82_FR_58
Page Range | 15281-15456 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 15344 - Sunshine Act Notice; Notice of Public Hearing Agenda | |
82 FR 15316 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Beef and Ovine Meat From Uruguay and Beef From Argentina and Brazil | |
82 FR 15321 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Swine Health Protection | |
82 FR 15318 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Jackfruit, Pineapple, and Starfruit From Malaysia Into the Continental United States | |
82 FR 15317 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Clementines, Mandarins, and Tangerines From Chile | |
82 FR 15374 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
82 FR 15377 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 15393 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 15415 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
82 FR 15416 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
82 FR 15419 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
82 FR 15418 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Usual and Customary Business Records Maintained by Brewers | |
82 FR 15418 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Designation of Financial Market Utilities | |
82 FR 15333 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 15336 - Applications for New Awards; Assistance for Arts Education Programs-Professional Development for Arts Educators Grants | |
82 FR 15374 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License | |
82 FR 15332 - Market Risk Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 15310 - Response to December 9, 2013, Clean Air Act Section 176A Petition From Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont | |
82 FR 15302 - Civil Penalties | |
82 FR 15364 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Early Career Reviewer Program Application and Vetting System (EAVS) (Center for Scientific Review) | |
82 FR 15369 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection OJJDP National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) Feedback Form package | |
82 FR 15311 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Fish Omnibus Amendment | |
82 FR 15357 - EPA-Mid-Atlantic Region III; Maryland Marine Sanitation Device Standard-Receipt of Petition | |
82 FR 15334 - Defense Innovation Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 15293 - Security Zone; VIP Visits, Palm Beach, FL | |
82 FR 15358 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 15290 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Elizabeth River, Elizabeth, NJ | |
82 FR 15373 - Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 15345 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of AHT Incorporated From the Department of Energy Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Test Procedures and Partial Grant of Interim Waiver | |
82 FR 15371 - Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Through FY 2017 Stand Down Grant Requests | |
82 FR 15420 - Notice of Open Public Hearing | |
82 FR 15415 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on the Interstate 64 Peninsula Study in Virginia | |
82 FR 15345 - National Coal Council | |
82 FR 15344 - Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 15332 - Community Broadband Workshop | |
82 FR 15375 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 15320 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Animal Disease Traceability | |
82 FR 15295 - Safety Zones, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone | |
82 FR 15292 - Safety Zone; City of Eureka Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Humboldt Bay, Eureka, CA | |
82 FR 15319 - Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Live Swine, Pork, and Pork Products From Certain Regions Free of Classical Swine Fever in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico | |
82 FR 15368 - Certificate of Alternate Compliance for the Gladding-Hearn Hulls 418 and 419 | |
82 FR 15367 - Port Access Route Study (PARS): In Nantucket Sound | |
82 FR 15291 - Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA | |
82 FR 15308 - Safety Zone; Roar on the River Fireworks, Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Trenton, MI | |
82 FR 15408 - Spinnaker ETF Trust, et al. | |
82 FR 15407 - AB Bond Fund, Inc., et al. | |
82 FR 15404 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Twenty-Second Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Thirteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan | |
82 FR 15296 - Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA | |
82 FR 15335 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 15370 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With or Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Drug Questionnaire (DEA-341) | |
82 FR 15359 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Experimental Study on Warning Statements for Cigarette Graphic Health Warnings | |
82 FR 15314 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 15372 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Safety Defects; Examination, Correction, and Records | |
82 FR 15371 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Job Corps Enrollee Allotment Determination | |
82 FR 15331 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing | |
82 FR 15326 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss the Committee's Next Topic of Civil Rights Study: Equal Access to Education | |
82 FR 15329 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Civil Rights Concerns in the State and Determine the Next Topic of Committee Study | |
82 FR 15326 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee To Discuss the Committee's Next Topic of Civil Rights Inquiry | |
82 FR 15354 - Midship Pipeline Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues Related to New Pipeline Lateral and Booster Station | |
82 FR 15357 - Republic Transmission, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
82 FR 15353 - Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice Extending Comment Date | |
82 FR 15297 - Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III); Subpart A Configurations of the Mechanical License | |
82 FR 15368 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
82 FR 15370 - Meeting of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Federal Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 15328 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 15327 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 15328 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 15420 - Cost of Living Adjustments for Service-Connected Benefits | |
82 FR 15325 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 15329 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit | |
82 FR 15343 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; The College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) Annual Performance Report (APR) | |
82 FR 15393 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Rule 6.15 | |
82 FR 15408 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 | |
82 FR 15400 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 3, and 4 Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of the ProShares UltraPro 3x Crude Oil ETF and ProShares UltraPro 3x Short Crude Oil ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 | |
82 FR 15417 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 15362 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 15365 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 15365 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 15366 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 15366 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 15362 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 15362 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 15367 - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 15363 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License for Commercialization: Cerclage Annuloplasty Devices for Treating Mitral Valve Regurgitation | |
82 FR 15356 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing | |
82 FR 15410 - Kentucky Disaster #KY-00064 | |
82 FR 15361 - Announcement of Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 | |
82 FR 15411 - California Disaster #CA-00264 | |
82 FR 15410 - California Disaster #CA-00263 | |
82 FR 15411 - Oklahoma Disaster Number OK-00109 | |
82 FR 15392 - Submission for Review: Court Orders Affecting Retirement Benefits | |
82 FR 15392 - Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries Meeting | |
82 FR 15324 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
82 FR 15412 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
82 FR 15325 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
82 FR 15316 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 15322 - Tonto National Forest; Gila County, AZ; Pinto Valley Mine Environmental Impact Statement | |
82 FR 15376 - Information Collection: NRC Form 4, “Cumulative Occupational Exposure History” | |
82 FR 15299 - Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans; Open Burning Requirements | |
82 FR 15301 - State of Iowa; Approval and Promulgation of the Title V Operating Permits Program, the State Implementation Plan, and 112(l) Plan | |
82 FR 15306 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Arcata, CA; Fortuna, CA; and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Arcata, CA, and Eureka, CA | |
82 FR 15304 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Willits, CA | |
82 FR 15303 - Proposed Amendment of Class C and Class E Airspace; Evansville, IN | |
82 FR 15377 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
82 FR 15287 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes | |
82 FR 15284 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
82 FR 15281 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 15422 - Connect America Fund; Universal Service Reform-Mobility Fund |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
National Park Service
Justice Programs Office
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that fatigue cracking could appear at certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs. This AD requires the modification of certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 2, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 2, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0085, dated May 13, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Model A319 and Model A320 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During the A320 fatigue test campaign for Extended Service Goal (ESG), it was determined that fatigue damage could appear at certain fastener locations on the longeron [area] below the emergency exit cut-outs, on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the fuselage.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a modification, which has been published through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1265 for in-service application to allow aeroplanes to operate up to the new ESG limit. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0176 to require modification (cold working) of 8 fastener locations in the longeron area (Stringer 20A) below the emergency exit cut-outs on the LH and RH sides.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was identified that post-mod 32208 aeroplanes, which were excluded from the Applicability of that [EASA] AD, are also affected.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0176, which is superseded, but no longer excludes post-mod 32208 aeroplanes from the Applicability.
As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120-104, several programs have been developed to support initiatives that will ensure the continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure. The last element of those initiatives is the requirement to establish a LOV of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program under 14 CFR 26.21. This AD is the result of an assessment of the previously established programs by the design approval holder (DAH) during the process of establishing the LOV for Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes. The actions specified in this AD are necessary to complete certain programs to ensure the continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Airbus, Delta Air Lines (Delta), and United Airlines (United) requested that we revise the SNPRM to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 03, dated April 30, 2015.
We agree with the commenters' requests to include the most recent service information; however, since Revision 03 was issued, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 04, dated July 6, 2016, has been issued. No additional work is specified by Revision 03 or Revision 04 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 04, dated July 6, 2016, and we have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to provide credit for actions accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 03, dated April 30, 2015.
Delta asked that we include the purchase price of the Airbus service information in the Costs of Compliance section of the SNPRM. Delta stated that operators must purchase the service information at a cost ranging, in their experience, from $15,000 to $280,000 per airplane. Delta added that the economic impact of the SNPRM should account for all costs associated with the regulatory action, including the purchase price of the service information.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by the AD. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work-hours necessary for compliance with this AD, and the cost of any parts necessary for accomplishing those actions. It is our practice to post the service information that is required by this AD, and incorporated by reference in this AD, in the AD docket on the Internet at
However, we have updated the estimated costs in this final rule to reflect the costs for required actions, as specified in the latest revision of the service information—
Delta requested that we revise the proposed applicability to reflect the effectivity specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014. Delta pointed out that, in our response to a comment from United in the SNPRM, we stated that we had revised the applicability to reflect the effectivity of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014. Delta asserted that the proposed applicability was not updated as stated.
We do not agree to revise the applicability of this AD. However, we acknowledge that we did not revise the applicability specified in the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to reflect the effectivity of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014. That service information specifies certain manufacturer's serial numbers (MSNs) for certain operators; however, the applicability of this AD matches the applicability specified in the MCAI, which applies to all MSNs, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 152637 has been embodied in production. Airbus developed Modification 152637 to enable these airplanes to continue to safely operate up to the new ESG. Because all airplanes reaching their LOV are subject to the effects of aging airplane structure, regardless of who operates them, we find it necessary to apply the requirements of this AD to all airplanes that have not had Airbus Modification 152637 installed. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 04, dated July 6, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs on both RH and LH sides of the fuselage. 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 estimate that this AD affects 294 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it takes between 7 and 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD, depending on airplane configuration. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be between $174,930 and $299,880, or between $595 and $1,020 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under
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 the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 2, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, except those on which Airbus modification (mod) 152637 has been embodied in production.
(1) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN).
(2) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, all MSN.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report that fatigue cracking could appear at certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain fastener locations in the longeron area below the emergency exit cut-outs, which could lead to failure of the fasteners and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 48,000 total flight cycles or 96,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first since the airplane's first flight, modify the 8 fastener locations in the longeron area (stringer 20A) below the emergency exit cut-outs on both right-hand (RH) and left-hand (LH)- sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 04, dated July 6, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, dated January 2, 2013; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2013; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 03, dated April 30, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0085, dated May 13, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1265, Revision 04, dated July 6, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the horizontal stabilizer lower skins. This AD requires inspections for cracking of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin, and corrective actions if necessary; and also provides actions that would terminate certain repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 2, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 2, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing expressed support for the NPRM.
All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we revise paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3) of the proposed AD to state “repair common to the rear spar lower chord between station (STA) 83.50 and STA 249.10,” instead of “repair.” ANA stated that there might be a repair installed on the lower skin of the horizontal stabilizer that is not addressed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059, Revision 1, dated April 6, 2016 (“SASB 737-55-1059 R1”). ANA explained that some structural repair manual repairs and external doublers are not applicable to the inspection area specified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1.
We agree with ANA's request. Specifying the location of the applicable repairs may reduce potential confusion. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD to specify the location of the applicable repairs.
ANA requested that we clarify the fastener requirements. ANA stated that figure 3 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059, dated September 10, 1998, specifies to use blind rivets and Hi-lok fasteners; however, compliance table 2, note (b), in SASB 737-55-1059 R1, states that doublers installed with solid rivets do not need to be inspected for any loose or missing fasteners. ANA explained that Boeing told ANA that Hi-lok fasteners do not require inspection for any loose or missing fasteners.
We agree to clarify the fastener requirements. We infer that ANA is requesting that we update paragraph (h) of this AD to specify that Hi-lok fasteners do not require inspection. We have determined that Hi-lok fasteners do not require inspection. Therefore, we have added paragraph (i)(3) to this AD to specify that where SASB 737-55-1059 R1 specifies that doublers installed with solid rivets do not need to be inspected for loose or missing fasteners, this AD does not require doublers installed with solid rivets or Hi-lok fasteners to be inspected for loose or missing fasteners. We have also revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to reference this exception.
ANA requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to refer to the horizontal stabilizer configuration with the applicable repair installed side only. ANA asserted that the wording of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD could be interpreted to require inspection of both the repaired and unrepaired sides of the horizontal stabilizer.
We agree with ANA's request. The wording in the proposed AD is not clear regarding what is required if an airplane has left and right stabilizers that are different configurations. For example, the left-side stabilizer may have a repair installed common to the rear spar lower chord (configuration 2), whereas the right side may not have a repair (configuration 1). We have revised the affected airplanes in paragraph (g) of this AD from “Group 1, Configuration 1,
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed SASB 737-55-1059 R1. The service information describes procedures for doing inspections of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin, and repairs. The service information also describes procedures for doing actions that would terminate certain repetitive inspections. 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 estimate that this AD affects 270 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 2, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059, Revision 1, dated April 6, 2016 (“SASB 737-55-1059 R1”).
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55; Horizontal stabilizer.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in horizontal stabilizer lower skins. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in horizontal stabilizer lower skins, resulting in reduced local stiffness of the stabilizer, which can cause heavy vibration leading to loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For any Configuration 1 horizontal stabilizer on Group 1 airplanes, as identified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1: Except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin, if applicable, thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1. Options specified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1 for accomplishing the inspections are acceptable for the corresponding requirements of this paragraph provided that the inspections are done at the applicable times in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the SASB 737-55-1059 R1.
For any Configuration 2 horizontal stabilizer on Group 1 airplanes, as identified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1: Except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, if applicable, thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1. Options specified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1, for accomplishing the inspections are acceptable for the corresponding requirements of this paragraph provided that the inspections are done at the applicable times in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-55-1059 R1.
(1) Do a high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the skin around any repair common to the rear spar lower chord between station (STA) 83.50 and STA 249.10 which was done as specified in the structural repair manual or any external doubler repair, and a detailed inspection for any loose or any missing fastener of repaired doublers, except as specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.
(2) Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the inspar lower skin between STA 83.50 and STA 249.10, except in areas repaired common to the rear spar lower chord.
(3) Do a low frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the forward fastener row of any external doubler repair common to the rear spar lower chord between STA 83.50 and STA 249.10.
(1) Where SASB 737-55-1059 R1 specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If any cracking, corrosion, hole elongation, or loose or missing fastener is found during any inspection required by this AD, and SASB 737-55-1059 R1 specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the cracking, corrosion, hole elongation, loose or missing fasteners using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(3) Where SASB 737-55-1059 R1 specifies that doublers installed with solid rivets do not need to be inspected for loose or missing fasteners, this AD does not require doublers installed with solid rivets or Hi-lok fasteners to be inspected for loose or missing fasteners.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059, Revision 1, dated April 6, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 680 airplanes. This AD was prompted by Textron's report of a manufacturing defect that affects the durability of the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the aft canted bulkhead; repair if necessary; and a modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 2, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 2, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316-517-6215; fax 316-517-5802; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Phuoc Le, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4195; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Textron Aviation Inc. Model 680 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
NetJets Aviation, Inc. (NetJets) requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to remove “cracked paint” as a possible finding from the inspection. NetJets acknowledged that cracked paint, while not a safety concern on its own, should be investigated to ensure that it is not evidence of disbonding. NetJets indicated that the requirement for a disbond to be repaired per an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) is sufficient to ensure that the safety concern is addressed appropriately.
We agree with the commenter that cracked paint may not be a safety concern on its own; however it is evidence that a disbond of the structure may have occurred and should be investigated further to ensure there is no evidence of disbonding. Thus, if cracked paint is found, operators must contact the FAA for procedures to determine whether the cracked paint was an indication of disbonding. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify that operators must obtain instructions from the FAA and comply with those instructions.
NetJets indicated that paragraph (n)(2) of the proposed AD states that the required service information is available from Textron. However, Netjets stated that Textron does not provide owners/operators with access to Cessna Engineering Drawing 6991115 (“Drawing 6991115”), which is required for compliance with paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. NetJets added that the required service information is not available at the
We acknowledge that Drawing 6991115 is not available to owners/operators. However, drawing 6991115 is only used for an airplane that is modified at a Textron-owned service center. Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016 (“SB680-53-08, Revision 2”) (issued after the NPRM was published), includes a reference to Cessna Engineering Drawing 6991119 (“Drawing 6991119”), which should be available to owners/operators and contains approved data for owners/operators who choose to modify their airplanes at a non-Textron-owned service center. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to refer to SB680-53-08, Revision 2.
NetJets requested that the revision level for Drawing 6991115 be added to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, and that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD allow later revisions to Drawing 6991115. Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD would require compliance with Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, dated September 28, 2015, which contains a reference to the modification instructions contained in Drawing 6991115. Because neither Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, dated September 28, 2015, nor paragraph (i) of the proposed AD specifies the revision level of Drawing 6991115 that would be required for compliance with the proposed AD, NetJets asserted that it is not possible for an owner/operator to comply with its responsibility to ensure that FAA approval was obtained.
We partially agree that there is a need to specify acceptable revision levels of Drawing 6991115. However, with the release of SB680-53-08, Revision 2, Drawing 6991115 is no longer applicable for the owners/operators who elect to accomplish SB680-53-08, Revision 2, at a non-Textron facility. Instead, the revision levels of Drawing 6991119 are now applicable for the owners/operators who will accomplish SB680-53-08, Revision 2, at a non-Textron facility. Although SB680-53-08, Revision 2, specifies using the latest revision of Drawing 6991119, this AD allows use of any revision level of that drawing. We have added paragraph (k) to this AD to specify this provision; subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated accordingly. We have reviewed all existing revisions of Drawing 6991119, and have found all to be acceptable. In addition, paragraph (i) of this AD has been revised to specify compliance with SB680-53-08, Revision 2.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed the following Cessna service information.
• Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for disbonding and paint cracking around the edges of the stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead.
• Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the airplane by installing additional stiffeners to the aft canted bulkhead.
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 estimate that this AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 2, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 680 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model 680 Sovereign airplanes (commonly known as Citation Sovereign airplanes), having serial numbers: 680-0001, -0002, -0006, -0025, -0030, -0031, -0032, -0046, -0051, -0057, -0064, -0066, -0067, -0082, -0104, -0108, -0112, -0118, -0120, -0125, -0132, -0139, -0140, -0141, -0144, -0147, -0148, -0149, -0153, -0157, -0160, -0162, -0163, -0164, -0166, -0167, -0169, -0170, -0171, -0173, -0174, -0175, -0176, -0177, -0178, -0179, -0180, -0182, -0183, -0185, -0186, -0192, -0193, -0196, -0200, -0202, -0204, -0205, -0206, -0208, -0211, -0216, -0220, -0221, -0222, -0227, -0229, -0230, -0231, -0234, -0235, -0236, -0238, -0241, -0242, -0243, -0245, -0246, -0249, -0252, -0253, -0255, -0256, -0257, -0258, -0260, -0262, -0268, -0270, -0271, -0280, -0282, -0283, -0284, -0285, -0289, -0291, -0292, -0296, -0297, -0300, -0301, -0302, -0303, -0304, -0306, -0307, -0313, -0315, -0317, -0318, -0322, -0323, -0324, -0327, -0328, -0329, -0333, -0334, -0336, -0337, -0339, -0340, -0342, -0344, -0346, -0347, -0348, and -0349.
