, 2017. If congressional action is taken which provides for additional entitlements, the FAA will then work with airport sponsors to adjust accordingly. This notification requirement does not apply to non-primary airports covered by the block-grant program.
Mr. Frank J. San Martin, Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, on (202) 267-3831.
Title 49 of the United States Code, section 47105(f), provides that the sponsor of each airport to which funds are apportioned shall notify the Secretary by such time and in a form as prescribed by the Secretary, of the airport sponsor's intent to apply for its apportioned funds, also called entitlement funds. Therefore, the FAA is hereby notifying such airport sponsors of the steps required to ensure that the FAA has sufficient time to carry-over and convert remaining entitlement funds, due to processes required under federal laws. This notice applies only to those airports that have had entitlement funds apportioned to them, except those nonprimary airports located in designated block-grant States. Airport sponsors intending to apply for any of their available entitlement funds, including those unused from prior years, shall make their intent known by 12:00 p.m. prevailing local time on Monday, May 1, 2017, consistent with prior practice. A written indication must be provided to the designated Airports District Office (or Regional Office in regions without Airports District Offices) stating their intent to submit a grant application no later than close of business Friday, June 2, 2017 and to use their fiscal year 2017 entitlement funds available under Title 49 of the United States Code, section 47114. This notice must address all entitlement funds available to date for fiscal year 2017 including those entitlement funds not obligated from prior years. By Friday, June 2, 2017, airport sponsors that have not yet submitted a final application to the FAA, must notify the FAA of any issues meeting the final application deadline of Friday, June 30, 2017. Absent notification from the airport sponsor by the May 1 deadline and/or subsequent notification by the June 2 deadline of any issues meeting the application deadline, the FAA will proceed after Friday, June 30, 2017 to take action to carry-over the remainder of available entitlement funds without further notice. These funds will not be available again until at least the beginning of fiscal year 2018. These dates are subject to possible adjustment based on future extensions to the FAA's current appropriation which currently expires April 28, 2017.
This notice is promulgated to expedite and facilitate the grant-making process.
The AIP grant program is operating under the requirements of Public Law 114-190, the “FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016,” enacted on July 15, 2016, which authorizes the FAA through September 30, 2017 and the “Furthering Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017” which appropriates FY 2017 funds for the AIP through April 28, 2017.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice to rescind a Notice of Intent for a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the
Michael Davies, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000, Madison, Wisconsin, 53717-2157, Telephone: (608) 829-7500. You may also contact Steve Krebs, Director, Bureau of Technical Services, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 7965, Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7965, Telephone: (608) 246-7930.
The FHWA originally issued an NOI to prepare an EIS in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of Section 1308 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, State Route 79, from South of Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road (post mile R15.78 to post mile R33.80, in the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and unincorporated Riverside County, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before August 14, 2017. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For Caltrans: Aaron Burton, Senior Environmental Planner, California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Planning, 464 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor, MS 829, San Bernardino, California 92401; or call (909) 383-2841, email
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans, has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for transportation improvements in the Interstate 80(I-80), Interstate 580 (I-580), United States Highway 395 (US 395) Interchange, and connecting roads in the City of Reno and City of Sparks, Washoe County, Nevada. The I-80/I-
Mr. Abdelmoez Abdalla, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, 705 N. Plaza, Suite 220, Carson City, NV 89701; Telephone: (775) 687-1231, email:
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to reconstruct the Spaghetti Bowl in the cities of Reno and Sparks in Washoe County, Nevada. The proposed project will study improvements to the Spaghetti Bowl and major street connections on I-580/US 395 from Meadowood Mall Way Drive on the south to Parr Avenue/Dandini Boulevard on the north and I-80 from Keystone Avenue on the west to Pyramid Way on the east. The study includes approximately 7.3 miles ofI-580/US 395 and 4.3 miles of I-80.
The project will study the operations, capacity, and safety of the interchange while addressing all modes of travel as appropriate. Regionally, I-80 connects San Francisco, Sacramento, Reno and Salt Lake City. I-580 links Carson City with Reno, and US 395 serves as an important regional route.
The Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Reno and Sparks has increased to approximately 327,000 people and Washoe County's population is approximately 435,000. The projected population growth, associated commercial development, increased inflows and outflows of freight serving local manufacturing and distribution centers, and increasing tourism and gaming will place significant demand on the study area. The project will focus on short- and long-term transportation needs of the region, specifically to provide transportation improvements in response to regional growth to decrease congestion, enhance mobility, and provide access to the downtown area.
The EIS will consider the effects of the proposed project, the No Action alternative, and other alternatives to the proposed project.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; Native American Tribes; private organizations; and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this project. An agency scoping meeting will be held in Sparks, Nevada on April 12, 2017, at 1 p.m. at the Sparks Public Library. Public information meetings will also be held on April 12, 2017, at the Sparks Public Library and on April 13, 2017, at Wooster High School, Reno, with the appropriate agencies and the general public. The public information meetings will be open house format from 4-7 p.m. with a presentation at 5:30 p.m. In addition, public information meetings will be held throughout the duration of the project and a public hearing will be held for the draft EIS. Public notices will be given announcing the time and place of the public meetings and the hearing. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action is addressed and all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA or NDOT at the addresses and emails provided above.
Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of intent.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) will be prepared for a proposed transportation project in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.
FHWA Joshua Cunningham, Project Delivery Team Leader, FHWA, 5304 Flanders Drive, Suite A, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808. Project information can be found at the LaDOTD Web site:
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD), will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the 2002 LA 1 Final EIS (FEIS) and 2003 Record of Decision (ROD), and the subsequent ROD revisions issued in 2004, 2009, and 2011 due to various design refinements. FHWA is preparing an SEIS because changes to the FEIS Selected Alternative's design, including construction of an at-grade toll facility and roadway approaches beyond the FEIS project limits, will result in local access modifications and right-of-way impacts.
Funding limitations require phased construction of the Selected Alternative, which generally runs parallel and to the west of existing LA 1. Phase 1, fully constructed in 2011, included a two-lane bridge from Port Fouchon (south limit) to Leeville (north limit), a distance of approximately 11 miles.
Phase 2, which has not been constructed, includes the continuation of the 2-lane bridge for 8.3 miles, connecting Leeville (south limit) to Golden Meadow (north limit). This SEIS will evaluate refinements to the design of the FEIS Selected Alternative at its north limit, as the elevated portion of LA 1 is extended and ties into existing, at-grade LA 3235 in Golden Meadow. This extension allows for the construction of an at-grade, southbound toll facility at the LA 3235 tie-in. The study area for the SEIS will be limited to the extended section of the FEIS Selected Alternative, a distance slightly less than 1 mile, and will not include any other portions of LA 1 previously approved as part of the FEIS.
Existing LA 3235 is a four-lane roadway, with two lanes in each direction. The LA 1 bridge from Leeville to Golden Meadow will be constructed as a two-lane structure, with one lane in each direction, except for within the SEIS study area. Within this study area, the two southbound lanes of LA 3235 will merge into one southbound lane on the LA 1 bridge. A toll gantry will be located approximately half a mile from the LA 1 bridge. It will include one electronic toll lane and one cash lane. On the northbound side, one northbound bridge lane will join one northbound lane connecting existing LA 1 to LA 3235. These two lanes will come together to tie into the existing two northbound lanes of LA 3235. Tolls will be collected in the southbound direction of travel only.
Letters describing the proposed project and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and the public who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this project. Several public meetings will be held throughout the term of the project. The first of these meetings, a public scoping meeting, will be conducted to provide the public information about the project and an opportunity to assist in formulating and revising the scope of the study. The public scoping meetings will be scheduled in the future and will be posted to the LaDOTD Web site:
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed project are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the SEIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice to rescind a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will not be prepared for a proposed transportation project in Alton and Godfrey, Illinois in an area bounded roughly by IL Route 3 on the south; Seminary Road on the east; Seiler Road on the north and US 67 on the west.
Catherine A. Batey, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 3250 Executive Park Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703, Phone: (217) 492-4600. Jeffrey L. Keirn, Deputy Director of Highways, Region 5 Engineer, Illinois Department of Transportation, 1102 Eastport Plaza Drive, Collinsville, Illinois 62234, Phone: (618) 346-3110.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Transportation, issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2012 (77 FR 25782, May 1, 2012). The project proposal was to improve transportation flow, safety and connectivity in Alton and Godfrey, Illinois.