(2) Model 680 Sovereign airplanes (commonly known as Citation Sovereign+ airplanes) having serial numbers: 680-0501, -0504, -0505, -0509, -0510, -0511, -0512, -0513, -0514, -0515, -0516, -0517, -0519, -0520, -0522, -0524, -0525, -0526, -0527, and -0531.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by Textron's report of a manufacturing defect which affects the durability of the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. The manufacturing defect directly affects the bond integrity of the vertical and horizontal stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent disbonding of the horizontal and vertical stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead. Loss of bond integrity could result in a structural failure that may lead to separation of the cruciform tail and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 7,000 total flight hours, or within 100 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a general visual inspection for disbonding and paint cracking around the edges of the stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015. Repeat the general visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours, until the modification required by paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any disbonding or cracked paint is found, before further flight, obtain instructions approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ACE-118W, FAA, and, within the compliance time specified in those instructions, accomplish the instructions accordingly.
At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, modify the airplane by installing additional stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016, except as provided by paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD. Doing this modification terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 7,000 or more total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,800 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 7,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 3,600 flight hours or 48 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, dated December 22, 2014; or Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 1, dated March 12, 2015.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, dated September 28, 2015.
Although Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016, specifies using the latest revision of Drawing 6991119, this AD allows using any revision level of that drawing.
Although Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016; and Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, ACE-118W, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Phuoc Le, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4195; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is
(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) Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015.
(ii) Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316-517-6215; fax 316-517-5802; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulations for five bridges across the Elizabeth River. These bridges were either removed in their entirety or replaced with a fixed bridge, making the operating regulations no longer necessary.
This rule is effective March 28, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jeffrey Stieb, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District Bridge Program, telephone 617-223-8364, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations railroad bridge, mile 0.7, the Baltic Street bridge, mile 0.9, the Summer Street bridge, mile 1.3, the South Street bridge, mile 1.8, and the Bridge Street bridge, mile 2.1 at the Elizabeth River that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.718(b), have been removed in their entirety or converted to a fixed bridge. Therefore, the regulation is no longer necessary or applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes restrictions that have no further use or value.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the FR. This rule merely requires an administrative change to the CFR in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The modifications have already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The New Jersey Transit Rail Operations railroad bridge, mile 0.7, the Baltic Street bridge, mile 0.9, the Summer Street bridge, mile 1.3, the South Street bridge, mile 1.8, and the Bridge Street bridge, mile 2.1, at the Elizabeth River that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.718(b) were removed in their entirety or converted to fixed bridges over thirty years ago. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for these drawbridges was never removed subsequent to the removal of the drawbridge or conversion to a fixed bridge. The elimination of these drawbridges necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation in 33 CFR 117.718(b) that pertains to these former drawbridges.
The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.718(b), which refers to these bridges, from the CFR since the bridges are no longer able to be opened.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.718 by removing restrictions related to the draw operations for bridges that are no longer drawbridges. The change removes paragraph (b) of the regulation governing these bridges. This change does not affect nor does it alter the operating schedule that is currently designated paragraph (a), which governs the remaining drawbridge on the Elizabeth River.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that these bridges either no longer exist or no longer operate as a drawbridge. The removal of the operating schedule from 33 CFR part 117, subpart B, will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land traffic.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For the reasons stated in section IV.A above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1, will be enforced from 11 a.m. on April 14, 2017 to 1 a.m. on April 15, 2017, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-2001 or email at
The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 11 a.m. on April 14, 2017 until 5 p.m. on April 14, 2017, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics from Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display location. From 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on April 14, 2017, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′36″ N., 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83) where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at the conclusion of the baseball game, at approximately 10 p.m. on April 14, 2017, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 700 feet near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′36″ N., 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83) for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1. This safety zone will be in effect from 11 a.m. on April 14, 2017 until 1 a.m. on April 15, 2017, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual City of Eureka Fourth of July Fireworks Display in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 3, will be enforced from 10 a.m. on July 4, 2017 to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-3585 or email at
The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 10 a.m. on July 4, 2017 until 11 a.m. on July 4, 2017, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics from Schneider Dock in Eureka, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display location. From 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Schneider Dock to the launch site near Woodley Island in approximate position 40°48′29″ N., 124°10′06″ W. (NAD 83) where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 45 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet near Woodley Island in approximate position 40°48′29″ N., 124°10′06″ W. (NAD 83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Eureka in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 3. This safety zone will be in effect from 10 a.m. on July 4, 2017 until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone in the vicinity of the Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida during the visit of a high-level government official. The security zone is necessary to protect the official party, the public, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from March 28, 2017 through May 29, 2017. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from March 17, 2017 through March 28, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Mara Brown, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because specific information regarding the need for the regulation was not received in time to publish a NPRM before the regulation's effective date. Delay in promulgating this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because a security zone is required with short notice to protect the elected government official and the official's party in the vicinity of this waterway. The official's presence creates unique safety and security concerns.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We note that the Coast Guard is in the process of publishing an NPRM proposing to establish a permanent security zone for these events. While that rulemaking action will not affect the events occurring through May 29, 2017, it would establish a security zone for future similar events.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Miami (COTP) has determined that the official's visit presents a potential target for terrorist acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Given the close proximity of the waterways to the official's visit site, this security zone is necessary to protect the official party, the public, and the surrounding waterways adjacent to the Mar-a-Lago Resort in Palm Beach, Florida.
This rule establishes a security zone from March 17, 2017 through May 29, 2017. The rule will be enforced every Friday through Monday on a recurring weekly basis from March 17, 2017 through May 29, 2017 during the visit of a high-level government official. This rule will be enforced with actual notice while the high-level government official is visiting. This rule establishes a temporary security zone, which encompasses certain waters of the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida. The security zone will be broken into three zones. The first zone will consist of waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon from the southern tip of the Everglades Island to approximately 1000 yards south of the Southern Boulevard Bridge, and the eastern shore line out to Fisherman Island. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the first zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
The second zone will consist of waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon including the Intracoastal Waterway from the southern tip of the Everglades Island to approximately 1000 yards south of the Southern Boulevard Bridge, and from the western shore line to the western edge of the Fisherman Island. All vessels transiting the second zone shall maintain a steady speed and shall not slow or stop in the zone.
The third zone will consist of waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the Banyan Road south to Ocean View Road, and from shore to approximately 1000 yards east of the shoreline. All vessels transiting the third zone shall maintain a steady speed and shall not slow or stop in the zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the security zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this security zone, which will impact a small designated area of the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean in Palm Beach, FL for no more than five days at a time from March 17, 2017 to May 29, 2017 and in an area where traffic is low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a security zone lasting only a few days at a time that will prohibit entry within certain waters of the Intracoastal Waterway and Atlantic Ocean in Palm Beach, Florida. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) Zone 1. The navigable waters within the following points are a regulated area: Beginning at Point 1 in position 26°41′21″ N., 80°2′39″ W.; thence east to Point 2 in position 26°41′21″ N., 80°2′13″ W.; thence south following the shoreline to Point 3 in position 26°39′58″ N., 80°2′20″ W.; thence west to Point 4 in position 26°39′58″ N., 80°2′38″ W., thence back to origin at Point 1.
(2) Zone 2. The navigable waters within the following points are a regulated area: Beginning at Point 1 in position 26°41′21″ N., 80°2′39″ W.; thence west to Point 2 in position 26°41′21″ N., 80°3′00″ W.; thence south following the shoreline to Point 3 in position 26°39′58″ N., 80°2′55″ W.; thence east to Point 4 in position 26°39′58″ N., 80°2′38″ W., thence back to origin at Point 1.
(3) Zone 3. The navigable waters within the following points are a regulated area: Beginning at Point 1 in position 26°41′21″ N., 80°2′01″ W.; thence south following the shoreline to Point 2 in position 26°39′57″ N., 80°2′01″ W.; thence east to Point 3 in position 26°39′58″ N., 80°1′02″ W.; thence north to Point 4 in position 26°41′20″ N., 80°1′02″ W., thence back to origin at Point 1.
(b)
(1) Requirements for Zone 1. All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
(2) Requirements for Zone 2. All persons and vessels are required to transit through the security zone at a steady speed and may not slow down or stop except in the case unforeseen mechanical or other emergency. Any persons or vessels forced to slow or stop in the zone shall immediately notify the Captain of the Port via VHF channel 16.
(3) Requirements for Zone 3. All persons and vessels are required to transit through the security zone at a steady speed and may not slow down or stop except in the case unforeseen mechanical or other emergency. Any persons or vessels forced to slow or stop in the zone shall immediately notify the Captain of the Port via VHF channel 16.
(4) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zones described in paragraph (a) of this section may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zones is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or the designated representative.
(5) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the security zones by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce ten safety zones for fireworks displays in the Sector Long Island Sound area of responsibility on the date and time listed in the table below. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the events. During the enforcement periods, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.151 Table 1 will be enforced during the dates and times listed in the table in
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer Katherine Linnick, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound; telephone 203-468-4565, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.151 Table 1 on the specified dates and times indicated below.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.151, the fireworks displays listed below are established as safety zones. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.
This rule is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1, will be enforced from 11 a.m. on May 26, 2017 to 1 a.m. on May 27, 2017, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-3585 or email at
The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 11 a.m. on May 26, 2017 until 5 p.m. on May 26, 2017, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics from Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display location. From 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 26, 2017, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′36″ N., 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83) where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at the conclusion of the baseball game, at approximately 10 p.m. on May 26, 2017, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 700 feet near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′36″ N., 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83) for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1. This safety zone will be in effect from 11 a.m. on May 26, 2017 until 1 a.m. on May 27, 2017, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges publish final regulations that set continued, unaltered rates and terms for subpart A configurations subject to the statutory license to use nondramatic musical works to make and distribute phonorecords of those works (the Mechanical License). In addition, the Judges correct an outdated cross-reference in the regulations.
Anita Blaine, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or by email at
The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) received a Motion to Adopt Settlement (Motion) from UMG Recordings, Inc. (UMG)
Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided the settling parties submit the negotiated rates and terms to the Judges for approval. That provision directs the Judges to provide those who would be bound by the negotiated rates and terms an opportunity to comment on the agreement.
The Judges published the proposed settlement in the
The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) and the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) (together, Copyright Owners) filed a motion seeking leave to respond to the SME comment and partial objection to the settlement. The Judges granted the Copyright Owners' motion and extended the initial comment period to permit interested parties to submit responsive comments.
On or about October 28, 2016, the Judges received a Motion to Adopt Settlement Industry-Wide (Second Motion). In the Second Motion, the Copyright Owners reported an agreement between Copyright Owners and SME, resolving all issues SME raised in its partial objection to the proposed settlement. According to the Second Motion, the parties agreed that: (1) SME would withdraw its objection to the proposed rule, (2) Copyright Owners would withdraw their response to SME's objection, (3) the parties to the settlement would request that the Judges adopt the settlement industry-wide, and (4) SME would withdraw from the proceeding, except to support adoption of the settlement or, if the settlement were not adopted, to litigate matters relating to the subpart A regulations.
By its terms, the partial settlement applied originally only to UMG, WMG, and the unnamed “significant portion of the . . . music publishing industries” with whom the licensees had agreed. The Second Motion expanded the settlement to include SME as a licensee subject to the settlement rates and terms.
The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [in the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii).
George Johnson, dba GEO Music, appears in this proceeding as a
Mr. Johnson submitted: (1) Opposition to Parties Motion to Adopt Settlement, dated June 27, 2016 (Opposition); (2) Second Opposition Motion to NMPA, NSAI, WMG, and UMG's Reply to Adopt Settlement as Statutory Rates and Terms, dated July 7, 2016 (Second Opposition); (3) Objection to Comments and Objections of Sony Music Entertainment Concerning Proposed Settlement, dated August 29, 2016 (Objection); and (4) Objection and Response to NMPA and NSAI's Response to SME's Comments and Objections Concerning Proposed § 385.3 Settlement, dated August 31, 2016 (Second Objection).
Mr. Johnson filed an opposition to the Second Motion on November 3, but amended his filing twice. He submitted his final version November 8, 2016.
In each of his filings, Mr. Johnson objects to adoption of the settlement rates and terms, whether for the settling parties alone, or as a basis for statutory licenses industry-wide. The bases for his objections are that the proposed settlement:
(1) “violates copyright owners'
(2) creates a “substantive competitive disadvantage for
(3) involves foreign companies, as UMP/UMG and WCP/WMG are headquartered in France and Russia;
(4) permits licensees to look out for their own self-interests;
(5) is a product of anticompetitive “price-fixing other people's property at the below-market 9.1 cents. . . .”
(6) “
(7) disregards the effects of inflation on the songwriter and publisher rights at issue.
Mr. Johnson makes legal, economic, and subjective arguments against adoption of the agreed license rates and terms from his perspective as an independent songwriter and publisher.
Mr. Johnson's legal argument,
Similarly, Mr. Johnson's economic arguments must fail. Negotiations by and between major recording companies and major publishers might be concluded without input from independent songwriters or publishers. The negotiating representatives, however,
Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Act is clear that the Judges have the authority to adopt settlements between some or all of the participants to a proceeding at any time during a proceeding, so long as those that would be bound by those rates and terms are given an opportunity to comment.
The Judges provided an opportunity for comment and, following the Second Motion, were left with only Mr. Johnson's objections. As discussed above, Mr. Johnson's objections did not change and he provides no persuasive legal or economic arguments that would convince the Judges to reject a proposed settlement reached voluntarily between the Settling parties.
From the perspective of an independent songwriter, the proposed rates might seem inadequate. The fact remains, however, that the proposed rates and terms were negotiated on behalf of the vast majority of parties that historically have participated in Section 115 proceedings before the Judges.
The only objections to the agreement by a participant were those of Mr. Johnson. Based on those objections, the Judges cannot conclude that the agreement reached voluntarily between the Settling Parties does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms and rates for licensing nondramatic musical works to manufacture and distribute phonorecords, including permanent digital downloads and ringtones (Subpart A Configurations). Therefore, the Judges must adopt the proposed regulations that codify the partial settlement.
Further, because the only participant, other than Mr. Johnson, offering objection to the settlement joined in the Second Motion to apply the rates and terms industry-side, the Judges adopt the proposed rates and terms industry-wide for subpart A Configurations. In doing so, the Judges make clear that the adoption of the partial settlement should in no way suggest that they are more or less inclined to adopt the reasoning or proposals of any of the parties remaining in the proceeding in relation to subpart B or C configurations.
In reviewing the regulations, the Judges discovered an outdated cross-reference and are correcting it.
The regulations of 37 CFR part 385, subpart A, are adopted as detailed in this Final Rule.
Copyright, Phonorecords, Recordings.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 385 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 115, 801(b)(1), 804(b)(4).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Missouri related to open burning. On November 24, 2009, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) requested to amend the SIP to replace four area specific open burning rules into one rule that is area specific and applicable state-wide. EPA solicited comment in an earlier proposed rulemaking that published in the
This final rule is effective on April 27, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0470. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Steven Brown, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7718, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is taking final action to approve the SIP revision submitted by the state of Missouri that replaces four area specific open burning rules with a rule that is applicable state-wide. On November 24, 2009, the MDNR requested to amend the SIP to rescind Missouri Open Burning Restrictions 10 CSR 10-2.100, 10 CSR 10-3.030, 10 CSR 10-4.090, and 10 CSR 10-5.070, and consolidated these four rules into a new rule 10 CSR 10-6.045. The new rule adds language that allows burning of “trade wastes” by permit in areas for situations where open burning is in the best interest of the general public or when it can be shown that open burning is the safest and most feasible method of disposal. The rule reserves the right for the staff director to deny, revoke or suspend an open burn permit. It changes the general provisions section by not limiting liability to an individual who is directly responsible for a violation and extends the regulatory liability to any person, such as a property owner who hires an individual to start the fire. The rule also adds the definition of “untreated wood” for clarification to aid in compliance purposes. On September 8, 2016, EPA proposed approval of the SIP revision in the
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document (TSD) which is part of the proposed rulemaking docket that published in the
EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Missouri SIP regarding an open burn regulation that replaces four area specific open burning rules. EPA has conducted a full evaluation of the regulation, which is discussed in detail in the proposed rule and the TSD, which is included in this rulemaking docket.
We are processing this as a final approval action after soliciting comments on a proposed action. The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened on September 8, 2016, the date of its publication in the
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 30, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; technical amendments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the
This final rule is effective March 28, 2017.
Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7039, or by email at
In the September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62387),
This technical revision is also making corrections to the Region 7 Technical Support Document (TSD) that supports the September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62387), direct final action. EPA inadvertently omitted minor administrative phrases and a reference from chapter 22 rule 567-22.103. Two revisions to chapter 22 rule 567-22.105(2) are required for clarification. Please see the revised TSD included in the docket.
Finally, we are revising the incorrect state effective dates codified on page 62398 of the September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62387),
Additional information for this technical amendment can be found in the revised Technical Support Document located in this docket.
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 is corrected by making the following technical amendments:
42 U.S.C. 7401
42 U.S.C. 7401
(q) The Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted for program approval a revision to rules 567-22.100, 567-22.101, 567-22.103, 567-22.105, 567-22.106, 567-22.108, and added 567.30.4(2) on December 16, 2015. This revision to the Iowa program is approved effective on November 8, 2016.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; delay of effective date.
Pursuant to a notice published on January 30, 2017, the effective date of the rule entitled “Civil Penalties,” published in the
As of March 27, 2017, the effective date of the rule amending 49 CFR part 578 published at 81 FR 95489, December 28, 2016, delayed at 82 FR 8694, January 30, 2017, is further delayed until June 26, 2017.
For legal issues, contact Michael Kuppersmith, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-5263. For non-legal issues, contact John Finneran, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at (202) 366-5289.
Pursuant to a document published on January 30, 2017 (82 FR 8694), the effective date of the rule entitled “Civil Penalties,” published in the
Pub. L. 101-410, Pub. L. 104-134, Pub. L. 109-59, Pub. L. 114-74, Pub L. 114-94, 49 U.S.C. 32902 and 32912; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.81, 1.95.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, Indiana. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Evansville non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of the airport, as well as Skylane Airport, listed with Evansville Regional Airport in Class C airspace.
Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9540; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-27, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Ron Laster, Federal Aviation Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5879.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class C airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, IN.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9540/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-27.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface to within a 7.1-mile radius of the airport (from a 6.8-mile radius) at Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, IN.
The 4.4-mile wide segment (2.2. miles from each side of the 001 degree bearing from the airport) extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport would be modified to a 4-mile wide segment extending from the proposed 7.1-mile radius of the airport to 11.6 miles north (from 11.2 miles).
The 4.4-mile wide segment (2.2 miles from each side of the 181 degree bearing from the airport) extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 11.3 miles south of the airport would be removed due to the decommissioning of the Evansville NDB.
The Pocket City VORTAC navigation aid segment would be amended to within a 7.1-mile radius (from a 6.8-mile radius) of the airport to the VORTAC.
This proposal also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, as well as updating the coordinates of Skylane Airport listed under Evansville Regional Airport in Class C airspace.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the cancellation and decommissioning of the non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and NDB approaches which would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Class C and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,500 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Evansville Regional Airport excluding that airspace beginning where the Pocket City 057° radial crosses the 5-mile ring, thence northeast via the 057° radial to intercept a 1
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Evansville Regional Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 001° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.1-mile radius to 11.6 miles north of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the Pocket City VOTYAC 060° radial extending from the 7.1-mile radius to the VORTAC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital Heliport, Willits, CA, to support the development of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the heliport, for the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System.
Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital Heliport, Willits, CA.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0046/Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-3”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital Heliport, Willits, CA. Class E airspace would be established within a 2.5-mile radius of the heliport, and within a 5-mile wide segment (2.5 miles each side of the 166 degree bearing) from the heliport to 6.7 miles southeast of the heliport, and within a 3-mile wide segment (1.5 miles each side of the 360 degree bearing) extending from the heliport to 10.5 miles north of the heliport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the heliport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 2.5-mile radius of Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital Heliport, and within 2.5 miles each side of a 166° bearing from the heliport to 6.7 miles southeast of the heliport, and within 1.5 miles each side of a 360° bearing from the heliport to 10.5 miles north of the heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E surface area airspace, modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet, and establish Class E airspace designated as an extension at Arcata Airport, Arcata, CA. The action also proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet at Rohnerville Airport, Fortuna, CA, and establish stand-alone Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet at Murray Field Airport, Eureka, CA, to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System. Additionally, this proposal would update the geographic coordinates of these airports.
Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-6751; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Arcata Airport, Arcata, CA, and Rohnerville Airport, Fortuna, CA, and would establish Class E airspace at Murray Field, Eureka, CA.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-6751/Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-18”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E surface area airspace at Arcata Airport, Arcata, CA, and Rohnerville Airport, Fortuna, CA, and establishing Class E airspace designated as an extension at Arcata Airport. Also, stand-alone Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be established at Murray Field Airport, Eureka, CA. This proposed airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at these airports, and for efficiency within the National Airspace System.
At Arcata Airport, Arcata, CA, Class E surface area airspace would be expanded by 0.1 miles to within 4.1 miles of the airport, and the Abeta NDB would be removed from the description as it was decommissioned and no longer needed; Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area would be established within 2.9 miles each side of the 153 degree bearing from the Arcata Airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 10.5 miles southeast of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be reduced to within a 7-mile radius of the airport, with a segment 4.2 miles wide (2.1 miles each side of the 153 degree bearing) extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 14.1 miles southeast of the airport. Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface would be removed, since this airspace is wholly contained within the Rogue Valley Class E en route airspace area.
At Eureka, CA, this proposal would establish a designated stand-alone Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Murray Field Airport with a segment 6.3 miles wide extending to 23 miles southwest of the airport. This airspace area would specifically support IFR operations at Eureka, CA, and would be unaffected by any proposed changes that would occur at any other airport.
At Fortuna, CA, this proposal would reduce Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 2.7-mile radius (from a 6.5-mile radius) of Rohnerville Airport, with segments extending 7 miles northwest, 5.2 miles west, and 6.1 miles southeast of the airport. Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface would be removed since this airspace is wholly contained within the Rogue Valley Class E en route airspace area.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace within a 4.1-mile radius of Arcata Airport.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.9 miles each side of the 153° bearing from the Arcata Airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 10.5 miles southeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Arcata Airport, and within 2.1 miles each side of the 153° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 14.1 miles southeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Murray Field Airport, and within 6.3 miles east of the Murray Field Airport 217° bearing extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 23 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 2.7 mile radius of Rohnerville Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 326° bearing from the airport extending from the 2.7 mile radius to 7 miles northwest of the airport, and within 1.1-miles each side of the 307° bearing from the airport extending from the 2.7 mile radius to 5.2 miles west of the airport, and within 1.1-miles each side of the 113° bearing from the airport extending from the 2.7 mile radius to 6.1 miles southeast of the airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Detroit River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Elizabeth Park, Trenton, MI, during a fireworks display on July 14, 2017. If inclement weather, this event will take place on July 15, 2017. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 27, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0216 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email
On February 16, 2017, Great Lakes Firewoks, LLC., notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 10 to 10:30 p.m. on July 14, 2017. In the event of inclement weather the fireworks display will be on July 15, 2017. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge off Elizabeth Park, Trenton, MI. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 350 foot radius of the fireworks barge.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 350-foot radius of the fireworks barge, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 10 to 10:30 p.m. on July 14, 2017. In the event of inclement weather, the fireworks display will be on July 15, 2017. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 350 feet of the fireworks launch site on the Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Trenton, MI. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Detroit River less than 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 1 hour that would prohibit entry within 350 feet of the fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR parts 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) No vessel or person may enter, transit through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his on-scene representative.
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9564. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public hearing and extension of comment period.
Due to inclement weather in the Washington, DC, area, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing it has rescheduled the hearing date and extended the public comment period for the proposed action titled, “Response to December 9, 2013, Clean Air Act Section 176A Petition from Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont,” published in the
If you would like to speak at the public hearing, please contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Planning Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0641, fax number (919) 541-5509, email address
If you have questions concerning the January 19, 2017, proposed action, please contact Ms. Gobeail McKinley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Planning Division (C539-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5246, email address
The proposal for which the EPA is holding the public hearing was published in the
The public hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) or at least 2 hours after the last registered speaker has spoken. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all individuals interested in providing oral testimony. A lunch break is scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Please note that this hearing will be held at a U.S. government facility. Individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. These requirements took effect on July 21, 2014. If your driver's license is issued by Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina or the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal building where the public hearing will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and military identification cards. For additional information for the status of your state regarding REAL ID, go to
If you would like to present oral testimony at the hearing, please notify Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Planning Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0641, fax number (919) 541-5509, email address
Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) or in hard copy form. The EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations unless we receive special requests in advance. Commenters should notify Ms. Long if they will need specific equipment. Commenters should also notify Ms. Long if they need specific translation services for non-English speaking commenters.
Prior to the hearing, the hearing schedule, including the list of speakers, will be posted on the EPA's Web site at:
The EPA has established a docket for the proposed action “Response to December 9, 2013, Clean Air Act Section 176A Petition from Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont” under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0596 (available at:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of a fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted its Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. We are requesting comments from the public on this amendment. This amendment would implement an annual landing limit, possession limits, and permitting and reporting requirements for certain previously unmanaged forage species and species groups within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. The purpose of this action is to prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain forage species until the Council has adequate opportunity and information to evaluate the potential impacts of forage fish harvest on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem.
Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0013, by any of the following methods:
•
•
The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment that describes the proposed action and other alternatives considered and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives considered. Copies of the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, are available from: Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EA and associated analysis is accessible via the Internet at
Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9141; fax 978-281-9135.
Mid-Atlantic Council stakeholders identified managing forage species as a key concern for future action during a 2011 strategic planning and visioning process. Forage species are generally considered small, mostly pelagic schooling species that serve as prey for larger species. In 2014, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) developed a white paper on forage species. The paper indicated that forage species facilitate the transfer of energy from the lowest levels of the food chain to higher levels, highlighting the importance of forage species in maintaining the productivity of marine ecosystems. The Council recognized that although it already manages several forage species that are the target of directed commercial fisheries (Atlantic mackerel, longfin and
This amendment would prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain Mid-Atlantic forage species until the Council can collect the information necessary to more fully evaluate the potential impacts of forage species harvests on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem. To do this, the Council would limit catch of certain forage species to recent levels and implement administrative measures necessary to more accurately record the catch of these species within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. Specifically, this action proposes the following measures:
• Designate 15 species and species groups as ecosystem component species of FMPs under the Council's jurisdiction;
• Specify a 1,700-lb (771-kg) combined possession limit for ecosystem component species within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters;
• Set an annual catch limit of 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) for Atlantic chub mackerel (
• Specify a 40,000-lb (18,144-kg) chub mackerel possession limit within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters (
• Require that all vessels possessing ecosystem component species and chub mackerel in Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit be issued a Federal commercial fishing vessel permit from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and comply with existing reporting requirements;
• Allow vessels that catch ecosystem component species and chub mackerel outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit to transit through the area to land these species at other ports;
• Develop appropriate codes to record the catch of these species in vessel trip reports and dealer reports;
• Establish a Council policy requiring an exempted fishery permit and sufficient Council review before further development of any fishery for ecosystem component species; and
• Expand framework provisions in the all of the Council's FMPs to allow future changes to annual landing limits and possession limits for Mid-Atlantic forage species.
As proposed, the proposed chub mackerel measures are temporary, and would expire in 3 years. This would allow the Council to develop long-term
Public comments are being solicited on the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period specified in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 27, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 27, 2017
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 27, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and beef from Argentina and Brazil.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and beef from Argentina and Brazil, contact Dr. Lynette Williams, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Products, NIES, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3300. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information
The regulations in part 94 provide the requirements for the importation of specified animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into the United States of various animal diseases, including rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Among other things, the regulations in § 94.1 place certain restrictions on beef and ovine meat exported to the United States in accordance with § 94.29, when the beef or ovine meat enters a port or otherwise transits a region where rinderpest or FMD exists during shipment to the United States. An authorized official of the exporting region must provide the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with certification that specific conditions for importation listed in § 94.1 have been met.
Section 94.29 places certain restrictions on the importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from certain regions in Argentina and Brazil into the United States to prevent the introduction of FMD. These conditions involve information collection activities, such as the requirement that APHIS collect, for each shipment, certification from an authorized veterinary official of the country of export that the conditions in § 94.29 have been met. For some of these conditions to be met, the facility in which the bovines and sheep are slaughtered must allow periodic on-site evaluation and subsequent inspection of its facilities.
The information collection requirements above are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control numbers 0579-0372 (Importation of Ovine Meat From Uruguay), 0579-0414 (Importation of Beef From a Region in Brazil), and 0579-0428 (Importation of Beef From a Region in Argentina). After OMB approves this combined information collection package (0579-0372), APHIS will retire OMB control numbers 0579-0414 and 0579-0428. Lastly, as a result of the merging of these information collection activities, APHIS has revised the name of this information collection from “Importation of Ovine Meat From Uruguay” to “Importation of Beef and Ovine Meat From Uruguay and Beef From Argentina and Brazil.”
We are asking the OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile into the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on regulations for the importation of clementines, mandarins,
Under these regulations, clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile may be imported into the United States under certain conditions, as listed in § 319.56-38, to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations include requirements that involve information collection activities, such as phytosanitary certificates, trust fund agreements, permits, production site registration, phytosanitary inspection, shipping documentation, and treatment (cold treatment or fumigation) or low prevalence production site certification.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of jackfruit, pineapple, and starfruit from Malaysia into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the importation of jackfruit, pineapple, and starfruit from Malaysia into the continental United States, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
In accordance with § 319.56-65, jackfruit, pineapple, and starfruit from Malaysia may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. Those conditions include irradiation treatment, inspection, and importation in commercial consignments. An additional condition of entry is that the fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Malaysia, and the phytosanitary certificate must include an additional declaration as indicated in the regulations.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of live swine, pork, and pork products from certain regions free of classical swine fever in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or BEFORE May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the importation of live swine, pork, and pork products from certain regions free of classical swine fever in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, contact Dr. Magde Elshafie, Senior Staff Veterinary Medical Officer, TTS, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Part 94 allows the importation, under certain conditions, of live swine, pork, and pork products from certain regions that are free of classical swine fever (CSF) in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico to prevent the introduction of CSF into the United States. In accordance with § 94.32, APHIS recognizes certain regions in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico as free of CSF but places restrictions on the importation of live swine, pork, and pork products from these regions. These restrictions are placed because these regions either supplement their pork supplies by importing fresh (chilled or frozen) pork from CSF-affected regions, supplement their pork supplies with pork from CSF-affected regions that is not processed in accordance with the requirements in part 94, share a common land border with CSF-affected regions, or import live swine from such regions under conditions less restrictive than would be acceptable for importation into the United States. To ensure that the importation of live
Certificates, which are issued by salaried veterinary officers of the Governments of Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, must accompany swine, pork, and pork products from their respective regions, and must certify that the live swine, pork, and pork products have met the specified requirements in part 94.
A compliance agreement is required from the operators of the processing establishment and states that: All meat processed for importation to the United States will be processed in accordance with the requirements in part 94; a full-time, salaried meat inspection official of the national government of the region in which the processing facility is located will supervise the processing and examination of the product and certify that it has been processed in accordance with the section; and APHIS personnel or other persons authorized by the Administrator may enter the establishment, unannounced, to inspect the establishment and its records.
A cooperative service agreement, which is required by APHIS from the processing establishment, or a party on its behalf, is an agreement with APHIS to pay all expenses incurred by APHIS for the initial evaluation of the processing establishment and periodically thereafter.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with animal disease traceability.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on animal disease traceability, contact Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Program Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (240) 463-0098. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Within APHIS, Veterinary Services (VS) safeguards U.S. animal health through a variety of activities, including disease control. One important part of disease control is animal disease traceability. Animal disease traceability provides the ability to document the movement history of an animal throughout its life. Knowing where diseased and at-risk animals have been and are located, as well as when they have been there, is indispensable during an emergency response and important for ongoing disease programs. Epidemiologists use this information to determine the potential spread of a disease. In fact, having the ability to plot locations within a radius of an infected premises helps to determine the potential magnitude of a contagious disease and the resources needed to contain it. Furthermore, as diseases are controlled or eradicated, it is important
The regulations for animal disease traceability are located in 9 CFR part 86. Under the regulations, unless specifically exempted, livestock moved interstate must be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other documentation. The regulations specify approved forms of official identification for each species but allow livestock to be moved between any two States or Tribes with another form of identification as agreed upon by animal health officials in the two jurisdictions. This identification requirement improves APHIS' ability to trace livestock if a disease is detected.
Development and implementation of the animal disease traceability framework continues to be a partnership involving APHIS, States, Tribes, and industry. States and Tribes enter into cooperative agreements with APHIS to implement their traceability activities. Also, within the animal disease traceability framework, the National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) gives a nationally unique identification number for animals that need official identification. To distribute and use official identification eartags using the NUES, APHIS requires several information collection activities that we are including in this information collection.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the swine health protection program.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the swine health protection program, contact Dr. John Korslund, Staff Epidemiologist, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3468. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
The Swine Health Protection Act (the Act) prohibits the feeding of garbage to swine intended for interstate movement or foreign commerce or that substantially affect such commerce unless the garbage has been treated to kill disease organisms. Untreated garbage is one of the primary media through which numerous infectious and communicable diseases can be transmitted to swine. APHIS' regulations promulgated under the Act, which are located at 9 CFR part 166, require that garbage intended to be fed to swine must be treated at a facility that holds a valid permit to treat the garbage
As part of its swine health protection program, APHIS conducts a pseudorabies (PRV) eradication program in cooperation with State governments, swine producers, swine shippers, herd owners, and accredited veterinarians. The program identifies PRV-affected swine, provides herd management techniques, and has eliminated PRV in commercial production herds. However, APHIS periodically finds infected swine when swine are exposed to feral swine or other swine that have had exposure to feral swine.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 71 and 85 facilitate the PRV eradication program and general swine health by providing requirements for moving swine interstate within a swine production system. (A production system consists of separate farms that each specialize in a different phase of swine production such as sow herds, nursery herds, and finishing herds. These separate farms, all members of the same production system, may be located in more than one State.)
The regulations for the feeding of garbage to swine and for the PRV eradication program require the use of a number of information collection activities, including the creation of food waste reports; the completion of applications to operate garbage treatment facilities and acknowledgement of the Act and regulations; garbage treatment facility inspection; cancellation of license by State animal health officials; request for a hearing; cancellation of license by licensee; notification by licensee of sick or dead animals; notification by licensee of changes to name, address, or management; swine health protection program inspection summary; permit to move restricted animals; owner-shipper statement; certificate of veterinary inspection; accredited veterinarian's statement; embryo and semen shipments; identification for swine moving interstate; swine production system health plan; interstate movement report and notification; cancellation or withdrawal of a swine production system health plan; appeal of cancellation of a swine production system health plan; shipment to slaughter seal; appraisal and indemnity claim form; report of net salvage proceeds; herd management plans; and recordkeeping.
The information collection requirements above are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control numbers 0579-0137 (Swine Health Protection) and 0579-0065 (Swine Health Protection). After OMB approves this combined information collection package (0579-0065), APHIS will retire OMB control number 0579-0137.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for approval of a mining plan of operations for the Pinto Valley Mine, notice of public scoping, and request for scoping comments.
The Tonto National Forest (TNF) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate and disclose the potential environmental effects from approval of the Mining Plan of Operations (MPO) submitted by Pinto Valley Mining Corp. (PVMC), for operations on National Forest System (NFS) land associated with expansion of an existing open pit copper and molybdenum mine, the Pinto Valley Mine. An amendment to the Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, 1985, as amended) may be required.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received no later than April 27, 2017. Public scoping meetings will be held on April 18 at Superior Junior/Senior High School, 100 Mary Drive, Superior, Arizona and April 20 at Miami Junior/Senior High School, 4739 S. Ragus Rd., Miami, Arizona from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Send written comments to Pinto Valley Mine EIS Comments, 2324 E McDowell Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85006. Comments may also be sent via email to
Judd Sampson, Interim Project Manager, at 602-225-5272 or
PVMC submitted the proposed MPO for approval by the Forest Service in May 2016. The proposed MPO was submitted in accordance with Forest Service
The proposed action would consolidate prior permitted activities reasonably incident to extraction, transportation, and processing of copper and molybdenum on NFS lands and expand existing mining operations from private lands on to NFS lands primarily for tailings disposal and pit expansion.