Due to concerns raised by project stakeholders and partners, including project costs, displacements of homes, and a lack of public support, FHWA is rescinding the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS.
Comments or questions concerning this notice should be directed to FHWA or the Illinois Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above.
23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.123; 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice to Rescind a Notice of Intent for a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the
Michael Davies, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000, Madison, Wisconsin 53717-2157, Telephone: (608) 829-7500. You may also contact Steve Krebs, Director, Bureau of Technical Services, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 7965, Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7965, Telephone: (608) 246-7930.
The FHWA originally issued an NOI to prepare an EIS in the
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: Nondiscrimination as it Applies to FTA Grant Programs.
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
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 (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Rescind Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The FTA, in cooperation with the Washington County Regional Railroad Authority (WCRRA) and the Metropolitan Council, is issuing this notice to advise the public that the NOI to prepare an EIS for the proposed Gateway Corridor project from Saint Paul to Woodbury in Ramsey and Washington Counties, Minnesota, is being rescinded.
Mr. Reggie Arkell, Community Planner, Federal Transit Administration, Region V, 200 West Adams Street, Suite 320, Chicago, IL 60606, phone 312-886-3704, email
The FTA, as the lead federal agency, in cooperation with WCRRA and the Metropolitan Council, published a NOI in the
Comments and questions concerning the proposed actions should be directed to FTA at the address provided above.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Department of Transportation.
Notice of meeting.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the U.S. Department of Transportation will host its sixth workshop on the Global Positioning System (GPS) Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment effort. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the results from testing of various categories of GPS/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers to include aviation (non-certified), cellular, general location/navigation, high precision and networks, timing, and space-based receivers, as well as use-case scenarios for these categories.
This workshop is open to the general public by registration only. For those who would like to attend the workshop, we request that you register no later than March 27, 2017. Please use the following link to register:
You must include:
The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing equal access to this workshop for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, please contact Stephen Mackey (contact information listed below) with your request by close of business March 24, 2017.
RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Several days leading up to the workshop, an email containing the agenda, dial-in, and WebEx information will be provided.
The goal of the GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment Study is to evaluate the adjacent radio frequency band power levels that can be tolerated by GPS/GNSS receivers, and advance the Department's understanding of the extent to which such power levels impact devices used for transportation safety purposes, among other GPS/GNSS applications. The Department obtained input from broad public outreach in development of its GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment Test Plan that included four public meetings with stakeholders on September 18 and December 4, 2014, and March 12 and October 2, 2015, public issuance of a draft test plan on September 9, 2015 (see 80 FR 54368), and comments received regarding the test plan. The final test plan was published March 9, 2016 (see 81 FR 12564) and requested voluntary participation in this Study by any interested GPS/GNSS device manufacturers or other parties whose products incorporate GPS/GNSS devices. In April 2016, radiated testing of GNSS devices took place in an anechoic chamber at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) facility in New Mexico. Additional lab testing was conducted in July 2016 at Zeta Associates in Fairfax, Virginia and MITRE Corporation in Bedford, Massachusetts (see 81 FR 44408). Initial test results were presented at a fifth public workshop on October 14, 2016 (see 81 FR 68105).
Stephen M. Mackey, U.S. Department of Transportation, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, V-345, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142,
Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing. The information to be collected will be used to document tests conducted and actions taken to ensure safety in the workplace and/or is necessary because under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, DOT is required to implement a drug and alcohol testing program in various transportation-related industries. DOT is required to publish this notice in the
Comments to this notice must be received by May 15, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Bohdan Baczara, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W62-317, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-3784 (voice), 202-366-3897 (fax), or
The ATF includes the employee's name, the type of test taken, the date of the test, and the name of the employer. Data on each test conducted, including test results, is necessary to document that the tests were conducted and is used to take action, when required, to ensure safety in the workplace. The MIS form includes employer specific drug and alcohol testing information such as the reason for the test and the cumulative number of test results for the negative, positive, and refusal tests. No employee specific data is collected. The MIS data is used by each of the affected DOT Agencies (
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2017.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice.
Notice of Open Season for Recruitment of IRS Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) Members
March 8, 2017 through April 24, 2017.
Fred N. Smith, Jr. 202-317-3087 (not a toll-free call).
Notice is hereby given that the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are inviting individuals to help improve the nation's tax agency by applying to be members of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP). The mission of the TAP is to listen to taxpayers, identify issues that affect taxpayers, and make suggestions for improving IRS service and customer satisfaction. The TAP serves as an advisory body to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the National Taxpayer Advocate. TAP members will participate in subcommittees that channel their feedback to the IRS through the Panel's parent committee.
The IRS is seeking applicants who have an interest in good government, a personal commitment to volunteer approximately 200 to 300 hours a year, and a desire to help improve IRS customer service. As a federal advisory committee, TAP is required to have membership be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented. Thus, TAP membership represents a cross-section of the taxpaying public with at least one member from each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, in addition to one member representing international taxpayers. For application purposes, “international taxpayers” are defined broadly to include U.S. citizens working, living, or doing business abroad or in a U.S. territory. Potential candidates must be U.S. citizens and must pass a federal tax compliance check and a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation. Applicants who practice before the IRS must be in good standing with the IRS. Federally-registered lobbyists cannot be members of the TAP. Current employees of any Bureau of the Treasury Department or have worked for any Bureau of the Treasury Department within three years of
Locations that need Members:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington. The TAP is also seeking to include at least one (1) additional member to represent international taxpayers. For these purposes, “international taxpayers” are broadly defined to include U.S. citizens working, living, or doing business abroad or in a U.S. territory.
Locations that need Alternates:
All 50 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, but specifically Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi and Nebraska.
TAP members are a diverse group of citizens who represent the interests of taxpayers from their respective geographic locations by providing feedback from a taxpayer's perspective on ways to improve IRS customer service and administration of the federal tax system, and by identifying grassroots taxpayer issues. Members should have good communication skills and be able to speak to taxpayers about TAP and its activities, while clearly distinguishing between TAP positions and their personal viewpoints.
Interested applicants should visit the TAP Web site at
The opening date for submitting applications is March 8, 2017, and the deadline for submitting applications is April 24, 2017. Interviews may be held. The Department of the Treasury will review the recommended candidates and make final selections. New TAP members will serve a three-year term starting in December 2017. (Note: highly-ranked applicants not selected as members may be placed on a roster of alternates who will be eligible to fill future vacancies that may occur on the Panel.)
Questions regarding the selection of TAP members may be directed to Fred N. Smith, Jr., Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., TA:TAP Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224, or 202-317-3087 (not a toll-free call).
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule amendments.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) is publishing for comment proposed amendments to the Municipal Securities Disclosure Rule (Rule 15c2-12) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) that would amend the list of event notices that a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer (collectively, “dealers”) acting as an underwriter in a primary offering of municipal securities must reasonably determine that an issuer or an obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract for the benefit of holders of the municipal securities, to provide to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”).
Comments should be received on or before May 15, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Jessica Kane, Director; Rebecca Olsen, Deputy Director; Edward Fierro, Senior Counsel to the Director; Mary Simpkins, Senior Special Counsel; Hillary Phelps, Senior Counsel; or William Miller, Attorney-Adviser; Office of Municipal Securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-6628 or at (202) 551-5680.
The Commission is requesting public comment on the proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12
The Commission is publishing for comment proposed amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12 (“Rule” or “Rule 15c2-12”).
Under Rule 15c2-12, a dealer that acts as an underwriter (a “Participating Underwriter” when used in connection with an Offering) in a primary offering of municipal securities with an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more (an “Offering”) is prohibited from purchasing or selling municipal securities in connection with an Offering unless the Participating Underwriter has reasonably determined, among other things, that an issuer of municipal securities, or an obligated person
Additionally, under Rule 15c2-12,
Beginning in 2009, issuers and obligated persons have increasingly used direct purchases of municipal securities
The Commission understands that existing security holders and potential investors (collectively, “investors”) and other market participants may not have any access or timely access to disclosure about the incurrence of certain debt obligations, such as direct placements, and other financial obligations
Additionally, the Commission understands that to the extent information about financial obligations is disclosed and accessible to investors and other market participants, such information currently may not include certain details about the financial obligations. For example, disclosure about a financial obligation in an issuer's or obligated person's audited financial statements or in an official statement may be limited to the amount of the financial obligation and may not provide certain details, such as whether the financial obligation contains covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation, any of which affect security holders, if material.
Furthermore, the Commission understands that investors and other market participants may not have any access or timely access to disclosure regarding the occurrence of events reflecting financial difficulties, including a default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation.
The MSRB
The Securities Act and the Exchange Act exempt municipal securities from certain registration and reporting requirements,
The 1975 Amendments provided a system of regulation for both municipal securities professionals and the municipal securities market, but limited the Commission's and the MSRB's authority to require issuers, either directly or indirectly, to file any application, report, or document with the Commission or the MSRB prior to any sale of municipal securities by an issuer.
In 1988, to address concerns about the quality of disclosure in certain municipal offerings and timely dissemination of disclosure documents,
In November 1994, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 15c2-12 (“1994 Amendments”) to deter fraud and manipulation in the municipal securities market by prohibiting the underwriting and subsequent recommendation of securities for which adequate information is not available.
In December 2008, in connection with its longstanding interest in reducing the potential for fraud and manipulation in the municipal securities market by facilitating greater availability of information about municipal securities, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 15c2-12 (“2008 Amendments”) to provide for the EMMA system.
In May 2010, the Commission adopted further amendments to Rule 15c2-12 (“2010 Amendments”).
In July 2012, the Commission issued its Report on the Municipal Securities Market following a broad review of the municipal securities market that included a series of public field hearings and numerous meetings with market participants.
The 2012 Municipal Report states, among other things, that the
The municipal securities market is a significant part of the United States credit markets, with over $3.83 trillion in principal amount outstanding.
Beginning in 2009, issuers and obligated persons have increasingly used direct placements as alternatives to public offerings of municipal securities.
Rule 15c2-12 is designed to address fraud and manipulation in the municipal securities market by prohibiting the underwriting of municipal securities and subsequent recommendation of those municipal securities by dealers for which adequate information is not available. The Commission has long emphasized that, under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, a dealer recommending securities to investors implies by its recommendation that it has an adequate basis for making the recommendation.
In addition, the MSRB has emphasized that secondary market disclosure information publicized by the issuer must be taken into account by dealers to meet the investor protection standards imposed by the MSRB's investor protection rules (
Under Rule 15c2-12(c), a dealer recommending the purchase or sale of a municipal security is required to have procedures in place that provide reasonable assurance that it will receive prompt notice of event notices. The availability of this information to investors would enable them to make more informed investment decisions and should reduce the likelihood that investors would be subject to fraud facilitated by inadequate disclosure. Furthermore, this information would assist dealers in satisfying their obligation to have a reasonable basis to recommend municipal securities to investors.
In keeping with the objectives set forth in the Exchange Act, including Section 15(c)(2),
The Commission proposes to amend paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) to add notices for the proposed events that a Participating Underwriter must reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has agreed to provide in its continuing disclosure agreement. Similar to the other events listed in Rule 15c2-12, the proposed events reflect on the creditworthiness of the issuer or obligated person and the terms of the securities that they issue.
The Commission proposes to add an event notice for incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material, to the list of events in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule for which notice is to be provided. The actual incurrence of the financial obligation, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms would trigger the obligation to provide the event notice. The event notice would be due in a timely manner not in excess of ten business days.
The Commission preliminarily believes that including a materiality determination would strike an appropriate balance. As proposed, the materiality determination applies to the incurrence of a financial obligation and each of the agreed upon terms listed (
As described above, investors and other market participants may not have access to disclosure that an issuer or obligated person has incurred a material financial obligation, or agreed to certain terms that affect security holders, unless or until disclosure is made in the issuer's or obligated person's annual financial information or audited financial statements or in an official statement in connection with the issuer's or obligated person's next primary offering subject to Rule 15c2-12 that results in the provision of a final official statement to EMMA.
Timely access to disclosure about the incurrence of a material financial obligation by an issuer or obligated person would provide potentially important information about the current financial condition of the issuer or obligated person, including potential impacts to the issuer's or obligated person's liquidity and overall creditworthiness. A material financial obligation that results in an increase or change in the issuer's or obligated person's outstanding debt can weaken the measures (
Timely access to disclosure about a material agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation, any of which affect security holders, could potentially provide important information about the creation of contingent liquidity risk, credit risk, and refinancing risk that could impact the issuer's or obligated person's liquidity and overall creditworthiness, and affect security holders' rights to assets or revenues. If an issuer's or obligated person's liquidity and creditworthiness is impacted and/or the rights of security holders are affected, the credit quality and price of the issuer's or obligated person's outstanding municipal securities could be affected.
We propose to include in the rule a list of events—specifically, covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms—which are typically agreed to in connection with the incurrence of a financial obligation and analyzed by market participants.
In addition, issuers and obligated persons may agree to material priority rights which provide the counterparty with better terms than existing security holders and, as a result, adversely affect the rights of security holders. For example, an issuer or obligated person may agree to provide superior rights to the counterparty in assets or revenues that were previously pledged to existing security holders and, as a result, reduce security for existing security holders. Lastly, there are other material terms similar to covenants, events of default, remedies, and priority rights that an issuer or obligated person may agree to that could, among other things, create liquidity, credit, or refinancing risks that could affect the liquidity and creditworthiness of an issuer or obligated person or the terms of the securities they issue. For example, an investor may make an investment decision without knowing the issuer or obligated person has entered into a financial obligation structured with a balloon payment at maturity creating refinancing risk that could compromise the issuer or obligated person's liquidity and creditworthiness and their ability to repay their outstanding municipal securities.
Lack of access or delay in access to continuing disclosure information about material financial obligations means that there are more opportunities for investors to make investment decisions, and other market participants to undertake credit analyses, without access to this important information. Timely access to information about the incurrence of a material financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person would allow investors and other market participants to learn important information about the current financial condition of the issuer or obligated person, including potential impacts to the issuer's or obligated person's liquidity and overall creditworthiness. Timely access to information about the agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material, would allow investors and other market participants to learn important information about the creation of contingent liquidity risk, credit risk, and refinancing risk, including these risks' potential impact to the issuer's or obligated person's liquidity and overall creditworthiness, and whether security holders have been affected. Timely access to this information would help reduce the likelihood that market participants would have insufficient information to make informed investment decisions
The MSRB and certain market participants have been focused on the potential negative impacts associated with the lack of secondary market disclosure regarding debt obligations that are direct placements, as well as other financial obligations,
The Commission believes the proposed amendments would facilitate investor access to important information in a timely manner and help to enhance transparency. If an issuer or obligated person provides an event notice to the MSRB, it would be displayed on the MSRB's EMMA Web site. EMMA provides free public access to continuing disclosure documents, including event notices. In addition, EMMA includes a feature that allows market participants to sign up to receive automatic alerts from EMMA when information becomes available with respect to individual or groups of municipal securities, including notice of the submission of an event notice with respect to such individual or groups of municipal securities. The Commission further preliminarily believes that the event notice generally should include a description of the material terms of the financial obligation. Examples of some material terms may be the date of incurrence, principal amount, maturity and amortization, interest rate, if fixed, or method of computation, if variable (and any default rates); other terms may be appropriate as well, depending on the circumstances. A description of the material terms would help further the availability of information in a timely manner to assist investors in making more informed investment decisions.
The Commission requests comment regarding all aspects of the proposed addition of subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(15) concerning the event notice for the incurrence of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material. When responding to the requests for comment, please explain your reasoning.
• The Commission requests comment relating to the frequency of such event and the utility of this information by investors and other market participants in the secondary market.
• Is the triggering of the obligation to provide the event notice clear?
• Should the rule or guidance explicitly address where an issuer or obligated person incurs a series of related financial obligations, where a single incurrence may not be material but in the aggregate the incurrences would be material? In such a scenario, when should the trigger of the obligation to provide the event notice occur?
• Are there other events that should be included in subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(15) of the Rule? Should any of the events proposed to be included be eliminated or modified?
• The Commission further requests comment as to whether the materiality conditions are appropriate conditions for subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(15) of the Rule. Should any or all of the items included in the proposed rule text not be subject to the proposed materiality condition?
• Are there any events that should be added to subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(15) of the Rule, but should not be subject to a materiality condition?
• The Commission further requests comment as to whether “any of which affect security holders” is an appropriate condition to include with respect to “agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person” in subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(15) of the Rule. Should any of the items included in the proposed rule text not be subject to the “any of which affect security holders” condition? Should the proposed condition be modified to only capture events which adversely affect security holders?