The purpose of this project is to analyze the proposed action as required by the regulations at 36 CFR 228.5(a). Approval of the proposed MPO would be a major federal action subject to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Accordingly, the Forest Service must prepare an EIS to identify the scope of issues associated with the MPO, identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the MPO in order to avoid or minimize adverse effects of MPO actions and evaluate and disclose the potential environmental effects. An amendment to the Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, 1985, as amended) may be required.
The need for this project is to comply with the regulations of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, that govern the use of surface resources in conjunction with mining operations on NFS lands as set forth under 36 CFR part 228. These regulations require that the Forest Service respond to parties who submit proposed mining plans for approval to conduct mining operations on or otherwise use NFS lands in conjunction with mining for part or all of their planned actions. In accordance with regulations at 36 CFR 228.5, the submittal of the proposed MPO by PVMC requires the Forest Service to consider whether to approve the proposed MPO or to require changes or additions deemed necessary to meet the purpose of the regulations for locatable mineral operations at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. Forest Service cannot categorically prohibit mining operations that are reasonably incident to mining of locatable minerals on NFS lands in the area of the proposed action.
The proposed action is to approve the MPO as submitted by PVMC. Pinto Valley Mine expansion would affect federal lands administered by TNF and private lands owned by PVMC. The proposed action by the Forest Service would only approve mining operations on NFS lands, since the Forest Service does not have jurisdiction to regulate mining operations that occur on private land. However, the EIS will consider and disclose environmental effects associated with the MPO. Connected actions related to the MPO and potential amendment of the forest plan, if required, would be analyzed in the EIS. Impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions will be considered in combination with impacts of the proposed project to estimate potential cumulative impacts.
Pinto Valley Mine is an existing open pit copper and molybdenum mine with adjacent milling and processing operations, tailings disposal areas, and waste rock disposal, all operated by PVMC. The majority of Pinto Valley Mine is located on PVMC property. However, certain facilities and operations are located on TNF, and were authorized by the Forest Service or the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) through Rights-of-Way, Plans of Operations, Special Use Permits, and a Letter Agreement. The authorizations date from as early as the 1940s, and have been amended, updated, and re-authorized over the years.
Existing surface disturbance associated with the Pinto Valley Mine currently encompasses an estimated 3,845 acres, of which 3,389 acres are on private and 456 acres are on NFS lands. The proposed disturbance acreage would be an additional 1,011 acres of surface disturbance (766 acres on private land, 245 acres on NFS lands) for a total estimated surface disturbance of 4,856 acres (4,155 on private land, 701 acres on NFS lands).
Each of the past, present, and proposed future uses of NFS lands is addressed in the MPO. Existing or proposed mining use of NFS lands includes portions of the Open Pit, 19 Dump, portions of three tailings storage facilities, transportation on Forest Roads and temporary access roads, use of existing powerlines and water pipelines, existing water supply, stormwater management facilities, and a sign.
In summary, at the end of the current planned life of the mine, PVMC would use approximately 701 acres of NFS lands and 42.45 miles of Forest Roads and temporary access roads to access mine facilities and/or as alignments for linear utility infrastructure.
The Pinto Valley Mine EIS will analyze the No Action Alternative, which would not approve of the proposed MPO. For the No Action Alternative, mining operations, reclamation, and closure would continue under current authorizations. The responsible official does not have discretion to select the No Action alternative, because it would not be consistent with requirements of 36 CFR 228.5.
The EIS may evaluate additional alternatives that could include application of design features and other measures that address issues identified during scoping, that would meet the purpose and need for the project, and are reasonable and practicable. These alternatives may require changes to the proposed MPO, which are necessary to meet Forest Service regulations for locatable minerals set forth at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A.
The Forest Service will be the lead agency preparing the EIS. Cooperating agencies have not yet been confirmed, but may include agencies within the Department of the Interior, as well as other state and Federal agencies with regulatory and/or enforcement jurisdiction over the project.
The Forest Supervisor of the TNF will be the responsible official who prepares the Record of Decision (ROD) and approves the MPO.
TNF Forest Supervisor will consider beneficial and adverse impacts of each alternative analyzed in the EIS. TNF Forest Supervisor has discretion to determine whether changes in the proposed MPO will be required prior to approval.
Using the analysis in the EIS and supporting documentation, the TNF Forest Supervisor will make the following decisions regarding the proposed MPO:
1. Decide whether to approve the proposed MPO submitted by PVMC, or require changes in, or additions to, the proposed MPO to meet the purpose of the regulations, including those for environmental protection and reclamation set forth at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A before approving a final MPO. The alternative that is selected for approval in the final MPO must minimize adverse impacts on NFS surface resources where feasible.
2. If Forest Service determines that any amendment(s) is (are) required to the Forest Plan, then decide whether to approve amendments to the Forest Plan,
The Forest Supervisor plans to release a draft ROD in conjunction with the final EIS. The draft ROD would address the decision on approval of the MPO. The decision would be subject to 36 CFR part 218,
Following resolution of objections to the draft ROD, a final ROD would be issued. PVMC would have an opportunity to appeal the decision as set forth at 36 CFR part 214,
Prior to approval of the MPO, PVMC may be required to modify the proposed MPO to align it with the description of the selected alternative in the final ROD. In addition, the TNF Forest Supervisor would require PVMC to submit a reclamation bond or other acceptable financial assurance to ensure that NFS lands and resources involved with the mining operation are reclaimed in accordance with the approved MPO and Forest Service requirements for environmental protection (36 CFR 228.8 and 228.13). After the Forest Service has determined that the MPO conforms to the ROD and that the reclamation bond is acceptable, the TNF Forest Supervisor would approve the MPO. Implementation of mining operations that affect NFS lands and resources may not commence until the MPO is approved and the reclamation bond or other financial assurance is in place.
Issues to be analyzed in the EIS will be developed during the scoping process. Preliminary issues expected to be analyzed include potential impacts to: Groundwater and surface water quantity and quality; riparian and aquatic areas and springs; biological resources, including threatened and endangered species and Forest Service sensitive species; historical and cultural resources; air quality; socioeconomics; transportation and traffic; noise; visual resources; and recreation. This list is subject to change based on comments received from the public and resource agencies.
The following is a list of permits for Pinto Valley Mine: Permits associated with groundwater withdrawal and dam safety permits (Arizona Department of Water Resources); air quality Class II synthetic minor permit (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality), Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System process and stormwater permits, Aquifer Protection Permit, and public water supply permit (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality); Mined Land Reclamation Plan (Arizona State Mine Inspector); letter agreement for a commercial vehicle staging area (Arizona Department of Transportation); and other required permits. Because the Pinto Valley Mine is an operating mine, PVMC already holds required permits. PVMC would update and amend permits for additional activities proposed in the MPO, as required.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the Pinto Valley Mine EIS. Public comments may be submitted to TNF in a variety of ways, including: By email, via the project Web site, by mail, and by facsimile. In addition, TNF will conduct two open houses during the scoping process through which members of the public can learn about the proposed action and the NEPA review process, and submit comments. Comments sought by TNF include specific comments related to the proposed action, appropriate information that could be pertinent to the description of baseline resource conditions and analysis of environmental effects, identification of significant issues, identification of reasonably foreseeable actions that should be considered in the cumulative analysis, and identification of potential design features and alternatives.
Written comments may be sent to: Pinto Valley Mine EIS Comments, 2324 E McDowell Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85006. Comments may also be sent by email to:
It is important that reviewers provide comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions and specific recommendations wherever possible. When submitting comments, please keep them specific to this proposal only. Comments which are not specific to the project and project area will be deemed outside the scope of the analysis and will not be considered. If you are including references, citations, or additional information to be considered for this project, please provide a copy and specify exactly how the material relates to the project. Also indicate exactly what part of the material you would like us to consider (such as page or figure number). Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested.
Comments on this notice must be received by May 30, 2017.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Email:
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for approval.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Thomas P. Dickson, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-4492. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service, invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by May 30, 2017.
Thomas P. Dickson, Deputy Director, Program Development & Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. (202) FAX: (202) 720-8435.
Copies of this information collection can be requested from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service by telephone at (202) 720-7853 or email:
Comments are invited on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques on other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Tuesday, April 4, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to consider and discuss potential topics for their FY17 civil rights project.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 4, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. PST.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-352-6793, conference ID number: 5731343. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, April 14, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. CST. The meeting will include a discussion of current civil rights concerns in Kansas for future study.
The meeting will take place on Friday, April 14, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. CST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-556-4997, conference ID: 5140898. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing a
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-718-5101, conference ID: 4192721. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Nevada Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Wednesday, March 29, 2017, for the purpose of hearing testimony on the civil rights issues regarding municipal fees in Nevada and to discuss themes and recommendations to include in an advisory memorandum issued to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. PST.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-723-9509, conference ID number: 7100479. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
a. Questions
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 a.m. (MST) on Friday, April 14, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to review presentations on two civil rights topics for study, Refugee Resettlement and Blaine Amendment's Impact on Education in Colorado. The SACs plans are to select and vote of one of the issues for future study.
Friday, April 14, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. (MST).
To be held via teleconference:
Malee V. Craft, DFO,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-461-2024; Conference ID: 2445417. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-461-2024, Conference ID: 2445417. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, May 15, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Nevada Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Thursday, April 20, 2017, for the purpose of discussing themes and recommendations to include in an advisory memorandum issued to the US Commission on Civil Rights.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 20, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. PST.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-389-5988, conference ID number: 2998703. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, April 11, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the State for future Committee study.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 11, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-500-0311, conference ID: 8736732. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application submitted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This EFP would exempt participating vessels from the following types of fishery regulations: Minimum fish size restrictions; fish possession limits for species not protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); gear-specific fish possession restrictions for the purpose of at-sea sampling; and, in limited situations for research purposes only, retaining and landing prohibited fish species. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on EFP applications.
Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2017.
You may submit written comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Spencer Talmage, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9232,
NEFSC submitted a complete application for an EFP on February 21, 2017, to enable data collection activities that the regulations on commercial fishing would otherwise restrict.
The NEFSC Study Fleet Program was established in 2002 to more fully characterize commercial fishing operations and to leverage sampling opportunities to augment NMFS data collection programs. NEFSC contracts commercial fishing vessels to collect tow-by-tow catch and environmental data, and to fulfill specific biological sampling needs. To collect these data, NEFSC Study Fleet Program obtains an EFP to secure the necessary waivers for these vessels to possess and land fish that would otherwise be prohibited by regulations. The EFP would exempt 31 Federally permitted commercial fishing vessels from the following regulations while participating in the Study Fleet Program and operating under NEFSC managed projects: Minimum fish size
Fishing vessel crews trained by the NEFSC Study Fleet Program would sort, weigh, and measure fish that are to be discarded. In the course of sampling, some discarded species would be on deck slightly longer than under normal sorting procedures, which requires an exemption from the following restrictions: Minimum fish size; fish possession limits; prohibited fish species, not including species protected under the ESA; and gear-specific fish possession restrictions for at-sea sampling.
Participating vessels would also be authorized to retain and land, in limited situations for research purposes only, fish species and/or sizes that are not in compliance with fishing regulations. The vessels would be authorized to retain specific amounts of particular species in whole or round weight condition, which would be delivered upon landing to NMFS staff. To ensure that the collection needs of the Study Fleet Program are not exceeded, participating vessels are required to obtain a formal Biological Sampling Request in writing from the NEFSC Study Fleet Program prior to landing any sublegal fish. None of the landed biological samples from these trips would be sold for commercial use, or utilized for any purpose other than scientific research.
All catch would be attributed to the appropriate commercial fishing quota, and vessels would not be exempt from any inseason quota closure. For vessels on a groundfish sector trip, all catch of Northeast multispecies stocks allocated to sectors would be deducted from its sector's Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE). Once the ACE for a stock has been reached in a sector, vessels would no longer be allowed to fish in that stock area, unless its sector acquires additional ACE for the limiting stock. For common pool vessels, all catch of Northeast multispecies stocks would be counted toward the appropriate trimester total allowable catch (TAC). Common pool vessels would be subject to applicable trimester total allowable catch (TAC) closures.
As described above, participating vessels would only collect and land biological samples after the NEFSC issues a formal request in writing. Table 2 details the Study Fleet Program's sampling needs.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impact that does not change the scope of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Notice of meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) will meet April 12, 2017.
The meeting is scheduled as follows: April 12, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. There will be two sessions open to the public. The first open session will be from 9:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m. and a second open session from 12:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. A short closed session will be held from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
The public portion of the meeting will be held at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)—Room 1301, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311.
Samira Patel, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8247, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; (301) 713-7077 or
As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (FACA) and its implementing regulations,
The first part of the meeting will be open to the public pursuant to Section 10(a)(1) of the FACA. During the open portion of the meeting, the Committee will receive updates on NOAA's Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs activities. The Committee will also be available to receive public comments on its activities. The second open session of the meeting will be dedicated to discussing legislative and regulatory reform.
After the open meeting, a short follow-on session will be closed to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of FACA as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409 and in accordance with Section 552b(c)(1) of Title 5, United States Code, which authorizes closure of meetings likely to disclose matters that are “specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy and . . . in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.” The part of the meeting which will be closed will address new licensing conditions for the operation of U.S. remote sensing space systems, the ongoing review and implementation of the 2015 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act and related national security, foreign policy concerns and future technology considerations for NOAA's licensing decisions. These discussions are likely to disclose matters that are specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive Order 13526 to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. In compliance with Section 10(d) of FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.155, ACCRES has obtained an agency determination of closure, and the notice of this determination is available upon request.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be
Any member of the public who plans to attend the open meeting should RSVP to Samira Patel at (301) 713-7077, or
ACCRES expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral presentation may be limited to a total time of five minutes. Written comments sent to NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA on or before April 5, 2017 will be provided to Committee members in advance of the meeting. Comments received too close to the meeting date will normally be provided to Committee members at the meeting.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), through the BroadbandUSA program, will hold a technical assistance workshop to share information to help communities build their broadband capacity and utilization. The workshop will present in-depth sessions on planning and funding broadband infrastructure projects. The planning session will explore effective business and partnership models, and the funding session will identify available funding types, including federal funding.
The Technical Assistance Workshop will be held on April 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Mountain Standard Time.
The meeting will be held in Mesa, AZ at the Mesa Arts Center Meeting Room, 1 East Main Street, Mesa, AZ 85201.
Giselle Sanders, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4628, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7971; email:
NTIA's BroadbandUSA program provides expert advice and field-proven tools for assessing broadband adoption, planning new infrastructure, and engaging a wide range of partners in broadband projects. BroadbandUSA convenes workshops on a regular basis to bring stakeholders together to discuss ways to improve broadband policies, share best practices, and connect communities to federal agencies and other funding sources for the purpose of expanding broadband infrastructure and adoption throughout America's communities. This workshop will explore two topics for broadband infrastructure: Planning and funding.
The workshop will feature subject matter experts from NTIA's BroadbandUSA program. The first session will explore key elements required for planning successful broadband projects. The second session will identify funding models, including federal programs that support broadband infrastructure projects.
The workshop will be open to the public. Pre-registration is requested, and space is limited. NTIA will ask registrants to provide their first and last names and email addresses for both registration purposes and to receive any updates on the workshop. If capacity for the meeting is reached, NTIA will maintain a waiting list and will inform those on the waiting list if space becomes available. Meeting updates, changes in the agenda, if any, and relevant documents will be also available on NTIA's Web site at
The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Giselle Sanders at the contact information listed above at least five (5) business days before the meeting.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announces that on April 25, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., the Market Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC) will hold a public meeting at the CFTC's Washington, DC, headquarters. At this meeting, the MRAC will discuss: (1) The staff's response to the CRM Subcommittee's recommendations, which the MRAC adopted and also recommended that the Commission consider at the November 17, 2016, MRAC meeting, on how Central Counterparties (CCPs) can further enhance their efforts in preparing for the default of a significant clearing member; (2) cybersecurity trends; and (3) how well the derivatives markets are currently functioning, including the impact and implications of the evolving structure of these markets on the movement of risk across market participants.
The meeting will be held on April 25, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by May 2, 2017.
The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Written statements should be submitted by mail to: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Secretary of the Commission; or by electronic mail to:
Petal Walker, MRAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5794.
The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public may also listen to the meeting by telephone by calling a domestic toll-free telephone or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation.
The meeting agenda may change to accommodate other MRAC priorities. For agenda updates, please visit the MRAC committee site at:
After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's Web site,
5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(a)(2).
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Federal Voting Assistance Program ATTN: Mr. David Beirne, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03J25 Alexandria, VA 22350, or call at (571) 372-0740.
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires the States to allow Uniformed Services personnel, their family members, and overseas citizens to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal offices. The Act covers members of the Uniformed Services and the merchant marine to include the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Public Health Service and their eligible dependents, Federal civilian employees overseas, and overseas U.S. citizens not affiliated with the Federal Government. Subsequent to each Presidential election year, FVAP must report voter registration and participation rates for uniformed service voters and overseas citizens to Congress; while FVAP collects data for this report through regular surveys of uniformed service voters and other relevant
Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Innovation Board will take place.
Open to the public Tuesday April 4, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Closed to the public Tuesday April 4, 2017 from 11:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The open portion of the meeting will be held at The Pentagon, Washington DC, in the Pentagon Conference Center—Room B6. (Escort is required for attendees who do not have Pentagon credentials. See guidance in the
Roma Laster, (703) 695-7563 (Voice), (703) 614-4365 (Facsimile),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Defense Innovation Board is unable to provide public notification, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a), for its meeting on Tuesday, April 4, 2017. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, April 5 and 6, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link:
Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting room will be displayed on the information screen for both days. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.
LTC Andrew Lunoff, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3090 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3090, email:
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Government-Industry Advisory Panel was unable to provide public notification concerning its meeting on April 5 through 6, 2017, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, at the email address or telephone number listed in the
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Assistance for Arts Education Programs—Professional Development for Arts Educators (PDAE) Grants Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017.
A survey of schools by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) in 2009-2010
Professional development in the arts is important for both arts classrooms and integration of the arts with other subjects in a well-rounded education. Arts educators need to continually gain new knowledge and skills in the arts disciplines in order to effectively plan, deliver, and assess learning in the arts. In addition, high-quality professional development is required to ensure that arts educators, general classroom teachers, and non-arts subject teachers effectively plan, collaborate, implement, and assess arts-integration learning based on relevant content, performance standards, and research on effective professional development and arts-integration curriculum and pedagogy. High achievement standards in the arts need to be maintained in both arts-specific and arts-integrated classrooms. Further, arts educators and other instructional staff need opportunities to benefit from technology-enhanced professional development strategies and to learn how to integrate digital
As States continue to revise their arts standards, teachers of the arts, including arts specialists, non-arts classroom teachers, teaching artists, and other instructional staff, need opportunities to gain new knowledge and skills based on State standards and to implement that knowledge and skills in K-12 classrooms. Since 2004, arts education has been guided by national voluntary standards; 49 States and the District of Columbia currently have State arts standards. In 2014, the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCAS) released new voluntary pre-K to grade 12 arts standards. Fourteen States have adopted new, or revised existing, arts standards that reflect the primary concepts of the NCAS standards.