• Should the Commission provide additional guidance on the types of information issuers and obligated persons should consider in drafting event notices?
• The Commission also requests comment regarding the benefits and costs of adding this proposed event.
The Commission proposes to amend Rule 15c2-12(f) to add a definition for “financial obligation.” Under the proposed definition, the term financial obligation means a debt obligation, lease, guarantee, derivative instrument, or monetary obligation resulting from a judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding. The term financial obligation does not include municipal securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the MSRB consistent with Rule 15c2-12.
As discussed above, some market participants are concerned not only about the lack of access or delay in access to disclosure regarding financial obligations that are direct placements, but also about the lack of access or delay in access to disclosure of the existence of other financial obligations. Similar to the concerns that market participants raised about financial obligations that are direct placements, an issuer's or obligated person's incurrence of other financial obligations could impair the rights of existing security holders, including the seniority status of such security holders, or impact the creditworthiness of an issuer or obligated person.
As proposed, the term debt obligation is intended to capture short-term and long-term debt obligations of an issuer or obligated person under the terms of an indenture, loan agreement, or similar contract that will be repaid over time. Under the proposed amendments, for example, a direct purchase of municipal securities by an investor and a direct loan by a bank would be debt obligations of the issuer or obligated person. As proposed, the term lease is intended to capture a lease that is entered into by an issuer or obligated person, including an operating or capital lease. Under the proposed amendments, for example, if an issuer or obligated person enters into a lease-
The term guarantee
As proposed, the term derivative instrument is intended to capture any swap, security-based swap, futures contract, forward contract, option, any combination of the foregoing, or any similar instrument to which an issuer or obligated person is a counterparty.
Monetary obligations resulting from a judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding are included in the proposed definition
The proposed definition would help improve the timely availability of important information to investors and other market participants regarding financial obligations and provide investors the ability to take such information into account when making investment decisions and other market participants the ability to take such information into account when undertaking credit analyses.
The Commission requests comment regarding all aspects of the proposed definition of financial obligation. When responding to the requests for comment, please explain your reasoning.
• Are there any more appropriate alternative definitions? For example, would it be more appropriate to include a definition that does not identify each type of financial obligation?
• Should each type of financial obligation included in the proposed definition be defined? Or is there an existing definition of financial obligation that the Commission could instead use?
• Are there any financial obligations that would not be covered in the proposed definition that should be?
• Should other contracts that create future payment obligations (
• Should any of the terms included in the definition be modified? Should any terms be added to the definition to achieve the stated goal?
• Comment is also requested on whether including a definition in the Rule is necessary.
The Commission proposes to add an event notice for the occurrence of a default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, provided the occurrence reflects financial difficulties, to the list of events in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule. As with the other event notice, a Participating Underwriter would need to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has agreed to provide notice of such events in its continuing disclosure agreement.
The Commission preliminarily believes that qualifying the event notice trigger with “any of which reflect financial difficulties,” would strike an appropriate balance. As proposed, the term “any of which reflect financial difficulties” applies to all of the events listed in the proposed event notice (
As described above, investors and other market participants may not have any access or timely access to disclosure regarding the occurrence of a default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, and any of which reflect financial difficulties. For example, if an issuer or obligated person defaults and such default reflects financial difficulties, investors either may not ever become aware of the default or may not become aware of the default in a timely manner. In both these cases, investors could be making investment decisions, and other market participants could be undertaking credit analyses, without important information regarding the current financial condition of the issuer or obligated person that could potentially adversely impact the issuer's or obligated person's liquidity and overall creditworthiness. If an issuer's or obligated person's liquidity and creditworthiness are adversely impacted, the credit quality and price of the issuer's or obligated person's outstanding municipal securities could be affected which could impact an investor's investment decision or a market participant's credit analysis.
A default could be a monetary default, where an issuer or obligated person fails to pay principal, interest, or other funds due, or a non-payment related default, which occurs when the issuer or obligated person fails to comply with specified covenants.
A termination event typically allows either party to a financial obligation to terminate the agreement subject to certain conditions, including in some cases payment of a termination fee by the issuer or obligated person.
A modification of terms of a financial obligation may occur when an issuer or obligated person is in a distressed financial situation. For example, there may be circumstances where an issuer or obligated person, due to financial difficulties, anticipates not meeting the terms of a financial obligation, such as a covenant to maintain a specified debt service coverage ratio,
Other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person reflecting financial difficulties share similar characteristics to one of the listed events (a default, event of acceleration, termination event, or modification of terms). An issuer or obligated person could fail to perform a covenant not related to payment required under a financial obligation that does not result in the occurrence of a default, but the occurrence of this other event does reflect financial difficulties of the issuer or obligated person. For example, an issuer could fail to meet a construction deadline with respect to a facility being financed by the proceeds of a financial obligation due to financial difficulties. As a result of the failure to meet this deadline, a default does not occur, but the lender is entitled to take possession of the facility and complete construction. Like the events described above, the occurrence of the failure to meet a performance covenant reflecting financial difficulties could provide information relevant in making an assessment of the current financial condition of the issuer or obligated person, including potential
Although the occurrence of defaults
The Commission requests comment regarding all aspects of the proposed addition of subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(16) concerning the event notice for an occurrence of a default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties. When responding to the requests for comment, please explain your reasoning.
• Are there additional events that should be specified in the rule text? Is “other similar event” broad enough to capture all events that upon their occurrence may reflect that an issuer or obligated person is in financial difficulty? Are there events included in the proposed rule text that should be omitted?
• The Commission further requests comment as to whether the qualification “reflecting financial difficulties” is appropriate for subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(16) of the Rule. Should any or all of the items included in the proposed rule text not be subject to the proposed qualification? Although the concept of “reflecting financial difficulties” has been used since the adoption of Rule 15c2-12, the Commission asks whether it should provide guidance regarding the use of this concept in the context of these proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12.
• In addition, commenters should address the benefits and costs of this aspect of the proposed amendments.
The Commission proposes a technical amendment to paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(14) of the Rule to remove the term “and” since new events are proposed to be added to paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule.
If the Commission adopts the proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12, they would apply to continuing disclosure agreements that are entered into in connection with primary offerings occurring on or after the compliance date of such proposed amendments. The Commission recognizes that continuing disclosure agreements entered into prior to the compliance date of any final amendments likely would not reflect changes made to the Rule by such amendments. As a result, event items covered by a continuing disclosure agreement entered into prior to the compliance date of any amendments may be different from those event items covered by a continuing disclosure agreement entered into on or after the compliance date.
The Commission preliminarily believes that if the proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12 were adopted it would be preferable to implement them expeditiously. If the Commission were to approve the proposed amendments, the Commission preliminarily is considering a compliance date that would be three months after any final adoption of the proposed amendments to allow sufficient time for the MSRB to make necessary modifications to the EMMA system, and for Participating Underwriters to comply with the new Rule.
The Commission notes that currently under paragraph (c) of the Rule, a dealer cannot recommend the purchase or sale of a municipal security unless such dealer has procedures in place that provide reasonable assurance that it will receive prompt notice of any event disclosed pursuant to paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(C) and (D) and paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of the Rule with respect to the security. In the case of municipal securities subject to a continuing disclosure agreement entered into prior to the compliance date of any final amendments, the recommending dealer would receive notice solely of those events covered by that continuing disclosure agreement, namely, the events specified in the Rule when the continuing disclosure agreement was entered into. Because, in such case, the continuing disclosure agreement likely would not cover any of the items proposed to be added to the Rule, the recommending dealer would not be required to have procedures in place that provide reasonable assurance that it would receive prompt notice of events proposed to be added to the Rule.
The Commission requests comment on the impact of the proposed amendments with respect to dealers that recommend the purchase or sale of municipal securities. The Commission also requests comment on what changes, if any, dealers would have to make to their procedures in connection with any final amendments that the Commission may adopt relating to the receipt of event notices. The Commission further seeks comment on any other transition issues in connection with the proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12.
The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to the Rule. In addition to the comments requested throughout this proposing release, comment is requested on whether the proposed amendments would further enhance the availability of important information to investors, and whether the proposed amendments would help facilitate investors' ability to obtain such information. Further, the Commission seeks comment regarding the impact of the proposed amendments on Participating Underwriters, dealers, issuers, obligated persons, investors, the MSRB, information vendors, and others that may be affected by the proposed amendments. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are alternative approaches or modifications to the Commission's proposed approach to achieve our objectives with regard to the two events proposed here to be included in Rule 15c2-12(b)(5)(i)(C). Commenters are requested to indicate their views and to provide any other suggestions that they may have.
Certain provisions of the proposed amendments to the Rule contain “collection of information requirements” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
Under paragraph (b) of Rule 15c2-12, a Participating Underwriter currently is required: (1) To obtain and review an official statement deemed final by an issuer of the securities, except for the omission of specified information, prior to making a bid, purchase, offer, or sale of municipal securities; (2) in non-competitively bid offerings, to send, upon request, a copy of the most recent preliminary official statement (if one exists) to potential customers; (3) to contract with the issuer to receive, within a specified time, sufficient copies of the final official statement to comply with the Rule's delivery requirement, and the requirements of the rules of the MSRB; (4) to send, upon request, a copy of the final official statement to potential customers for a specified period of time; and (5) before purchasing or selling municipal securities in connection with an offering, to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract, for the benefit of holders of such municipal securities, to provide annual filings, event notices, and failure to file notices (
Under paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule, Participating Underwriters are required to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has undertaken in a continuing disclosure agreement to provide event notices to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, in a timely manner not in excess of ten business days, when any of the following events with respect to the securities being offered in an offering occurs: (1) Principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non-payment related defaults, if material; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the I.R.S. of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the security, or other material events affecting the tax status of the security; (7) modifications to rights of security holders, if material; (8) bond calls, if material, and tender offers; (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of securities, if material; (11) rating changes; (12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the obligated person; (13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an obligated person or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the obligated person, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and (14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of a name of a trustee, if material.
Under the proposed amendments, the Commission proposes to add two additional event notices that a Participating Underwriter in an Offering must reasonably determine that an issuer or an obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract for the benefit of holders of the municipal securities, to provide to the MSRB. Specifically, the proposed amendments would amend the list of events for which notice is to be provided to include the proposed events.
For purposes of the proposed amendments, the Commission is proposing to define the term “financial obligation” to mean a (i) debt obligation, (ii) lease, (iii) guarantee, (iv) derivative instrument, or (v) monetary obligation resulting from a judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding. As proposed to be defined, the term financial obligation does not include municipal securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the MSRB consistent with Rule 15c2-12.
The proposed amendments would provide dealers with timely access to important information about municipal securities that they can use to carry out their obligations under the securities laws, thereby reducing the likelihood of antifraud violations. This information could be used by individual and
In November 2015, OMB approved an extension without change of a currently approved collection of information associated with the Rule. The currently approved paperwork collection associated with Rule 15c2-12 applies to dealers, issuers of municipal securities, and the MSRB. The paperwork collection associated with these proposed amendments would apply to the same respondents.
The proposal would add two additional event disclosure items that a Participating Underwriter in an Offering is required to reasonably determine that the issuer or an obligated person has undertaken in a continuing disclosure agreement to submit event notices to the MSRB in a timely manner not in excess of ten business days of their occurrence. The Commission gathered updated information regarding the paperwork burden associated with Rule 15c2-12 in connection with the 2015 extension of its currently approved collection and is using these estimates in preparing the paperwork collection estimates associated with its current proposal because it believes they continue to be reasonable estimates as of the date of this proposal. In 2015, the Commission estimated that the number of respondents impacted by the paperwork collection associated with the Rule consists of approximately 250 dealers and 20,000 issuers.
In the currently approved PRA collection, the Commission included estimates for the hourly burdens that the Rule imposes upon dealers, issuers of municipal securities, and the MSRB. Because the proposed amendments do not change the structure of the rule or who it applies to, the Commission has relied on these estimates to prepare the analysis discussed below for each of the aforementioned entities.
The Commission estimates the aggregate information collection burden for the amended Rule would consist of the following:
Consistent with the Commission's estimates in 2015, the Commission estimates that approximately 250 dealers potentially could serve as Participating Underwriters in an offering of municipal securities. Therefore, the Commission estimates that, under the proposed amendments, the maximum number of dealer respondents would be 250.
Under the current Rule, the Commission has estimated that the total annual burden on all 250 dealers is 22,500 hours. This estimate includes an estimate of (1) 2,500 hours per year for 250 dealers (10 hours per year per dealer) to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract, for the benefit of holders of such municipal securities, to provide continuing disclosure documents to the MSRB, and (2) 20,000 hours per year for 250 dealers (80 hours per year per dealer) serving as Participating Underwriters to determine whether issuers or obligated persons have failed to comply, in all material respects, with any previous undertakings in a written contract or agreement specified in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of the Rule.
Under the current Rule, the Commission has estimated that 250 dealers would spend an average of 10 hours per year per dealer to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract, for the benefit of holders of such municipal securities, to provide continuing disclosure documents to the MSRB. The proposed amendments to paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule would not alter a dealer's obligation to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract, for the benefit of holders of such municipal securities, to provide continuing disclosure documents to the MSRB.
The Commission does not believe that the proposed amendments would change the number of issuers with municipal securities offerings that are subject to the Rule. The proposed changes to the Rule would result in a need for issuers to make changes to certain provisions of their continuing disclosure agreements,
Thus, the Commission estimates that pursuant to the Rule as proposed to be amended, 250 dealers would continue to incur an estimated average burden of
Under the current Rule, the Commission has also estimated that each of the 250 dealers serving as a Participating Underwriter will expend an average of 80 hours per year per dealer to determine whether issuers or obligated persons have failed to comply, in all material respects, with any previous undertakings in a written contract or agreement specified in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of the Rule. Determining whether an issuer or obligated person has filed continuing disclosure documents will usually include an examination of the filings made over a five-year period on the MSRB's EMMA system. An underwriter may also ask questions of an issuer, and, where, appropriate, obtain certifications from an issuer, obligated person, or other appropriate party about facts such as the occurrence of specific events listed in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule and the timely filing of annual filings and any required event notices or failure to file notices.
The Commission does not believe that the proposed amendments would change the number of Participating Underwriters that are subject to the Rule. However, the Commission has estimated that the amendments to the Rule would result in an average expenditure of an additional 10 hours per year per dealer for each dealer to determine whether issuers or obligated persons have failed to comply, in all material respects, with any previous undertakings in a written contract or agreement specified in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of the Rule.
Accordingly, including the additional hourly burden resulting from the proposed amendments, the Commission estimates that 250 dealers would incur an estimated average burden of 25,000 hours per year to comply with the Rule, as proposed to be amended.
The Commission estimates that a dealer would incur a one-time paperwork burden to have its internal compliance attorney prepare and issue a notice advising its employees about the proposed revisions to Rule 15c2-12, including any updates to policies and procedures affected by the proposed amendments. In the 2010 Amendments Adopting Release, the Commission estimated that it would take a dealer's internal compliance attorney approximately 30 minutes to prepare and issue a notice describing the dealer's obligations in light of the 2010 Amendments to the Rule.
Under the proposed amendments, the total burden on dealers would be 25,125 hours for the first year
The proposed amendments would result in a paperwork burden on issuers of municipal securities. For this purpose, issuers include issuers of municipal securities described in paragraph (f)(4) of the Rule and obligated persons described in paragraph (f)(10) of the Rule.
In its currently approved collection, the Commission estimates that approximately 20,000 issuers will annually submit to the MSRB approximately 62,596 annual filings, 73,480 event notices, and 7,063 failure to file notices.
The Commission proposes to modify paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule, which presently requires Participating Underwriters in an Offering to reasonably determine that an issuer or obligated person has entered into a continuing disclosure agreement that, among other things, contemplates the submission of an event notice to the MSRB in an electronic format upon the occurrence of any events set forth in the Rule. The current Rule contains fourteen such events. The proposed amendments to this paragraph of the Rule would add two new event disclosure items. In 2015, the Commission estimated that approximately 20,000 issuers of municipal securities with continuing disclosure agreements would prepare and submit approximately 73,480 event notices annually. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments to paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule would increase the current annual paperwork burden for issuers because they would result in an increase in the number of event notices to be prepared and submitted.
Under the proposed amendments, subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(15) would be added to the Rule and would contain a new disclosure event in the case of the incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material. The proposed addition to the Rule would expand the circumstances in which issuers would submit an event notice to the MSRB. The Commission estimates that the proposed amendment in subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(15) of the Rule would increase the total number of event notices submitted by issuers annually by approximately 2,100 notices.