The 2009-2010 Department survey referenced above also indicated an “arts-opportunity gap” for thousands of American students who receive minimal or no access to arts education.
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to leverage technology through one or more of the following:
(a) Using high-speed Internet access and devices to increase students' and educators' access to high-quality accessible digital tools, assessments, and materials, particularly open educational resources.
(b) Implementing high-quality, accessible online courses, online learning communities, or online simulations, such as those for which educators could earn professional development credit or continuing education units through digital credentials based on demonstrated mastery of competencies and performance-based outcomes, instead of traditional time-based metrics.
Applicants will be required to provide in the application school enrollment data from the most recent school year available to show evidence of LEA and school eligibility under this requirement.
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
(i) Any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school;
(ii) An elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the LEA receiving assistance under the ESEA with the smallest student population, except that the school shall
(iii) Educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies; and
(iv) The SEA in a State in which the SEA is the sole educational agency for all public schools.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in future years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Based on past experience of PDAE grantees, applicants are encouraged to use the first 12 months of the project period to refine the evaluation design and instruments, specifically those related to the program's GPRA measures, build capacity to execute the evaluation, and ensure that program design and implementation are aligned with the evaluation requirements.
1.
(a) A Regional Service Agency;
(b) An SEA
(c) An institution of higher education; or
(d) A museum or cultural institution, or another private agency, institution, or organization.
2. a.
b.
3.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.351C.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Calibri, or Arial.
The suggested page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the suggested page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
b.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
A pre-application Webinar will be held for this competition shortly after this notice's publication in the
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN,
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under Assistance for Arts Education—PDAE, CFDA number 84.351C, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the PDAE competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.351C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.351C), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
The maximum score for all of the selection criteria is 100 points. The
Points awarded under these selection criteria are in addition to any points an applicant earns under the competitive preference priority in this notice. The maximum score that an application may receive under the competitive preference priority and the selection criteria is 105 points.
A.
The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals.
(2) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
B.
The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(2) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
(3) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
C.
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
D.
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(2) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
E.
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Bonnie Carter, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4W223, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-3576 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 30, 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 Tara Ramsey, 202-260-2063.
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.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Sunshine Act Notice; Notice of Public Hearing Agenda
Tuesday, April 4, 2017, (10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.—EDT)
1335 East West Highway (First Floor Conference Room) Silver Spring, MD 20910
Commissioners will hold a public hearing to discuss the implications for state and local jurisdictions following the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) recent designation of election infrastructure as a national critical infrastructure subsector. Commissioners will hear from a panel of state and local election administrators about their ideas and approaches for addressing new circumstances they expect to confront as a result of the DHS designation. Commissioners will hear from a panel of DHS officials on the implications of the critical infrastructure designation, and their work with state and local election officials to promote election security.
This hearing will be open to the public.
Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (301) 563-3961.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC). The Federal Advisory Committee requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, April 18, 2017; 12:00 p.m.-5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, April 19, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Crystal City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Christine Chalk, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research; SC-21/Germantown Building; U.S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone (301) 903-7486.
The meeting agenda includes an update on the budget, accomplishments and planned activities of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program; an update on Exascale computing project activities and requirements reviews; updates from the three active subcommittees including a report from the Subcommittee on Laboratory Directed Research and Development; technical presentations on machine learning and early science at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing facility; and there will be an opportunity for comments from the public. The meeting will conclude at
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meetings.
This notice announces a meeting of the National Coal Council (NCC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
Sheraton Suites, Old Town Alexandria; 801 N. Saint Asaph St.; Alexandria, VA 22314
Daniel Matuszak, U.S. Department of Energy, 4G-036/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0001; Telephone: 202-287-6915
Attendees are requested to register in advance for the meeting at:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and partial grant of interim waiver, and request for public comment.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (AHT) seeking an exemption from specified portions of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the energy consumption of multi-mode commercial refrigeration equipment. ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, incorporated by reference in Appendix B, does not provide for defrost testing with built-in cooling coils into the body of AHT's unique multi-mode commercial refrigeration equipment basic models. Consequently, AHT submitted to DOE an alternate test procedure that allows for testing of six specified basic models with a different defrost cycle. This notice also announces that DOE has granted AHT an interim waiver from the DOE commercial refrigeration equipment test procedures for the specified commercial refrigeration equipment basic models, subject to use of the alternative test procedure as set forth in this notice. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning AHT's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with regard to the AHT petition until April 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Case Number CR-006, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:
Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6316, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which includes the commercial refrigeration equipment. Part C includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part C authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs during a representative average-use cycle, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(3)) The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is contained in Title 10 of the CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B,
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered industrial equipment when: (1) The petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii).
DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
On October 25, 2016, AHT filed a petition for waiver and application for interim waiver from the test procedure applicable to commercial refrigeration equipment set forth in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B (AHT subsequently sent DOE a letter on March 6, 2017, which responded to questions from DOE. The information from this letter is also represented in this notice). AHT has designed several basic models multi-mode commercial refrigeration equipment that use unique built-in cooling coils deep freeze, freeze, or refrigerate food as needed. Because the cooling coils are built into the body of the units and do not get covered in frost, the coils do not need to be defrosted prior to testing. However, the DOE test procedure and ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, incorporated by reference in Appendix B, assumes that commercial refrigerators or freezers need to be defrosted, or melt the ice from the evaporator coils, for the equipment to function effectively. In particular, the test procedure requires that all refrigerators and freezers with evaporator coils be tested with a full defrost cycle, along with additional defrost cycles in a 24-hour period, depending on how long the test runs (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, “Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,” § 7.8 (Defrost Adequacy Assurance). ASHRAE 72-2005 is incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure. 10 CFR 431.63(d)(1)). AHT appliances, however, have no need to defrost their coils. Thus, rather than running one or more defrosting cycles a day to keep the machines operating efficiently, AHT appliances have a defrost (in the generic sense rather than as defined by DOE/ASHRAE) function that operates, under standard conditions, once per week, and at most (through a manual override) twice per week. As a result, the DOE test procedure, which provides for at least one full defrost cycle in a 24-hour period, is not appropriate for these models. Consequently, AHT submitted to DOE an alternate test procedure that allows for testing of six specified basic models with a different defrost cycle.
As previously noted, an interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that
AHT's petition for waiver claims that the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B does not apply to AHT's advanced models, and would grossly overstate the energy used by these models. These models are multi-mode (
To address multi-mode operation, AHT requested that the basic models shall be tested and rated only for operation as ice cream freezers (with integrated average temperature of −15 °F ± 2.0 °F and use total display area (TDA) to determine associated energy conservation standards).
To address infrequent defrosts, AHT requested in its October 25, 2016 petition that the basic models shall be subject to an alternate two-part test procedure. AHT specified that the first part would be a 24-hour test starting in steady state conditions and including eight hours of door opening (according to ASHRAE Standard 72). The energy consumed in this test would be recorded ET1. The second part would be a defrost cycle test starting after steady state conditions were established and ending after the defrost cycle was complete. The duration of the defrost cycle, t
With regard to the first issue, multi-mode operation, DOE has taken the position in the most recent commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure final rule, that self-contained equipment or remote condensing equipment with thermostats capable of operating at temperatures that span multiple equipment categories must be certified and comply with DOE's regulations for each applicable equipment category.
Regarding the second issue of infrequent defrosts, DOE has reviewed AHT's alternate procedure (based on the May 6, 2017 modification) and concludes that AHT's alternate test procedure results would be representative of the models' true energy consumptions and allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these equipment, while alleviating the testing problems associated with AHT's implementation of commercial refrigeration equipment testing for the specified multi-mode models. DOE also understands that absent a partial grant of an interim waiver, AHT's equipment cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of its true energy consumption characteristics. Consequently, DOE has determined that this part of AHT's petition for waiver will likely be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant AHT immediate relief for this part of the test procedure, pending a determination of the petition for waiver.
For the reasons stated above, DOE has partially granted AHT's application for interim waiver from testing for its specified commercial refrigeration equipment basic models. The substance of the interim waiver is summarized below.
AHT is required to test and rate the AHT commercial refrigeration equipment multi-mode basic models SYDNEY, MIAMI, PARIS, MANHATTAN, MALTA, and IBIZA, according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in section IV, “Alternate Test Procedure.”
AHT is permitted to make representations about the energy use of this basic model for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 431.66.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. AHT may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic models set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g). In addition, DOE notes that granting of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 431. See also 10 CFR 431.401(a) and (i).
The interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(h). Furthermore, this interim waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of statements, representations, and documents provided by the petitioner. DOE may rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver or interim waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. See 10 CFR 431.401(k).
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of equipment covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 6314(d)) Consistent representations about the energy efficiency of covered equipment are important for consumers evaluating equipment when making purchasing decisions and for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, and after considering public comments on the petition, DOE will announce its decision as to an alternate test procedure for AHT in a subsequent Decision and Order.
During the period of the interim waiver granted in this notice, AHT shall test the multi-mode basic models listed in section III in each mode (ice-cream freezer, freezer, and refrigerator mode) according to the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, for basic models, with the following modifications for defrost testing in ASHRAE 72-2005 (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.63(d)), laid out in two parts:
The first part shall be a 24-hour test starting in steady state conditions and
The second part shall be a defrost cycle test starting after steady state conditions are established. The defrost cycle is initiated and terminates after the defrost cycle is complete. The energy consumed during this defrost cycle, ET2, and the duration of the defrost cycle, tDI, shall be recorded.
Based on the measured energy consumption in these two tests, the daily energy consumption (DEC) in kWh shall be calculated as
Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of AHT's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models of AHT commercial refrigeration equipment, and announces DOE's decision to grant AHT an interim waiver from the test procedure for its commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE is publishing AHT's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to determine the energy consumption of its commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE will consider public comments on the petition in issuing its Decision and Order.
DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner's representative is Scott Blake Harris, Chairman, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, 1919 M Street, Eighth Floor, Washington, DC. 20036. All comment submissions must include the agency name and Case Number CR-006 for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies to DOE: One copy of the document marked “confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential included, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (collectively AHT)
AHT is a world leader in the production of plug-in refrigerators and freezers for the commercial sector. It currently manufactures its products in Austria, and imports them into the United States through its wholly-owned subsidiary in South Carolina. AHT USA is also about to open a new manufacturing facility in the Charleston
Commercial refrigeration equipment, such as AHT's, will soon be subject to a new regulatory regime. This includes new test procedures
In part because of their advanced design and features, many AHT commercial refrigerators and freezers cannot be fairly evaluated by DOE's mandated testing protocols. First, because of their implicit assumptions, it is not clear which of the DOE tests should be applied to the AHT appliances. Second, any of the DOE tests would overstate the amount of energy used by the AHT appliances. Accordingly, a waiver of those test requirements is necessary.
The basic models for which a waiver is requested are set forth in Appendix I. These models are all display merchandisers with transparent doors. They are distributed in commerce under the AHT brand name.
As noted, the DOE test procedures will take effect on March 28, 2017. It is not clear which DOE test procedure should apply to AHT's advanced models, and all would grossly overstate the energy used by these models. There are two critical features of the AHT models that raise issues under the forthcoming testing procedure.
The AHT appliances for which we seek a waiver are all multi-mode models; they have three modes of operation among which the user can choose merely by turning a switch. In one mode, the units operate as an ice cream freezer. In another mode, they operate as a regular commercial freezer. In yet another mode, they operate as a commercial refrigerator. The advantage to a user of having a single appliance that can operate in three different modes is obvious. And if a retail operator can purchase one appliance that can operate in three modes, rather than having to buy multiple appliances to meet the same needs, there are sustainability benefits as well. The problem is that the DOE rules implicitly assume that an appliance is exclusively an ice cream freezer, exclusively a standard commercial freezer, or exclusively a commercial refrigerator.
DOE testing rules often require that products be tested in their default configuration, or in the typical configuration. In the case of the AHT multi-mode appliances however, there isn't a “default” configuration or one “typical” configuration. The machines are designed to be easily and equally usable in all three modes. DOE precedent also suggests that when there is no default or typical mode for testing purposes, products with multiple configurations should be tested in the most energy consumptive mode. In this case, that would mean that AHT should test its products in the ice cream freezer mode and treat them as such for regulatory purposes.
Accordingly, AHT asks for a “waiver” to be allowed to do precisely that.
The only obvious alternative to testing in the most energy consumptive mode would be to require testing in all three modes. But such a requirement would be unique, burdensome, and inconsistent with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which requires that the test procedures “shall be reasonably designed” and “shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.”
Finally, testing these appliances as ice cream freezers makes most sense because DOE has determined that TDA is the best metric for display equipment with transparent doors, and is moving increasingly in that direction in its testing protocols. As DOE has concluded, “where the function is to display merchandise for sale, TDA best quantifies the ability of a piece of equipment to perform that function.”
The AHT appliances are innovative, and perhaps unique, in one other respect: Their cooling coils are built into the body of the units. This means the cooling coils are not exposed to the air and do not get covered with frost. This also means the coils do not need to be defrosted. The DOE test procedure understandably assumes that commercial refrigerators and freezers have cooling or evaporator coils that need to be defrosted for the equipment to function effectively. Indeed, the Technical Support Document for the test procedure essentially defines “defrosting” to mean melting ice from evaporator coils:
As the air in the refrigerated space is cooled, water vapor condenses on the surface of the evaporator coil. . . . There are several methods available for defrosting the evaporator coil. . .
In addition, the ASHRAE test procedure mandated by the DOE regulations provides that the defrost adequacy assurance test “shall verify that any defrost setting and arrangement is adequate to melt all frost and ice from coils and flues and drain it out of the refrigerator.”
AHT appliances, however, have no need to defrost their coils. Rather, small amounts of frost can build up on the inner walls of the cabinet when the
Accordingly, AHT asks for a waiver to test its appliances with the defrost cycle activated in a way that reflects the actual operation of the units. To this end, AHT proposes to test the appliances in two phases. Phase one shall be a 24-hour test according to ASHRAE 72 including eight hours of door openings but without defrost. The second phase should be a separate measurement of the energy used during the defrost cycle. One-seventh of the measured energy in phase two should be added to the energy measured in phase one. This approach would translate the once-a-week defrost cycle into an average daily energy usage factor.
In line with the waivers outlined above, AHT proposes the following alternate test procedure to evaluate the performance of the basic models listed in Appendix I of this petition and application.
Effective March 28, 2017, AHT shall be required to test the performance of the basic models listed in Appendix I according to the test procedures for commercial refrigeration equipment prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, Subpart C, Appendix B, except as follows.
The basic models shall be tested and rated as ice cream freezers (Integrated Average Temperature of −15 °F +/−2.0 °F and use of TDA).
The basic models shall be subject to the following testing instead of the corresponding defrost testing in the test procedure.
Based on the measured energy consumption in these two tests, the daily energy consumption (DEC) in kWh shall be calculated as
The waiver shall continue until DOE adopts an applicable amended test procedure.
AHT also requests an interim waiver for its testing and rating of the basic models listed in Appendix I. Based on its merits, the petition for waiver is likely to be granted. Further, it is essential that an interim waiver be granted, as AHT plans to distribute units of the models that would be affected by the DOE rule as otherwise applicable on and after the March 28, 2017, compliance date. Without waiver relief, AHT will be at a competitive disadvantage in the market for these important products and would suffer economic hardship. AHT would be subject to requirements that clearly should not apply to such products.
A list of manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AHT to incorporate overall design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition is set forth in Appendix II.
AHT requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application.
The waiver and interim waiver requested herein should apply to testing and rating of the following basic models that are manufactured by AHT:
On March 1, 2017, the Commission issued a notice of application (March 1 Notice) in the above captioned proceeding.
As stated in the March 1 Notice, in its application, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP requests to amend its certificate issued by the Commission in Docket No. CP15-517-000 to (i) install a gas-fired Solar Titan 130 turbine compressor unit in place of the currently certificated gas-fired Solar Mars 100 turbine compressor unit at the Magasco Compressor Station, located in Sabine County, Texas, increasing the horsepower from 15,748 hp to 20,482 hp and (ii) modify the emergency generator from an 800 brake-horsepower (bhp) unit to a 691 bhp unit. This amendment will not require any additional workspace or land disturbance beyond what has been approved by the Commission. The estimated cost of the amendment is approximately $3 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates & Tariffs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by telephone at (713) 479-8252, or by email to
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
As previously noticed on January 27, 2017, and supplemented herein, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project (MIDSHIP Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Midship Pipeline)
The Commission previously solicited public input on the MIDSHIP Project in January 2017. With this Supplemental Notice of Intent (NOI) we
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project, including the newly affected landowners along the planned Velma Lateral and Sholem Booster Station. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a newly affected landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may have already contacted you or may contact you soon about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if the easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
The Velma Lateral would consist of 13.3 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline and associated appurtenances in Oklahoma. It would begin at a gas supply facility near Velma in Stephens County, continue northeast for approximately 6.5 miles, and connect with a gas supply facility near Sholem, Oklahoma. Midship Pipeline would construct a new 3,750 horsepower compressor station, referred to as the Sholem Booster Station, adjacent to the existing gas facility. From the compressor station, the Velma Lateral would continue in a northeast direction through portions of Stephens, Carter, and Garvin Counties for a total of 6.8 miles, where it would terminate at the Tatums Compressor Station near mainline Milepost 99.1. Midship Pipeline would construct a receipt meter station at the tie-in within the Tatums Compressor Station. An overview map of the planned project, including the Velma Lateral and Sholem Booster Station, is provided in appendix 1. Construction of the Velma Lateral and Sholem Booster Station would disturb about 168.3 acres of land. After construction, Midship Pipeline would maintain about 82.2 acres for operation of these facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed via mail or provided electronically. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF17-3-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 2.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues with the Velma Lateral and Sholem Booster Station to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the MIDSHIP Project under these general headings:
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed for the MIDSHIP Project, we initiated our NEPA review of the project under the Commission's pre-filing process on November 9, 2016. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS. In addition, FERC representatives participated in the public open houses sponsored by Midship Pipeline in El Reno, Lindsay, Ardmore, and Durant, Oklahoma from December 12 through 15, 2016. On February 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2017, FERC held public scoping sessions in Durant, Ardmore, Elmore City, and El Reno, respectively, to solicit comments regarding the planned MIDSHIP Project.