Under the proposed amendments, subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(16) of the Rule would be amended to include default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties. The inclusion of such event in this subparagraph of the Rule would result in an expansion of the circumstances in which issuers would submit an event notice to the MSRB. The Commission estimates that proposed amendments to subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(16) of the Rule would increase the total number of event notices to be submitted by issuers annually by approximately 100 notices.
In 2015, the Commission estimated that the process for an issuer to prepare and submit event notices to the MSRB in an electronic format, including time to actively monitor the need for filing, would require an average of approximately two hours per filing. The Commission estimates that time required for an issuer to prepare and submit the proposed two additional types of event notices to the MSRB in an electronic format, including time to actively monitor the need for filing, would also require an average of approximately two hours per filing, because the two proposed types of event notices would require substantially the same amount of time to prepare as those prepared for existing events. The Commission considered the hourly burdens placed on both issuers that use designated agents to submit continuing disclosure filings to the MSRB and the burdens placed on issuers that do not use designated agents in computing this overall average. Under the proposed amendments to paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule, the Commission estimates that the 20,000 issuers of municipal securities with continuing disclosure agreements would prepare an additional 2,200 event notices annually,
Accordingly, under the proposed amendments, the total burden on issuers to submit continuing disclosure documents would be 603,658 hours.
In its currently approved collection, the Commission estimated that the MSRB incurred an annual burden of approximately 12,699 hours to collect, index, store, retrieve, and make available the pertinent documents under the Rule.
The Commission estimates that the ongoing annual aggregate information collection burden for the Rule after giving effect to the proposed
The Commission does not expect dealers to incur any additional external costs associated with the proposed amendments to the Rule because the proposed amendments do not change the obligation of dealers under the Rule to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract, for the benefit of holders of such municipal securities, to provide continuing disclosure documents to the MSRB, and to determine whether the issuer or obligated person has failed to comply with such undertakings in all material respects. As previously noted, the Commission believes that the task of preparing and issuing a notice advising the dealer's employees about the proposed amendments is consistent with the type of compliance work that a dealer typically handles internally,
The Commission does not expect the MSRB to incur any additional external costs associated with the proposed amendments to the Rule. In its currently approved collection, the Commission estimated that the MSRB would expend approximately $10,000 annually in hardware and software costs for the MSRB's EMMA system.
The Commission believes that issuers generally will not incur external costs associated with the preparation of event notices filed under these proposed amendments because issuers will generally prepare the information contained in the continuing disclosures internally; these internal costs have been accounted for in the hourly burden section in Section IV.D.2.ii.
The Commission also expects that some issuers could be subject to some costs associated with the proposed amendments to the Rule if they pay third parties to assist them with their continuing disclosure responsibilities. In its currently approved collection, the Commission estimated that up to 65% of issuers may use designated agents to submit some or all of their continuing disclosure documents to the MSRB for a fee estimated to range from $0 to $1,500 per year depending on the designated agent an issuer uses.
The Commission believes this estimate is still reasonable. In 2015, the Commission estimated that issuers would submit 62,596 annual filings, 73,480 event notices, and 7,063 failure to file notices, for a total of 143,139 continuing disclosure documents submitted annually. Under the proposed amendments to the Rule, some issuers would need to prepare additional event notices for submission to the MSRB. Some issuers could use the services of a designated agent to submit these additional event notices to the MSRB. Under the proposed amendments to the Rule, the Commission estimates that a high-end estimate of the number of additional event notices that issuers would need to submit annually under the proposed amendments would be 2,200.
There likely would also be some costs incurred by issuers to revise their current template for continuing disclosure agreements to reflect the proposed amendments to the Rule. The Commission understands that models currently exist for continuing disclosure agreements that are relied upon by legal counsel to issuers and, accordingly, these documents would likely be updated by outside attorneys to reflect the proposed amendments. Based on a review of industry sources, the Commission believes that continuing disclosure agreements tend to be standard form agreements. In the 2010 Amendments Adopting Release, the Commission estimated that it would take an outside attorney approximately 15 minutes to revise the template for continuing disclosure agreements for an issuer in light of the 2010 Amendments to the Rule.
As an SRO subject to Rule 17a-1 under the Exchange Act,
Any collection of information pursuant to the proposed amendments to the Rule would be a mandatory collection of information.
The collection of information pursuant to the proposed amendments to the Rule would not be confidential and would be publicly available.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2), the Commission solicits comments regarding: (1) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the revised collections of information; (3) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (5) whether there are cost savings associated with the collection of information that have not been identified in this proposal.
The Commission has submitted to OMB for approval the proposed revisions to the current collection of information titled “Municipal Securities Disclosure.” Persons submitting comments on the collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-01-17, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. As OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to this collection of information should be in writing, should refer to File No. S7-01-17, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
As discussed above, the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 15c2-12 under the Exchange Act relating to municipal securities disclosure. The proposed amendments would amend the list of event notices the Participating Underwriter must reasonably determine that an issuer or obligated person has agreed to provide to the MSRB in its continuing disclosure agreement to include the proposed events. In addition, the Commission proposes an amendment to Rule 15c2-12(f) to add a definition for “financial obligation” and a technical amendment to subparagraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(14).
As discussed in Section II.D., the need for more timely disclosure of information in the municipal securities market about financial obligations is highlighted by market developments beginning in 2009 which feature the increasing use of direct placements by issuers and obligated persons as financing alternatives to public offerings of municipal securities. According to FDIC Call Report data, the dollar amount of commercial bank loans to state and local governments has more than doubled since the financial crisis, increasing from $66.5 billion as of the end of 2010 to $153.3 billion by the end of 2015.
The use of direct placements, as well as other financial obligations, may benefit issuers and obligated persons in the form of convenience or lower borrowing costs relative to a public offering of municipal securities. For example, there is typically no requirement to prepare an offering document or obtain a credit rating, liquidity facility, or bond insurance for a direct placement or other financial obligation.
However, under the current regulatory framework, investors and other market participants may not have any access or timely access to information related to the incurrence of financial obligations and other events proposed to be included, despite their potential impact on investors in municipal securities. More specifically, investors and other market participants may not have any access to disclosure of the proposed events if the issuer or obligated person does not provide annual financial information or audited financial statements to EMMA, or does not, subsequent to the occurrence of the proposed events, issue debt in a primary offering subject to Rule 15c2-12 that results in the provision of a final official statement to EMMA. Further, even if investors and other market participants have access to information about the proposed events, such access may not be timely if, for example, the issuer or obligated person has not submitted annual financial information or audited financial statements in a timely manner or does not often issue debt that results in an official statement being submitted to EMMA. As discussed earlier, such annual financial information and audited financial statements may not be available until several months or up to a year after the end of the issuer's or obligated person's fiscal year, and a significant amount of time could pass before the issuer's or obligated person's next primary offering subject to Rule 15c2-12. As a result, investors could be making investment decisions on whether to buy, sell or hold municipal securities without the current information about an issuer's or obligated person's outstanding debt; and other market participants could also be undertaking credit analyses without such information. Moreover, even when investors and other market participants do have access to information about such events in the issuer's or obligated person's annual financial information or audited financial statements or in a subsequent official statement, the disclosure typically is limited.
Numerous market participants, including the MSRB, FINRA, academics and industry groups, have encouraged issuers and obligated persons to voluntarily disclose information about certain financial obligations.
The Commission is mindful of the costs imposed by and benefits obtained from its rules. The following economic analysis seeks to identify and consider the likely benefits and costs that would result from the proposed amendments, including their effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Overall, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12 would facilitate investors' and other market participants' access to more timely and informative disclosure in the secondary market about financial obligations of issuers and obligated persons, provide information that could be used to make more informed investment decisions or produce more informed analyses, and enhance investor protection. The discussion below elaborates on the likely costs and benefits of the proposed amendments and their potential impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
Where possible, the Commission has attempted to quantify the costs, benefits, and effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation that may result from the proposed rule amendments. However, the Commission is unable to quantify some of the economic effects. For example, because most municipal securities trade infrequently, recent trade prices are generally not available to estimate the value of these securities.
To assess the economic impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12, we are using as our baseline the existing regulatory framework for municipal securities disclosure, including current Rule 15c2-12, and current relevant MSRB rules.