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this Supplemental NOI, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Native American tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities, the environmental information provided by Midship Pipeline, comments received at the project open houses, and scoping comments. This preliminary list of potential issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:
• Impacts on water wells;
• impacts on waterbodies and wetlands;
• impacts on threatened and endangered species;
• geological hazards;
• impacts on future development due to pipeline route on property;
• impacts on air quality;
• impacts on noise from planned compressor stations;
• public safety; and
• pipeline route alternatives.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, as well as anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).
Once Midship Pipeline files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, Midship Pipeline has established toll-free telephone numbers (888) 214-7275 for general inquiries or (800) 305-2466 for landowner inquiries) and an email support address (
Take notice that on March 2, 2017, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submitted tariff filing per: Further Compliance Filing to be effective February 1, 2017, pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Order issued on January 31, 2017 Order.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 15, 2017, pursuant to section 219 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824s (2012), and Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2015), Republic Transmission, LLC (Republic) filed a petition for declaratory order authorizing Republic to use specific limited transmission rate incentives and treatments for Republic's development of the Duff-Coleman EHV 345 kV Competitive Transmission Project, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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 FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice—Receipt of petition.
Notice is hereby given that a petition has been received from the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the State of Maryland requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mid-Atlantic Region, that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Chester River, Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, Maryland. EPA is requesting comments on this petition and whether EPA should designate the Chester River and its tributaries as a No Discharge Zone as provided in the Clean Water Act. The petition is available upon request from EPA (at the email address below) or at
Comments must be received in writing to EPA on or before April 27, 2017.
Comments should be sent to Michael D. Hoffmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Mid-Atlantic Region, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3WP10, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, or emailed to
Michael D. Hoffmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Mid-Atlantic Region. Telephone: (215) 814-2716, Fax number: (215) 814-2301; email address:
Notice is hereby given that a petition has been received from the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the State of Maryland requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic Region pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322(f)(3), that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels is reasonably available for the entirety of the Chester River and its tributaries. EPA is requesting comments on this petition and whether EPA should designate the Chester River as a No Discharge Zone as provided in that provision of the Clean Water Act. The petition is available upon request from EPA (at the address above) or at
The State of Maryland makes this request as part of its application for a No Discharge Zone which will prohibit the discharge of sewage from vessels into the Chester River and its tributaries. The delineation of the proposed No Discharge Zone of the Chester River and its tributaries from the Chesapeake Bay will begin at 39°8′54.48″ N., 76°16′37.11″ W. and extend down to 39°2′23.56″ N., 76°18′8.89″ W. From there it will continue east throughout any navigable waters including all tributaries and bays. Included within this zone are Lankford Bay, Corsica River, Southeast Creek, and many smaller tributaries.
The State of Maryland has certified that there are nineteen stationary and four mobile pumpout stations located at 17 marinas or docks throughout the Chester River. Sixteen of the nineteen stationary units also have a method to empty portable toilets. All of the pump-out stations noted were funded with grants administered by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and all comply with local and state sanitary permitting requirements. A list of the facilities, phone numbers, locations, and hours of operation can be found below.
The State of Maryland has provided documentation indicating that the total vessel population is estimated to be between 2,705 and 4,700 boats in the proposed area. Using the higher of those estimates, approximately 3,196 are identified as recreational vessels, 1,151 are identified as commercial vessels, and 353 are classified as “Other.” The estimated vessel population in all of the affected areas is based on length: The most conservative estimates provided by the State of Maryland suggest that there are no vessels less than 16 feet in length, 15 vessels between 16 feet and 25 feet in length, 3,034 vessels between 25 feet and 40 feet in length, and 1,651 vessels greater than 40 feet in length. Based on the number and size of vessels and EPA guidance for state and local officials, the estimated number of vessels requiring pumpout facilities in the Chester River during peak occupancy is 1,207.
In their application, Maryland has certified that the Chester River and its tributaries need greater environmental protection and enhancement of the waters. Maryland has classified the Chester River and the Chesapeake Bay which it drains into, as impaired for not meeting applicable state water quality standards. One hundred percent (100%) of the Chester River is considered impaired by either nutrients, sediment, bacteria or a combination thereof. The counties of Kent and Queen Anne's that surround the Chester River rank as the top two Maryland waterfront counties in terms of beach closings by percentage of beaches. All beach closings were due to elevated bacteria as evidenced by high levels of enterococci.
The Chester River is an important economic driver for the region, providing jobs and revenue through tourism, commercial and recreational fishing for fish and shellfish, boating, and more. Many people use the Chester River for hunting, cruising, nature observation, sightseeing, waterskiing, tubing, racing, and swimming. Based on a study by the Sage Policy Group in 2012, cited in the application, the Chester River supports $86 million in annual local economic activity, 900 jobs, and $26.7 million in annual labor income.
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 24, 2017.
1.
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 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 30, 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
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794.
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.
The health risks associated with the use of cigarettes can be significant and far-reaching. In 2009, Congress enacted the Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31), which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to grant FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Section 201 of the Tobacco Control Act amends section 4 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) (15 U.S.C. 1333) to require FDA to issue “regulations that require color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany the label statements specified in subsection (a)(1).” Section 202(b) of the Tobacco Control Act further amends section 4 the FCLAA by adding that the Secretary, through notice and comment rulemaking, may adjust the “text of any of the label requirements . . . if the Secretary finds that such a change would promote greater public understanding of the risks associated with the use of tobacco products.”
In the
As currently proposed, this Experimental Study on Warning Statements for Cigarette Graphic Health Warnings is a voluntary online experiment conducted with consumers. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess whether potential textual warnings statements, which have been revised from those enumerated in section 4 of FCLAA, promote greater public understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking. The study will collect data from various groups of consumers, including adolescent (under age 18) current cigarette smokers, adolescents who are susceptible to initiation of cigarette smoking, young adult (ages 18- to 24) current cigarette smokers, and older adult (ages 25 and above) current cigarette smokers. The results will inform the Agency's development of cigarette graphic health warnings to be tested in future studies with the goal of implementing the mandatory graphic warning label statement consistent with section 4(d) of FCLAA and the First Amendment.
Participants randomized to 1 of the 16 experimental conditions will view 8 of the warning statements listed in section 4(a)(1) of FCLAA (above) plus 1 statement that is a revised version of a statutory text warning. The revised warning statements being tested in this proposed study are:
In all conditions, after viewing each statement, participants will respond to a small number of questions about that specific statement. Following viewing all nine statements, participants will respond to a larger set of questions. Next, participants will view an additional nine revised warning statements, drawn from the revised statements listed above, and respond to an additional set of questions. Primary study outcomes include beliefs and knowledge of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking. Prior to the main data collection, two pretests, each with 50 participants, will take place to ensure correct programming and to identify any issues with the proposed study design and implementation.
FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with research that is similar to this proposed study. Screening potential participants for the 2 pretests will occur with 762 respondents (487 adults and 275 adolescents) identified and recruited through the Internet panel. This brief screening will take an average of 2 minutes (0.033 hours) per respondent. Each of the 2 pretests will consist of 50 respondents (34 adults and 16 adolescents) conducted during a single session and take an average of 15 minutes (0.25 hours) per respondent. Screening potential participants for the main data collection will occur with 19,082 respondents (11,925 adults and 7,157 adolescents) identified and recruited through the same Internet panel as used for the pretests. This brief screening will take an average of 2 minutes (0.033 hours) per respondent. Recent national estimates of the numbers of adolescent current cigarette smokers, adolescents who are susceptible to initiation of cigarette smoking, young adult current cigarette smokers, and older adult current cigarette smokers informed the estimates of 13.9 percent qualification rate for adults and 11.6 percent qualification rate for adolescents. Applying these estimates and other assumptions from previous experience conducting similar studies to the number of adolescents and adults to be screened results in the desired sample size for the main data collection of 2,500 participants, of which 1,667 will be adults and 833 will be adolescents. The main data collection will occur with those 2,500 respondents during a single session. The main data collection will take an average of 15 minutes (0.25 hours) per respondent. The total estimated burden is 1,305 hours (25 hours + 25 hours + 630 hours + 625 hours).
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the next federal advisory committee meeting regarding the development of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030. This meeting will be held online via webinar and is open to the public. The Committee will discuss the nation's health promotion and disease prevention objectives and will provide recommendations to improve health status and reduce health risks for the nation by the year 2030. The Committee will advise the Secretary on the Healthy People 2030 mission, vision, framework, and organizational structure. The Committee will provide advice regarding criteria for identifying a more focused set of measurable, nationally representative objectives. The Committee's advice must assist the Secretary in reducing the number of objectives while ensuring that the selection criteria identifies the most critical public health issues that are high-impact priorities supported by current national data.
The Committee will meet on April 27, 2017, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
The meeting will be held online via webinar. To register to attend the meeting, please visit the Healthy People Web site at
Emmeline Ochiai, Designated Federal Officer, Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Room LL-100, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8280 (telephone), (240) 453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Healthy People Web site at
The names and biographies of the Committee members are available at
To join the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Healthy People Web site at
42 U.S.C. 217a. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App.) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the PubMed Central National Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2); notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. The outcome of the evaluation will provide information to internal NCI committees that will decide whether NCI should support requests and make available contract resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the treatment of various forms of cancer. The research proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Toby Hecht, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Development Experimental Therapeutics Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3W110, Rockville, MD 20850, (240) 276-5683,
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of a worldwide exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in:
Only written comments and/or applications for a license that are received by NIH at the address indicated below on or before April 12, 2017 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of any unpublished patent application, inquiries, objections to this notice, comments and other requests relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Michael Shmilovich, Esq., CLP, Senior Licensing and Patent Manager, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479, phone number 301-435-5019, or
This notice is published in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i).
Mitral regurgitation (MR) is amongst the most common valvular heart disorders, with an estimated prevalence of approximately 1.7% in the United States, increasing with age to approximately 9.3% in those over the age of 75. MR is classified as primary (also known as “organic”) when principally due to a structural or degenerative abnormality of the mitral valve (MV), whether of the leaflets, chordae tendineae, papillary muscles, or mitral annulus. Secondary (also known as functional) MR occurs in the absence of organic MV disease, usually from left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. It is more common than primary MR and is associated with a worse prognosis (compounded by the underlying cardiomyopathy), and (in contrast to primary MR) the benefits of MV surgery are uncertain. The MV consists of two leaflets (anterior and posterior) sitting within the annulus (see picture below). The posterior mitral leaflet originates from the left atrial (LA) endocardium. A subvalvular apparatus, comprising two papillary muscles (anterolateral and posteromedial) arising from the LV myocardium and the chordae tendineae, supports the leaflets. LV dilation due to ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy secondarily impairs leaflet coaptation of a structurally normal MV, resulting in secondary MR. Specifically, LV dysfunction and remodeling lead to apical and lateral papillary muscle displacement, resulting in leaflet tethering, dilation and flattening of the mitral annulus, and reduced valve closing forces.
The subject mitral repair system devices are primarily intended to treat secondary mitral regurgitation. The proposed mitral cerclage with coronary artery protection is an approach capable of overcoming many of the problems that exist with existing devices namely allowing a larger subset of patients to be treated compared to other coronary sinus devices, providing a full annuloplasty type device which is flexible enough to preserve annular motion, reduce hospitalization costs and shorten recovery time. The associated method closely resembles the surgical placement of a full annuloplasty ring.
Catheter-based mitral valve regurgitation treatments that use coronary sinus trajectory or coronary sinus implant can have unwanted effects because the coronary sinus and its branches have been found to cross the outer diameter of major coronary
Another embodiment of the cerclage protection device is a combination with a cerclage tension element that can be used to facilitate transcatheter mitral valve implantation. The transcatheter strategy includes a “valve-in-ring” wherein a cerclage annuloplasty is first performed. During the same session or during a separate procedure, a transcatheter mitral valve implantation could be performed that would take advantage of the cerclage annuloplasty system to serve as a visual and a mechanical “landing zone” for mitral valve implantation. A cerclage annuloplasty ring would allow outward expansion of the mitral valve to achieve fixation. However, without the cerclage protection device in place, such a strategy would cause compression of an entrapped coronary artery. This new embodiment of the protection device protects coronary arteries not from extrinsic compression but from “inside-out” compression, thereby allowing cerclage to be the first step for transcatheter mitral valve implantation. It also allows the latter to be employed as second-stage adjunct or bailout for inadequate cerclage mitral valve annuoplasty.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Dr. Mary Ann Guadagno, Project Clearance Liaison, Center for Scientific Review, NIH, Room 3182, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 435-1251 or Email your request, including your address to:
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
The CSR Early Career Reviewer program was developed to identify and train qualified scientists who are early in their scientific careers and who have not had prior CSR review experience. The goals of the program are to expose these early career scientists to the peer review experience so that they become more competitive as applicants as well as to enrich the existing pool of NIH reviewers. Currently, online application software, the Early Career Reviewer Application and Vetting System, is accessed online by applicants to the Early Career Reviewer Program who provide their names, contact information, a description of their areas of expertise, their study section preferences, professional Curriculum Vitae and links to their professional Web site. This Information Collection Request (ICR) is to extend the Early Career Reviewer Application and Vetting System to process applications for the Early Career Reviewer program.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 450.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session on May 3, 2017 will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Paulette S. Gray, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room, 7W444 Bethesda, MD 20892 240-276-6340
Susan Weiss, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC, Room 5274 301-443-6487
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of study; final report.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) conducted the Nantucket Sound Port Access Route Study (PARS) in accordance with the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1223(c)), as directed by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015. The USCG used the standards and methodology of the Atlantic Coast PARS to determine whether existing regulations should be revised to improve navigation safety in Nantucket Sound due to factors such as increased vessel traffic, changing vessel traffic patterns, weather conditions, or navigational difficulty. The report, as submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on February 27, 2017, is available in the docket for viewing. It concluded that no regulatory changes to existing vessel routing measures are needed.
If you have questions on this notice, email
The Nantucket Sound PARS considered whether existing regulations should be revised to improve navigation safety in Nantucket Sound due to factors such as vessel traffic density, vessel traffic patterns, weather conditions, or navigation challenges in the study area. All available sources of data relevant to this process, including existing and potential traffic patterns, existing regulations, public submissions, and other factors were analyzed. Although the study recommended no regulatory changes to existing vessel routing measures, the USCG will continue to actively monitor and initiate appropriate actions on all waterways subject to its jurisdiction as needed to support navigation safety.
On March 22, 2016, we published a Notice of Study; request for comments entitled “Port Access Route Study (PARS): In Nantucket Sound” in the
To view the final report as submitted to Congress and comments, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received to the docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
The Nantucket Sound PARS focused on gathering factual and relevant information to aid the USCG assess potential risk of marine casualties and efficiency of vessel traffic in the region. The USCG analyzed vessel traffic density, hazards, agency and stakeholder experience in vessel traffic management, navigation, ship handling, the effects of weather, and impacts to marine mammals and other wildlife. The USCG also considered public comments in the final report. The Nantucket Sound PARS concluded that no regulatory changes to existing vessel routing measures are needed but reiterated that the USCG actively monitors all waterways subject to its jurisdiction to help ensure navigation safety. As such, the USCG will continue to monitor Nantucket Sound for changing conditions and consider appropriate actions to promote waterway and user safety.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternate Compliance (COAC) was issued for the GLADDING-HEARN HULLS 418 AND 419. We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute.
The Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued on March 14, 2017.
For information or questions about this notice call or email Mr. Kevin Miller, First District Towing Vessel/Barge Safety Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (617) 223-8272, email
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law
The Coast Guard encourages the use of two masthead lights on power-driven vessels less than 50 meters in length in accordance with “The Boating Safety Circular” 75, June 1993, page 15. The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the Gladding-Hearn Hulls 418 and 419 are vessels of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the position of the two masthead lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation of the vessel. This certificate authorizes the placement of these vessels' two masthead lights to not meet the minimum horizontal separation requirements specified in Annex I of 72 COLREGS. All other navigational lighting dimensions will remain in compliance with 72 COLREGS, including vertical separation required for masthead lights and sidelights.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before March 4, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by April 12, 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 March 4, 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:
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 30, 2017.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Linda Rosen, Training and Technical Assistance Specialist at 1-202-353-9222, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20530 or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 30, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Diane E. Filler, Assistant Administrator, Human Resources Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Dr., Springfield, VA 22152.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
DEA is requesting an extension of a currently approved collection. This collection requires the drug history of any individual seeking employment with DEA. DEA policy states that a past history of illegal drug use may result in ineligibility for employment. The form asks job applicants specific questions about their personal history, if any, of illegal drug use.
5.
6.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) Federal Advisory Committee (GAC) to discuss the Global Initiative, as described at
The meeting will take place on Monday, May 15, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET.
The meeting will take place at the Office of Justice Programs offices (in the Main Conference Room), 810 7th Street, Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 514-2000 [note: this is not a toll-free number].
J. Patrick McCreary, Global Designated Federal Employee (DFE), Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 616-0532 [note: this is not a toll-free number]; Email:
This meeting is open to the public. Due to security measures, however, members of the public who wish to attend this meeting must register with Mr. J. Patrick McCreary at the above address at least (7) days in advance of the meeting. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Access to the meeting will not be allowed without registration. All attendees will be required to sign in at the meeting registration desk. Please bring photo identification and allow extra time prior to the meeting.
Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Mr. McCreary at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
The GAC will guide and monitor the development of the Global information sharing concept. It will advise the Assistant Attorney General, OJP; the Attorney General; the President (through the Attorney General); and local, state, tribal, and federal policymakers in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The GAC will also advocate for strategies for accomplishing a Global information sharing capability.
Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the DFE.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor.
Amendment to
This notice amends 80 FR 80390 (Dec. 24, 2015) [FR Doc. 2015-32406 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 a.m.]. The revised language is below:
The following service must be available for homeless veteran participants during the Stand Down event:
• Department of Labor (DOL)—State Workforce Agency (SWA) employment and training services to include Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialist or other American Job Center (AJC) staff (see the following link to locate available resources in your area:
The following services are strongly encouraged, where available:
• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—benefits, medical and mental health services, and
• Referral services to secure immediate emergency housing.
7. The following letter of support must be provided:
The state or local AJC and/or DVOP specialist(s) stating they will provide Department of Labor-funded employment and training services at the Stand Down event. These basic or core services are required in Section I.
The following three letters of support are strongly encouraged but not required to receive an award:
A. the VA stating what benefits, medical and mental health services will be available at the event as encouraged in Section I.
B. the organization that will provide immediate emergency housing based on referrals from the Stand Down event as encouraged in Section I, and
C. different organizations such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the local Continuum of Care, Veteran Service Organizations, state and local government agencies, local businesses, and local on-profit organizations including community based and faith-based organizations that will support the event.
Thomas Martin, Grant Officer, Office of Grants Management, at (202) 693‐2989,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Job Corps Enrollee Allotment Determination,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 27, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Job Corps Enrollee Allotment Determination information collection. More specifically, a Job Corps enrollee may elect to have a portion of his or her readjustment allowance/transition payment sent to a dependent on a bi-weekly basis. Form ETA 658, Allotment Request, provides the information necessary to administer these allotments. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act section 145 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Safety Defects; Examination, Correction, and Records.
All comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners.
Compressed-air receivers and other unfired pressure vessels must be inspected by inspectors holding a valid National Board Commission and in accordance with the applicable chapters of the National Board Inspection Code, a Manual for Boiler and Pressure Vessels Inspectors, 1979. Safety defects found on compressed-air receivers and other unfired pressure vessels have caused injuries and fatalities in the mining industry.
Records of inspections must be kept in accordance with the requirements of the National Board Inspection Code and the records must be made available to the Secretary or an authorized representative.
Fired pressure vessels (boilers) must be equipped with water level gauges, pressure gauges, automatic pressure-relief valves, blowdown piping and other safety devices approved by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to protect against hazards from overpressure, flameouts, fuel interruptions and low water level.
Records of inspection and repairs must be retained by the mine operator in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1977, and the National Board Inspection Code (progressive records—no limit on retention time) and shall be made available to the Secretary or an authorized representative.
Operators must inspect equipment, machinery, and tools that are to be used during a shift for safety defects before the equipment is placed in operation. Defects affecting safety are required to be corrected in a timely manner. In instances where the defect makes continued operation of the equipment hazardous to persons, the equipment must be removed from service, tagged to identify that it is out of use, and repaired before use is resumed.
Safety defects on self-propelled mobile equipment account for many injuries and fatalities in the mining industry. Inspection of this equipment prior to use is required to ensure safe operation. The equipment operator is required to make a visual and operational check of the various primary operating systems that affect safety,
Any defects found are required to be either corrected immediately, or reported to and recorded by the mine operator prior to the timely correction. A record is not required if the defect is corrected immediately,
A competent person designated by the operator must examine each working place at least once each shift for conditions which may adversely affect safety or health. A record of such examinations must be kept by the operator for a period of one year and must be made available for review by the Secretary or an authorized representative.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Safety Defects; Examination, Correction, and Records. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Safety Defects; Examination, Correction, and Records. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWCP) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Pre-Hearing Statement (LS-18). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 30, 2017.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3233, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email
Title 20, CFR 702.317 provides for the referral of claims under the Longshore Act for formal hearings. This Section provides that before a case is transferred to the Office of Administrative Law Judges the district director shall furnish each of the parties or their representatives with a copy of a pre-hearing statement form. Each party shall, within 21 days after receipt of each form, complete it and return it to the district director. Upon receipt of the forms, the district director, after checking them for completeness and after any further conferences that, in his/her opinion, are warranted, shall transmit them to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge with all available evidence which the parties intend to submit at the hearing. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2017.
* 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,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant an exclusive license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S Non-Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 13/757,929, entitled “MULTI-Gb/s LASER COMMUNICATIONS TERMINAL FOR MINI-SPACECRAFT,” NASA Case No. NPO-48413, and any issued patents or continuations in part resulting therefrom, to OnOffBlock, Inc., having its principal place of business in Naperville, Illinois.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 180-800C, Pasadena, CA 91109, (818) 854-7770 (phone), (818) 393-2607 (fax).
Mark Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 180-800C, Pasadena, CA 91109, (818) 854-7770 (phone), (818) 393-2607 (fax).
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The National Science Board's Committee on Awards and Facilities, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
April 11, 2017 from 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. EDT.
(1) Committee Chair's opening remarks; (2) Antarctic Infrastructure Modernization for Science (AIMS).
Closed.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
The National Science Board's Committee on Awards and Facilities, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
April 10, 2017 from 4:00-5:00 p.m. EDT.
(1) Committee Chair's opening remarks; (2) NEON update including scenarios for operations and maintenance.
Closed.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on April 6-8, 2017, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
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 4, “Cumulative Occupational Exposure History.”
Submit comments by May 30, 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 the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0066 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-2017-0066 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 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.
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.
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.
Weeks of March 27, April 3, 10, 17, 24, May 1, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 27, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 10, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 17, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 1, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from February 28, 2017 to March 13, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on March 14, 2017.
Comments must be filed by April 27, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0080, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0080, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the
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 30, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take effect until PNPS has permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled condition and the Certified Fuel Handler Training and Retraining Program is approved by the NRC. The proposed amendment would modify the PNPS TS by deleting the portions of the TS that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility, while modifying the other sections to correspond to the permanently defueled condition.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the administrative controls do not directly affect the design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) necessary for safe storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and storage of such fuel in the spent fuel pool. The changes to the administrative controls are administrative in nature and do not affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the reactor. Thus, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not increased.
In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accidents are the fuel handling accident (FHA) and those involving radioactive waste systems remaining in service. The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, because extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation allowed. This mode of operation is bounded by the existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The administrative removal or modifications of the TS that are related only to administration of the facility cannot result in different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and PNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor or retain or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
The proposed changes to the PNPS TS do not affect systems credited in the accident analysis for the FHA or radioactive waste system upsets at PNPS. The proposed TS will continue to require proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Since the 10 CFR part 50 license for PNPS will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel once the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible. The only remaining credible accidents are a FHA and those involving radioactive waste systems remaining in service. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact these analyzed conditions.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the PNPS TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the remaining applicable postulated accident; and as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis. Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and PNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor or retain or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because decreasing the reactor dome pressure in TS SL 2.1.1.1 and TS SL 2.1.1.2 for reactor RTP [rated thermal power] ranges and increasing the AV [allowable value] for the Main Steam Line Pressure-Low on TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, Function b, effectively expands the range of applicability for GEXL correlation and the calculation of MCPR [minimum critical power ratio]. The CPR [critical power ratio] rises during the pressure reduction following the scram that terminates the PRFO [pressure regulator failure—maximum demand (open)] transient. The reduction in the reactor dome pressure value in the SL from 785 psig [pounds per square inch gauge] to 700 psia [pounds per square inch absolute] and the increase in the AV from ≥746 psig to ≥814 psig adequately accommodate the pressure reduction during the PRFO transient within the revised TS limit without compromising fuel integrity.
The expanded GEXL correlation range supports NMP2 revised low pressure safety limit of 700 psia. The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal or accident or transient operating conditions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure value in the SL from 785 psig to 700 psia reflects a wider range of applicability for the GEXL correlation which is approved by the NRC for both GE14 currently in NMP2 and GNF2 fuels proposed for NMP2. The proposed changes do not involve physical changes to the plant or its operating characteristics. In addition, the increase in the AV for the MSL [main steam line] low pressure from ≥746 psig to ≥814 psig will result in the MSIV [main steam isolation valve] closure signal initiation at a higher temperature. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. The proposed change in reactor dome pressure SLs and the AV for the MSL low pressure ensures the safety margin is maintained, which protects the fuel cladding integrity during steady state operation, normal operational transients, or AOOs [anticipated operational occurrences] such as a depressurization transient, but does not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. The proposed changes do not involve physical changes to the plant or its operating characteristics. The reduction in the reactor dome pressure value in the SL from 785 psig to 700 psia and the increase to the AV for the MSL low pressure provides added margin to accommodate the pressure reduction during the PRFO transient within the revised TS limit without compromising fuel integrity.
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 amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The requested changes delete License Conditions 3.F through 3.K pertaining to Decommissioning Trust Agreements currently in the OCNGS FOL. The requested changes are consistent with the types of license amendments [identified] in 10 CFR 50.75(h)(4).
The regulations of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(4) state “Unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility that does no more than delete specific license conditions relating to the terms and conditions of decommissioning trust agreements involves “no significant hazard considerations.”
This request involves changes that are administrative in nature. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the [p]roposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This request involves administrative changes to the license that will be consistent with the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.75(h).
No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change and no failure modes not bounded by previously evaluated accidents will be created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to the public.
This request involves administrative changes to the license that will be consistent with the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.75(h).
No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits, will not relax any safety systems settings, or will not relax the bases for any limiting conditions of operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (
The proposed changes reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The proposed changes reduce the consequences of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed changes reduce or eliminate some requirements that were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond to a draining event.
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?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed changes will not alter the design function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed changes, some systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no different than if those systems were unable to perform their function under the current TS
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?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety and to add safety margin.
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 amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Limiting the MODE 1 applicability for RPS functional unit, Startup and Operating Rate of Change of Power—High, to Power Range Neutron Flux Power ≤15% of RATED THERMAL POWER, is an administrative change in nature and does not alter the manner in which the functional unit is operated or maintained. The proposed changes do not represent any physical change to plant [structures, systems, and components (SSC(s))], or to procedures established for plant operation. The subject RPS functional unit is not an event initiator nor is it credited in the mitigation of any event or credited in the [probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)]. As such, the initial conditions associated with accidents previously evaluated and plant systems credited for mitigating the consequences of accidents previously evaluated remain unchanged.
The proposed addition of new LCO 3.0.5 to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS and related modification to LCO 3.0.2 is consistent with the guidance provided in NUREG-1432, Volume 1 [ADAMS Accession No. ML12102A165] (Reference 6.1 [of the amendment request]) and thereby has been previously evaluated by the Commission with a determination that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed license amendments would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Limiting the MODE 1 applicability for the RPS functional unit, Startup and Operating Rate of Change of Power—High, to Power Range Neutron Flux Power ≤ 5% of RATED THERMAL POWER, is an administrative change in nature and does not involve the addition of any plant equipment, methodology or analyses. The proposed changes do not alter the design, configuration, or method of operation of the subject RPS functional unit or of any other SSC. More specifically, the proposed changes neither alter the power rate-of-change trip function nor its ability to bypass and reset as required. The subject RPS functional unit remains capable of performing its design function.
The proposed addition of new LCO 3.0.5 to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS and related modification to LCO 3.0.2 is consistent with the guidance provided in NUREG-1432, Volume 1 (Reference 6.1 [of the amendment request]) and thereby has been previously evaluated by the Commission with a determination that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Limiting the MODE 1 applicability for RPS functional unit, Startup and Operating Rate of Change of Power—High, to Power Range Neutron Flux Power ≤15% of RATED THERMAL POWER is an administrative change in nature. The proposed changes neither involve changes to any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings nor do they adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses.
The proposed addition of new LCO 3.0.5 to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS and related modification to LCO 3.0.2 is consistent with the guidance provided in NUREG-1432, Volume 1 (Reference 6.1 [of the amendment request]) and thereby has been previously evaluated by the Commission with a determination that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the FCS Emergency Plan and EAL scheme do not impact the function of facility structures, systems, or components. The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and emergency response organization to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, because most previously analyzed accidents can no longer occur and the probability of the few remaining credible accidents are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the scope of the FCS Emergency Plan and EAL scheme commensurate with the hazards associated with a permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do not involve installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to the way that the equipment or facility is operated resulting in new or different kinds of accident initiators or accident mitigation.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the HCGS and SGS EALs do not impact the physical function of plant structures, systems or components (SSC) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed changes. 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?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission product barriers (
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the hydrogen venting for the Passive Core Cooling System (PXS) Valve/Accumulator Room A (Room 11206) and clarification of the venting path definition for PXS Valve/Accumulator Room B (Room 11207) do not affect any safety-related equipment or function. The hydrogen ignition subsystem, including designed hydrogen venting features, is designed to mitigate beyond design basis hydrogen generation in the containment. The hydrogen venting changes do not involve any accident, initiating event or component failure; thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The modified venting locations and definitions will maintain the hydrogen ignition subsystem designed and analyzed beyond design basis function to maintain containment integrity. The maximum allowable containment leakage rate specified in the Technical Specifications is unchanged, and radiological material release source terms are not affected; thus, the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the hydrogen venting for the Passive Core Cooling System (PXS) Valve/Accumulator Room A (Room 11206) and clarification of the venting path definition for PXS Valve/Accumulator Room B (Room 11207) will maintain the beyond design basis function of the hydrogen ignition subsystem. The hydrogen venting changes do not impact the hydrogen ignition subsystem's function to maintain containment integrity during beyond design basis accident conditions, and, thus does not introduce any new failure mode. The proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive release. The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident mitigating function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the hydrogen venting for the Passive Core Cooling System (PXS) Valve/Accumulator Room A (Room 11206) and clarification of the venting path definition for PXS Valve/Accumulator Room B (Room 11207) will maintain the beyond design basis function of the hydrogen ignition subsystem. The proposed changes do not have any effect on the ability of safety-related structures, systems, or components to perform their beyond design basis functions. The proposed changes are a result of a low probability, severe accident scenario being evaluated. The revision to this scenario does not result in an increase in the plant risk (frequency and/or consequences). The frequency is low and there is no increase to the consequences because containment integrity is maintained and there is no containment leakage. There is no change to the maximum allowed containment leakage rate (0.10% of containment air weight per day) for the containment vessel. The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the hydrogen igniter subsystem to maintain containment integrity following a beyond design basis accident. The hydrogen igniter subsystem continues to meet the requirements for which it was designed and continues to meet the regulations.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
These proposed changes are for clarification and consistency. No structure, system, or component (SSC) or function is changed within this activity. There is no change to the application of regulatory guides or industry standards to raceways or raceway systems, nor is there a change to how they are designed, fabricated, procured or installed. Raceway systems that route Class 1E circuits will continue to be designated and designed as equipment Class C, safety-related, and seismic Category I structures. The proposal to align the text in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Section 3.3 with the associated ITAAC is made for clarification and consistency to reduce misinterpretation. The proposal to reword multiple ITAAC in 3.3.00.07 does not change the intent of the ITAAC, nor is the ITAAC scope or closure method impacted.
The proposed amendment does not affect the prevention and mitigation of abnormal events;
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a new failure mechanism or malfunction, which affects an SSC accident initiator, or interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events considered in the design and licensing bases. There is no adverse effect on radioisotope barriers or the release of radioactive materials. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect any accident, including the possibility of creating a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
These proposed changes are for clarification and consistency to reduce misinterpretation. No SSC or function is changed within this activity. There is no change to the application of regulatory guides or industry standards to raceways or raceway systems, nor is there a change to how they are designed, fabricated, procured or installed. Raceway systems that route Class 1E circuits will continue to be designated and designed as Equipment Class C, safety-related, and seismic Category I.
The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes.
Therefore the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, a design certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific Tier 1 material departures. The proposed change is to the thickness of one floor in the auxiliary building located between Column Lines I to J-1 and Column Lines 2 to 4 at Elevation 153′-0″. This submittal requests approval of the license amendment, necessary to implement these changes.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29.
The change of the thickness of the floor above the [Component Cooling Water System (CCS)] Valve Room in the auxiliary building meets criteria and requirements of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 and does not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transient or postulated accident conditions. The proposed changes do not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is to revise the thickness of the floor above the CCS Valve Room in the auxiliary building. The proposed changes do not change the design requirements of the nuclear island structures. The proposed changes do not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed changes do not result in a new failure mechanism for the nuclear island structures or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the nuclear island structures is not adversely affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the UFSAR and TS will include the Containment Pressure—Low automatic reset function for the containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation logic, such that the containment vacuum relief manual actuation will be automatically reset when the containment pressure rises above the Containment Pressure—Low setpoint. This reset allows a containment isolation signal to close the valves when necessary. The Containment Pressure—Low signal is an interlock for the containment vacuum relief manual actuation such that the valves cannot be opened unless the Containment Pressure—Low setpoint has been reached in any two-out-of-four divisions. The modified logic will ensure that the automatic initiation of containment isolation is made available following manual initiation of containment vacuum relief actuation. The analyzed design and function of the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System and its actuated components is not affected. The proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment and does not involve any accident, initiating event, or component failure, thus the probabilities of accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed changes do not adversely interface with or adversely affect any system containing radioactivity or affect any radiological material release source term; thus the radiological releases in an accident are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The changes to the UFSAR and TS to include the Containment Pressure—Low manual actuation interlock and automatic reset function for the containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation logic will maintain the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System and Plant Safety and Monitoring System in accordance with the design objectives as licensed. The design of the Class 1E Containment Pressure—Low manual actuation interlock and automatic reset function is required to meet the licensing basis for the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System and Plant Safety and Monitoring System. The changes to the manual initiation logic do not adversely affect the function of any safety-related structure, system, or component, and thus does not introduce a new failure mode. The changes to the containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation logic do not adversely interface with any safety-related equipment or any equipment associated with radioactive material and, thus, do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes to the UFSAR and TS to include the Containment Pressure—Low automatic reset function for the containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation logic will maintain the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System and Plant Safety and Monitoring System in accordance with the design objectives as licensed. The changes to the manual initiation logic do not adversely interface with any safety-related equipment or adversely affect any safety-related function. The changes to the containment vacuum relief manual initiation logic continue to comply with existing design codes and regulatory criteria, and do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, design certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 1 material departures.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed non-technical change to COL Appendix C will consolidate, relocate and subsume redundant ITAAC in order to improve and create a more efficient process for the ITAAC Closure Notification submittals. No structure, system, or component (SSC) design or function is affected. No design or safety analysis is affected. The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiating event or component failure, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. No function used to mitigate a radioactive material release and no radioactive material release source term is involved, thus the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to COL Appendix C does not affect the design or function of any SSC, but will consolidate, relocate and subsume redundant ITAAC in order to improve efficiency of the ITAAC completion and closure process. The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode, fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to COL Appendix C to consolidate, relocate and subsume redundant ITAAC in order to improve efficiency of the ITAAC completion and closure process is considered non-technical and would not affect any design parameter, function or analysis. There would be no change to an existing design basis, design function, regulatory criterion, or analysis. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is involved.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the hydrogen venting for the Passive Core Cooling System (PXS) Valve/Accumulator Room A (Room 11206) and clarification of the venting path definition for PXS Valve/Accumulator Room B (Room 11207) do not affect any safety-related equipment or function. The hydrogen ignition subsystem, including designed hydrogen venting features, is designed to mitigate beyond design basis hydrogen generation in the containment. The hydrogen venting changes do not involve any accident, initiating event or component failure; thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The modified venting locations and definitions will maintain the hydrogen ignition subsystem designed and analyzed beyond design basis function to maintain containment integrity. The maximum allowable containment leakage rate specified in the Technical Specifications is unchanged, and radiological material release source terms are not affected; thus, the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the hydrogen venting for the PXS Valve/Accumulator Room A (Room 11206) and clarification of the venting path definition for PXS Valve/Accumulator Room B (Room 11207) will maintain the beyond design basis function of the hydrogen ignition subsystem. The hydrogen venting changes do not impact the hydrogen ignition subsystem's function to maintain containment integrity during beyond design basis accident conditions, and, thus does not introduce any new failure mode. The proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive release. The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident mitigating function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the hydrogen venting for the Passive Core Cooling System (PXS) Valve/Accumulator Room A (Room 11206) and clarification of the venting path definition for PXS Valve/Accumulator Room B (Room 11207) will maintain the beyond design basis function of the hydrogen ignition subsystem. The proposed changes do not have any effect on the ability of safety-related structures, systems, or components to perform their beyond design basis functions. The proposed changes are a result of a low probability, severe accident scenario being evaluated. The revision to this scenario does not result in an increase in the plant risk (frequency and/or consequences). The frequency is low and there is no increase to the consequences because containment integrity is maintained and there is no containment leakage. There is no change to the maximum allowed containment leakage rate (0.10% of containment air weight per day) for the containment vessel. The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the hydrogen igniter subsystem to maintain containment integrity following a beyond design basis accident. The hydrogen igniter subsystem continues to meet the requirements for which it was designed and continues to meet the regulations.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The primary purpose of the ice bed is to provide a large heat sink to limit peak containment pressure in the event of a release of energy from a design basis LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] or high energy line break (HELB) in containment. The LOCA requires the greatest amount of ice compared to other accident scenarios; therefore, the reduction in ice weight is based on the LOCA analysis. The amount of ice in the bed has no impact on the initiation of an accident, but rather on the mitigation of the accident. The containment integrity analysis shows that the proposed reduced ice weight is sufficient to maintain the peak containment pressure below the containment design pressure, and that the containment heat removal systems function to rapidly reduce the containment pressure and temperature in the event of a LOCA. Therefore, containment integrity is maintained and the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the WBN dual-unit Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The ice condenser serves to limit the peak pressure inside containment following a LOCA. TVA has evaluated the revised containment pressure analysis and determined that sufficient ice would be present to maintain the peak containment pressure below the containment design pressure. Therefore, the reduced ice weight does not create the possibility of an accident that is different than any already evaluated in the WBN dual-unit UFSAR. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this proposed change.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS ice weight SR limit is based on the conservatism of the WBN Unit
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 10, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 8, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 10, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final no significant hazards consideration determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection request (ICR), Court Orders Affecting Retirement Benefits.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 27, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent by email to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent by email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0204) was previously published in the
Court Orders Affecting Retirement Benefits, 5 CFR 838.221, 838.421 and 838.721 describe how former spouses give us written notice of a court order requiring us to pay benefits to the former spouse. Specific information is needed before OPM can make court-ordered benefit payments. The regulations allow us to make a unique collection of only the information needed for a particular customer case and not over-burden our entire customer base by making a generic information collection request (ICR) that requires the former spouse (or their representative) to possibly review and complete information that we may already have access to.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of Information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
The Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries plans to meet on Thursday, June 1, 2017. The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. EDT and will be held at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 1900 E Street NW., Room 1350, Washington, DC 20415.