As discussed earlier, the need for more timely and informative disclosure of the municipal securities is highlighted by market developments beginning in 2009, which feature the increasing use of direct placements by issuers and obligated persons as financing alternatives to public offerings of municipal securities. As a starting point of our baseline analysis, we provide an overview of the current state of the municipal securities market and issuers' and obligated persons' use of direct placements based on data from the Federal Reserve Board's Flow of Funds data,
According to Flow of Funds data, the notional amount of the total municipal securities outstanding in the U.S. was $3.83 trillion as of the end of the third quarter 2016.
However, the involvement of commercial banks in the municipal capital markets has increased dramatically in terms of purchases of municipal securities and extensions of loans to state and local governments and their instrumentalities.
The use of direct placements and other financial obligations can result in an increase in the issuer's or obligated person's outstanding debt, and negatively impact the liquidity and creditworthiness of the issuer or obligated person and the prices of their outstanding municipal securities. However, currently, there is a lack of secondary market disclosure about these financial obligations which has been discussed by the MSRB, certain market participants and academics.
As discussed above, the Commission first adopted Rule 15c2-12 in 1989 as a means reasonably designed to prevent fraud in the municipal securities market by enhancing the quality, timing, and dissemination of disclosure in the municipal securities primary market.
Furthermore, even if it is accessible to investors and other market participants, the disclosure of the information about the proposed events in an issuer's or obligated person's official statement, annual financial information, or audited financial statements may not include certain details about the financial obligations. Specifically, disclosure of a financial obligation in an issuer's or obligated person's financial statements may be a line item about the amount of the financial obligation, and may not provide investors and other market participants with information relating to an issuer's or obligated person's agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation, any of which affect security holders, if material.
MSRB rules do not address the disclosure of the events listed in Rule 15c2-12. However, as described above, the MSRB has highlighted the increased use of direct placements as a financing alternative.
In March 2016, the MSRB published a regulatory notice requesting comment on a concept proposal to require municipal advisors to disclose information regarding the direct placements of their municipal entity clients to EMMA.
Under current rules, certain inefficiencies may arise in the municipal securities market as a result of the lack of timely disclosure of information on important credit events. In particular, because the proposed events need not be included in the issuer's and obligated person's continuing disclosure agreements, the impact of such events may not be learned by market participants in a timely manner. The lack of timely disclosure may cause the prices of certain municipal securities to not reflect fundamental value.
As discussed above, there exists an information asymmetry between lenders and municipal securities investors under the current Rule 15c2-12. The terms of a financial obligation incurred by an issuer or obligated person may include covenants that give the lender or counterparty priority rights over existing security holders. Existing security holders may be unaware of the change in priority structure of the issuer's or obligated person's municipal securities for an extended period of time, and future investors may buy the securities at inflated prices which do not reflect the change in priority structure. Existing investors may also be unaware of the occurrence of certain events under the terms of a financial obligation, such as a default, where the lender might have renegotiated the terms of lending agreement and which may reflect the worsened financial condition of the issuer or obligated person. The information asymmetry between lenders and municipal securities investors could place investors in a disadvantageous position relative to lenders when making municipal securities investment decisions.
The price inefficiencies in the municipal securities market and the disparity in available information for different types of investors could result in obstacles for the efficient allocation of capital. For example, while some investors may overinvest in municipal securities due to incomplete information about the amount and priority structure of an issuer's or obligated person's debt obligations, other municipal securities investors who are aware of the possible information asymmetry may underinvest because of a perceived information disadvantage relative to issuers or obligated persons or risks associated with making investment decisions.
The Commission has considered the potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed amendments.
The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments would potentially yield several benefits to municipal securities investors. First, the proposed amendments would provide investors with access to more timely and informative disclosure about an issuer's or obligated person's financial condition, both of which can assist them in making more informed investment decisions when trading in the secondary market.
As discussed in Section III.A., the information regarding the proposed events is relevant for investors' investment decision making. The incurrence of a financial obligation can result in an increase in the issuer's or obligated person's outstanding debt; agreement to a covenant, event of default or remedy under the terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person may create contingent liquidity and credit risk that could also potentially impact the issuer's or obligated person's liquidity and overall creditworthiness. The occurrence of a default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar event under terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties, could provide relevant information regarding whether the financial condition of the issuer or the obligated person has changed or worsened, and if the issuer or obligated person has agreed to new terms that would provide the counterparty with superior rights to assets or revenues that were previously pledged to existing security holders. All these pieces of information contain relevant information about the cash flows investors may expect to receive, and can therefore impact the prices of municipal securities. Without this information, prices of municipal securities could be distorted from fundamental value in both the primary and secondary markets.
However, currently, notice of these events may not be available to the public at all, because the issuer or obligated person may not provide annual financial information or audited financial statements to EMMA, and a Participating Underwriter in an Offering is not currently required under Rule 15c2-12 to reasonably determine that an issuer or obligated person has undertaken to provide notices of these events. If an issuer or obligated person provides such information in their annual financial information or audited financial statements, this information may not become available until several months or up to a year after the end of the issuer's or obligated person's applicable fiscal year, and a significant amount of time could pass before the issuer or obligated person's next primary offering subject to Rule 15c2-12. Moreover, the disclosure information may not include all the proposed events. For example, the disclosure may include only the existence of the financial obligation that the issuer or obligated person has incurred, but not specified material terms of the financial obligations that can affect security holders, including those terms that, for example, affect security holders' priority rights. Therefore, investors could be making investment decisions without knowing that their contractual rights have been adversely impacted. As such, the current level of disclosure regarding the proposed events is neither timely nor adequately informative about the issuer's or obligated person's creditworthiness.
To the extent that investors in the municipal securities market rely on credit ratings as a meaningful indicator of credit risk, the recent efforts of certain credit rating agencies to collect information from issuers and obligated persons about the incurrence of direct placements may help improve the accuracy of credit ratings and mitigate potential mispricing in the municipal securities market.
Under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12, Participating Underwriters would be required to reasonably determine that an issuer or obligated person had agreed in its continuing disclosure agreement to provide notices for the proposed events within 10 business days. Consequently, pursuant to the proposed amendments, municipal securities investors and other market participants would potentially have access to the disclosure within 10 business days as opposed to waiting for the issuer's or obligated person's next primary offering subject to Rule 15c2-12, or until the release of annual financial information or audited financial statements, or not receive any information at all. Therefore, the proposed amendments would provide investors access to information regarding the issuer's or obligated person's financial obligations in a more timely manner. In addition, the proposed notices would include agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights or other similar terms of a direct or contingent financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person that affect security holders, so the disclosures provided to MSRB would be informative about not just the existence of the incurred financial obligation, but also how they may impact security holders. Overall, the proposed amendments would provide information investors could use to better assess the risks involved with an investment in a municipal security, and therefore make more informed investment decisions.
Second, improvement in municipal disclosure may reduce information asymmetries between investors and other more informed parties such as issuers, obligated persons, counterparties and lenders, and therefore enhance investor protection. As discussed above, for example, the terms of a financial obligation may include covenants that give lenders or counterparties priority rights over existing security holders. Specifically, for example, a bank loan agreement could give the lender a lien on assets or revenues that also secure the repayment of an issuer's or obligated person's outstanding municipal securities which could adversely affect the rights of existing security holders. If disclosure is not available to security holders about such events, they will be unable to take any actions they would have taken had they been informed, such as exiting
Issuers and obligated persons may also experience a decrease in borrowing costs that are related to public offerings of municipal securities under the proposed amendments because of the increased level of disclosure. For example, in the context of corporate issuers, economic theories suggest that information asymmetry can lead to an adverse selection problem and therefore reduced the level of liquidity for firms' equity.
Currently, the Commission is unable to provide reasonable estimates of the potential change in borrowing costs. Such costs may vary significantly depending on a number of factors, including the characteristics of the issuer or obligated person (
The proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments would help rating agencies and municipal analysts gain access to more updated information about the issuer's and obligated person's credit and financial position at a lower cost. As rating agencies and municipal analysts have stated on a number of occasions, direct placements can have credit implications for ratings on an issuer's or obligated person's outstanding municipal securities.