Gregory Kissel, Senior Actuary for Retirement Programs, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 4316, Washington, DC 20415. Phone (202) 606-0722 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is for the Board to review the actuarial methods and assumptions used in the valuations of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF).
The agenda is as follows:
Persons desiring to attend this meeting of the Civil Service Retirement System Board of Actuaries, or to make a statement for consideration at the meeting, should contact OPM at least 5 business days in advance of the meeting date at the address shown below. The manner and time for any material presented to the Board may be limited.
For the Board of Actuaries.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 11 a.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Acting Chairman Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 6.15. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below, (additions are
The Exchange may nullify a transaction or adjust the execution price of a transaction in accordance with this Rule. However, the determination as to whether a trade was executed at an erroneous price may be made by mutual agreement of the affected parties to a particular transaction. A trade may be nullified or adjusted on the terms that all parties to a particular transaction agree, provided, however, that such agreement to nullify or adjust must be conveyed to the Exchange in a manner prescribed by the Exchange prior to 7:30 a.m. Central Time on the first trading day following execution. It is considered conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for any participant to use the mutual adjustment process to circumvent any applicable Exchange rule, the Act or any of the rules and regulations thereunder.
(a)-(m) No change.
. . .
.01-.06 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend C2 Rule 6.15 to add Interpretation and Policy .07. This filing is based on a proposal recently submitted by Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) and approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
In 2015, the Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.
Specifically, the options exchanges have been working together to identify ways to improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions as it relates to complex orders
The Proposed Rule is the culmination of this coordinated effort and reflects discussions by the options exchanges whereby the exchanges that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders will universally adopt new provisions that the options exchanges collectively believe will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result from the execution of complex orders and stock-option orders.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule supports an approach consistent with long-standing principles in the options industry under which the general policy is to adjust rather than nullify transactions. The Exchange acknowledges that adjustment of transactions is contrary to the operation of analogous rules applicable to the equities markets, where erroneous transactions are typically nullified rather than adjusted and where there is no distinction between the types of market participants involved in a transaction. For the reasons set forth below, the Exchange believes that the distinctions in market structure between equities and options markets continue to support these distinctions between the rules for handling obvious errors in the equities and options markets.
Various general structural differences between the options and equities markets point toward the need for a different balancing of risks for options market participants and are reflected in this proposal. Option pricing is formulaic and is tied to the price of the underlying stock, the volatility of the underlying security and other factors. Because options market participants can generally create new open interest in response to trading demand, as new open interest is created, correlated trades in the underlying or related series are generally also executed to hedge a market participant's risk. This pairing of open interest with hedging interest differentiates the options market specifically (and the derivatives markets broadly) from the cash equities markets. In turn, the Exchange believes that the hedging transactions engaged in by market participants necessitates protection of transactions through adjustments rather than nullifications when possible and otherwise appropriate.
The options markets are also quote driven markets dependent on liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities traded in the U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 500,000 unique, regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in options series the options markets are more dependent on liquidity providers than equities markets; such liquidity is provided most commonly by registered market makers but also by other professional traders. With the number of instruments in which registered market makers must quote and the risk attendant with quoting so many products simultaneously, the Exchange believes that those liquidity providers should be afforded a greater level of protection. In particular, the Exchange believes that liquidity providers should be allowed protection of their trades given the fact that they typically engage in hedging activity to protect them from significant financial risk to encourage continued liquidity provision and maintenance of the quote-driven options markets.
In addition to the factors described above, there are other fundamental differences between options and equities markets which lend themselves to different treatment of different classes of participants that are reflected in this proposal. For example, there is no trade reporting facility in the options markets. Thus, all transactions must occur on an options exchange. This leads to significantly greater retail customer participation directly on exchanges than in the equities markets, where a significant amount of retail customer participation never reaches the Exchange but is instead executed in off-exchange venues such as alternative trading systems, broker-dealer market making desks and internalizers. In turn, because of such direct retail customer participation, the exchanges have taken steps to afford those retail customers—generally Priority Customers—more favorable treatment in some circumstances.
As more fully described below, the Proposed Rule applies much of the Current Rule to complex orders and stock-option orders.
First, proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(a) governs the review of complex orders that are executed against individual legs (as opposed to a complex order that executes against another complex order).
If a complex order executes against individual legs and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, any Customer order subject to this paragraph (a) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.
Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error requires the Exchange to follow the Current Rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the Exchange compares the execution price of each individual leg to the Theoretical Price of each leg (as determined by paragraph (b) of the Current Rule). If the execution price of an individual leg is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the obvious error table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current rule or the catastrophic error table in paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the individual leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, and the Exchange will take steps to adjust or nullify the transaction.
To illustrate, consider a Customer submits a complex order to the Exchange consisting of leg 1 and leg 2—Leg 1 is to buy 100 ABC calls and leg 2 is to sell 100 ABC puts. Also, consider that Market-Maker 1 is quoting the ABC calls $1.00-1.20 and Market-Maker 2 is quoting the ABC puts $2.00-2.20. If the complex order executes against the quotes of Market-Makers 1 and 2, the Customer buys the ABC calls for $1.20 and sells the ABC puts for $2.00. As with the obvious/catastrophic error reviews for simple orders, the execution price of leg 1 is compared to the Theoretical Price
Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the Current Rule mandates that if it is determined that an obvious error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (c)(4)(A). Although for simple orders paragraph (c)(4)(A) is only applicable when no party to the transaction is a Customer, for the purposes of complex orders paragraph (a) of Interpretation and Policy .07 will supersede that limitation; therefore, if it is determined that a leg (or legs) of a complex order is an obvious error, the leg (or legs) will be adjusted pursuant to (c)(4)(A), regardless of whether a party to the transaction is a Customer. The Size Adjustment Modifier defined in subparagraph (a)(4) will similarly apply (regardless of whether a Customer is on the transaction) by virtue of the
Furthermore, as with the Current Rule, Proposed Rule 6.15.07(a) provides protection for Customer orders, stating that where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). For example, assume Customer enters a complex order to buy leg 1 and leg 2.
• Assume the NBBO for leg 1 is $0.20-1.00 and the NBBO for leg 2 is $0.50-1.00 and that these have been the NBBOs since the market opened.
• A split-second prior to the execution of the complex order a Customer enters a simple order to sell the leg 1 options series at $1.30, and the simple order enters the Exchange's book so that the BBO is $.20-$1.30. The limit price on the simple order is $1.30.
• The complex order executes leg 1 against the Exchange's best offer of $1.30 and leg 2 at $1.00 for a net execution price of $2.30.
• However, leg 1 executed on a wide quote (the NBBO for leg 1 was $0.20-1.00 at the time of execution, which is wider than $0.75).
• The Exchange determines that the Theoretical Price for leg 1 is $1.00, which was the best offer prior to the execution. Leg 1 qualifies as an obvious error because the difference between the Theoretical Price ($1.00) and the execution price ($1.30) is larger than $0.25.
• According to Proposed Rule 6.15.07(a) Customers will also be adjusted in accordance with Rule 6.15(c)(4)(A), which for a buy transaction under $3.00 calls for the Theoretical Price to by adjusted by adding $0.15
• However, adjusting the execution price of leg 1 to $1.15 violates the limit price of the Customer's sell order on the simple order book for leg 1, which was $1.30.
• Thus, the entire complex order transaction will be nullified
As the above example demonstrates, incoming complex orders may execute against resting simple orders in the leg market. If a complex order leg is deemed to be an obvious error, adjusting the execution price of the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order, which will result in nullification if the resting order is for a Customer. In contrast, Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule 6.15 provides that if an adjustment would result in an execution price that is higher than an erroneous buy transaction or lower than an erroneous sell transaction the execution will not be adjusted or nullified.
As previously noted, paragraph (d)(3) of the Current Rule already mandates that if it is determined that a catastrophic error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (d)(3). For purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule .07(a), if one of the legs of a complex orders is determined to be a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(3), all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). Again, if any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. Additionally, as is the case today, if an Official determines that a Catastrophic Error has not occurred, the Trading Permit Holder will be subject to a charge of $5,000.
Other than honoring the limit prices established for Customer orders, the Exchange has proposed to treat Customers and non-Customers the same in the context of the complex orders that trade against the leg market. When complex orders trade against the leg market, it is possible that at least some of the legs will execute at prices that would not be deemed obvious or catastrophic errors, which gives the counterparty in such situations no indication that the execution will later by adjusted or nullified. The Exchange believes that treating Customers and non-Customers the same in this context will provide additional certainty to non-Customers (especially Market-Makers) with respect to their potential exposure and hedging activities, including comfort that even if a transaction is later adjusted, such transaction will not be fully nullified. However, as noted above, under the Proposed Rule where at least one party to the transaction is a Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). The Exchange has retained the protection of a Customer's limit price in order to avoid a situation where the adjustment could be to a price that a Customer would not have expected, and market professionals such as non-Customers would be better prepared to recover in such situations. Therefore, adjustment for non-Customers is more appropriate.
Second, proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(b) governs the review of complex orders that are executed against other complex orders. Proposed Rule 6.15.07(b) provides:
If a complex order executes against another complex order and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively, so long as either: (i) The width of the National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. For purposes of Rule 6.15, the National Spread Market for a complex order strategy is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer of the individual legs of the strategy.
Unlike Proposed Rule 6.15.07(a), the Exchange is also proposing to compare the net execution price of the entire complex order package to the National Spread Market (“NSM”) for the complex order strategy.
• If the BBO for the ABC calls is $5.50-7.50 and the BBO for ABC puts is $3.00-4.50, then the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-4.50.
• If the NBBO for the ABC calls is $6.00-6.50 and the NBBO for the ABC puts is $3.50-4.00, then the NSM is $2.00-3.00.
• If the Customer buys the calls at $7.50 and sells the puts at $4.00, the complex order Customer receives a net execution price of $3.00 (debit), which is the expected net execution price as indicated by the NSM offer of $3.00.
If the exchange were to solely focus on the $7.50 execution price of the ABC calls or the $4.00 execution price of the ABC puts, the execution would qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error because the execution price on the legs was outside the NBBO, even though the net execution price is accurate. Thus, the additional review of the NSM to determine if the complex order was executed at a truly erroneous price is necessary. The same concern is not present when a complex order executes against the leg market under Rule 6.15.07(a) because the Exchange is modifying its system in order to ensure the leg will execute at or within the NBBO of the leg markets.
In order to incorporate NSM, Rule 6.15.07(b) provides that if the Exchange determines that a leg or legs does qualify as on obvious or catastrophic error, the leg or legs will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, so long as either: (i) The width of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule.
For example, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error and the width of the NSM of the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-9.00. The complex order will qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule indicates that the minimum amount is $1.50 for a bid price between $5.00 to $10.00. If the NSM were instead $6.00-7.00 the complex order strategy would not qualify to be adjusted or busted pursuant to .07(b)(i) because the width of the NSM is $1.00, which is less than the required $1.50. However, the execution may still qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule pursuant to .07(b)(ii). Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.
Again, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error as described above. If the NSM is $6.00-7.00 (not a wide quote pursuant to the wide quote table in paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule) but the execution price of the entire complex order package (
Although the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions, the Exchange recognizes that complex orders executing against other complex orders is similar to simple orders executing against other simple orders because both parties are able to review the execution price to determine whether the transaction may have been executed at an erroneous price. Thus, for purposes of complex orders that meet the requirements of Rule 6.15.07(b), the Exchange proposes to apply the Current Rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying paragraph (c)(4)(A) as is the case under .07(a)) and catastrophic errors in accordance with (d)(3).
Therefore, for purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule 6.15.07(b), if one of the legs is determined to be an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1), all Customer transactions will be nullified, unless a Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”)
Third, proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(c) governs stock-option orders. Proposed Rule 6.15.07(c) provides:
If the option leg of a stock-option order qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the option leg that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, the option leg of any Customer order subject to this paragraph (c) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the stock-option order, and the Exchange will attempt to nullify the stock leg. Whenever a stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order or whenever the stock leg cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or in accordance with paragraph (c)(3).
Similar to proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(a), an options leg (or legs) of a stock-option order must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule in order for the stock-option order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error. Also similar to Proposed Rule 6.15.07(a), if an options leg (or legs) does qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error, the option leg (or legs) will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. Again, as with Proposed Rule 6.15.07(a), where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will nullify the option leg and attempt to nullify the stock leg if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s).
The stock leg of a stock-option order is not executed on the Exchange; rather, the stock leg is sent to a stock trading venue for execution. The Exchange is unaware of a mechanism by which the Exchange can guarantee that the stock leg will be nullified by the stock trading venue in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error on the Exchange. Thus, in the event of the nullification of the option leg pursuant to Proposed Rule 6.15.07(c), the Exchange will attempt to have the stock leg nullified by the stock trading venue by either contacting the stock trading venue or notifying the parties to the transaction that the option leg is being nullified. The party or parties to the transaction may ultimately need to contact the stock trading venue to have the stock portion nullified.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide guidance that whenever the stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order, the option will be nullified upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or by an Official acting on their own motion in accordance with paragraph (c)(3). There are situations in which buyer and seller agree to trade a stock-option order, but the stock leg cannot be executed. The Exchange proposes to provide guidance that whenever the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or on an Official's own motion.
In order to ensure that other options exchanges are able to adopt rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate the effectiveness of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to April 17, 2017.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange believes the various provisions allowing or dictating adjustment rather than nullification of a trade are necessary given the benefits of adjusting a trade price rather than nullifying the trade completely. Because options trades are used to hedge, or are hedged by, transactions in other markets, including securities and futures, many TPHs, and their customers, would rather adjust prices of executions rather than nullify the transactions and, thus, lose a hedge altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest of investors to allow for price adjustments as well as nullifications.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly discriminatory, even though it differentiates in many places between Customers and non-Customers. As with the Current Rule, Customers are treated differently, often affording them preferential treatment. This treatment is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading accounts. At the same time, the Exchange reiterates that in the U.S. options markets generally there is significant retail customer participation that occurs directly on (and only on) options exchanges such as the Exchange. Accordingly, differentiating
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the ability to adjust a Customer's execution price when a complex order is deemed to be an Obvious or Catastrophic Error is consistent with the Act. A complex order that executes against individual leg markets may receive an execution price on an individual leg that is not an Obvious or Catastrophic error but another leg of the transaction is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error. In such situations where the complex order is executing against at least one individual or firm that is not aware of the fact that they have executed against a complex order or that the complex order has been executed at an erroneous price, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to adjust execution prices if possible because the derivative transactions are often hedged with other securities. Allowing adjustments instead of nullifying transactions in these limited situations will help to ensure that market participants are not left with a hedge that has no position to hedge against.
The Exchange also believes its proposal related to stock-option orders is consistent with the Act. Stock-option orders consist of an option component and a stock component. Due to the fact that the Exchange has no control over the venues on which the stock is executed the proposal focuses on the option component of the stock-option order by adjusting or nullifying the option in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3). Also, nullifying the option component if the stock component cannot be executed ensures that market participants receive the execution for which they bargained. Stock-option orders are negotiated and agreed to as a package; thus, if for any reason the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot ultimately be executed, the parties should not be saddled with an options position sans stock.
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Importantly, the Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on intermarket competition but will rather alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges that trade complex orders and/or stock-option orders intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the provisions apply to all market participants equally within each participant category (
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(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.
On January 26, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts.
The investment objective of the ProShares UltraPro 3x Crude Oil ETF