The Commission expects that, under the proposed amendments, issuers and obligated persons would experience an increase in administrative costs from undertaking in their continuing disclosure agreements to produce the proposed notices. As discussed above,
Borrowing costs also could potentially increase for issuers and obligated persons compared to the baseline scenario as lenders might be less willing to continue engaging in direct placements or other types of alternative financings in their current form under the proposed amendments because lenders may be less able to profit from their information advantage over other investors. Currently, an issuer or obligated person may agree to provide superior rights to the counterparty in assets or revenues that were previously pledged to existing security holders when they enter into a financial obligation without disclosing the information to the public. Lenders might be willing to offer lower rates to issuers and obligated persons in return for the superior rights. A public disclosure of such arrangements under the proposed amendments, therefore, could potentially reduce opportunities for lenders to move ahead in the priority queue either because issuers and
Currently, the Commission is unable to provide reasonable estimates of the potential change in borrowing costs related to direct placements, as well as other financial obligations. Similarly, as discussed earlier, such costs may vary significantly depending on a number of factors, including both the characteristics of the issuer or obligated person (
Pursuant to Rule 15c2-12, a dealer acting as a Participating Underwriter in an Offering has an existing obligation to contract to receive the final official statement.
As a practical matter, dealers' obligations under the proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments would include verifying that the continuing disclosure agreement contains an undertaking by the issuer or obligated person to provide the proposed new event notices to the MSRB, verifying whether the issuer or obligated person has complied with their prior undertakings, and verifying whether the final official statement includes, among other things, an accurate description of the issuer's or obligated person's prior compliance with continuing disclosure obligations. Because the proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments would not significantly alter existing dealer obligations, dealers should not be subject to significant costs. As discussed earlier, the Commission has estimated that 250 dealers would each incur a one-time, first-year burden of 30 minutes to prepare and issue a notice to its employees regarding the dealer's new obligations under the proposed amendments, and that the proposed amendments would result in an average expenditure of an additional 10 hours per year per dealer for each dealer to determine whether issuers or obligated person have failed to comply with any previous undertakings in a written contract or agreement. Therefore, under the proposed amendments, the total burden on dealers would increase 125 hours for the first year and 2500 hours on an annual basis.
Under the proposed amendments, lenders may incur a cost from the disclosure about financial obligations and the terms of the agreements creating such obligations. The increased level of disclosure may reduce lenders' information advantage over other investors. As discussed above, lenders may enjoy certain priority rights in these financial arrangements, which may not be publicly disclosed, or reflected in the price of the issuer's or obligated person's outstanding municipal securities. To the extent that such benefits may be reduced by the disclosure, lenders would incur a cost. In addition, lenders might have reduced incentives to provide financing to issuers or obligated persons, or may only be willing to lend at an increased interest rate, one that better reflects the risks underlying an issuer's or obligated person's entire portfolio of issuances and borrowings, both of which could potentially lead to a loss of investment opportunities and hence a cost to lenders.
The Commission is unable to quantify the potential cost to lenders at this time. Whether the existing lending relationship between lenders and issuers or obligated persons would be affected and how large the impact might be would depend on the level of the disclosure and the nature of the lending relationship, such as the length of the relationship and the number of banks/lenders from who the issuers or obligated persons borrow. However, how much issuers or obligated persons would change in terms of their disclosure behavior, and how much lenders would change in their lending behavior in response to the proposed amendment is not predictable. Without such data, the Commission is unable to provide reasonable estimates of the potential cost to lenders.
The proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments would increase the type of event notices submitted to the MSRB which may result in the MSRB incurring costs associated with such additional notices. As discussed earlier, the Commission estimates, based on preliminary consultations with MSRB staff, that it would require approximately 1,162 hours to implement the necessary modifications to EMMA to reflect the additional disclosures under Rule 15c2-12 in the proposed amendments. Accordingly, the total estimated one-time cost to the MSRB of updating EMMA would be $373,002.
The proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments have the potential to affect efficiency, competition, and capital formation by improving the timeliness and informativeness of disclosure to investors, reducing information asymmetry among market participants, and enhancing transparency about issuers' and obligated persons' debt structures. As described above, lack of disclosure can lead to information asymmetries among different types of investors (
As discussed above, at least one credit rating agency currently requires issuers and obligated persons to provide notification and documentation of the incurrence of certain financial obligations including direct placements in order to maintain their credit ratings, a process that may involve duplicative costs, because each rating agency would have to implement similar process to collect the same information, and issuers and obligated persons would have to provide identical responses multiple times.
The proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12 may also promote competition among issuers and obligated persons looking for funding. Under the current rule, issuers or obligated persons who are not engaged in alternative financings such as direct placements might be competing for capital in a relatively disadvantaged position—all else equal, they should be at least as creditworthy as their counterparts who have incurred undisclosed material financial obligations. However, the market could be pricing these issues identically, placing more creditworthy issuers and obligated persons at a competitive disadvantage. Since the proposed amendments could improve pricing efficiency and increase the likelihood that prices reflect credit risk, the proposed amendments may also promote competition for capital among issuers and obligated persons.
The proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments may also positively affect
The proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments may also help facilitate capital formation. As discussed earlier, under the baseline scenario, there may be price inefficiencies in the market for municipal securities that result from asymmetric information between different sets of municipal securities investors and lenders. By increasing the timeliness and informativeness of disclosure, the proposed rules could reduce the potential for price inefficiencies, resulting in improved allocation of capital. For example, municipal securities investors may underinvest because of a perceived disadvantage or make investment decisions based on untimely and incomplete information. Under the proposed rule amendments, as the municipal securities market becomes more efficient and investors make more informed decisions, capital would be better deployed at an aggregate level, resulting in more efficient capital allocation.
A more transparent and competitive market could also improve market liquidity and facilitate capital formation. According to academic research, disclosure policy influences market liquidity because uninformed investors concerned about asymmetric information, price protect themselves in their securities transactions by offering to sell at a premium or buy at a discount. This price protection could be manifested in higher bid-ask spreads and reduced market liquidity.
Instead of the proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments, the Commission could encourage issuers and obligated persons to voluntarily disclose on an ongoing basis information about the incurrence of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material, and default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties. However, it is unclear whether issuers or obligated persons would have sufficient incentives to do so. As discussed above, despite previous efforts of municipal securities market participants, the MSRB and numerous industry groups
To assist the Commission in evaluating the costs and benefits that could result from the proposed amendments to the Rule, the Commission requests comments on the potential costs and benefits identified in this proposal, as well as any other costs or benefits that could result from the proposed amendments to the Rule. In addition, the Commission also seeks comment on alternative approaches to the proposed amendments and the associated costs and benefits of these approaches. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment with respect to the following questions: Are there any costs and benefits to any entity that are not identified or misidentified in the above analysis? Are there any effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation that are not identified or misidentified in the above analysis? Please be specific and provide analysis and data in support of your views. Should the Commission consider any of the alternative approaches outlined above instead of the proposed amendments? Which approach and why? Are there any other alternative processes to improve municipal disclosure related to financial obligations that the Commission should consider? If so, what are they and what would be the associated costs or benefits of these alternative approaches?
For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
Under SBREFA, a rule is considered “major” where, if adopted, it results in or is likely to result in:
• An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
• A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or
• Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or innovation.
We request comment on whether our proposal would be a “major rule” for purposes of SBREFA. We solicit comment and empirical data on:
• The potential effect on the U.S. economy on an annual basis;
• Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; and
• Any potential effect on competition, investment, or innovation.
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the extent possible.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires the Commission, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities.
As discussed above in Section IV, the Commission estimates that approximately 250 dealers would be Participating Underwriters within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12. The Commission does not believe that any Participating Underwriters would be small broker-dealers or municipal securities dealers. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the proposed rule amendments would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the RFA. The Commission encourages written comments regarding this certification. The Commission solicits comment as to whether the proposed rule amendments could have an effect on small entities that has not been considered. The Commission requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to support the extent of such impact.
Pursuant to the Exchange Act, and particularly Sections 2, 3(b), 10, 15(c), 15B, 17 and 23(a)(1) thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c(b), 78j, 78
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows.
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78
The additions and revisions read as follows.
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(15) Incurrence of a financial obligation of the obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; and
(16) Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of
(f) * * *
(11) The term financial obligation means a (i) debt obligation, (ii) lease, (iii) guarantee, (iv) derivative instrument, or (v) monetary obligation resulting from a judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding. The term financial obligation shall not include municipal securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board consistent with this rule.
By the Commission.
| 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 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR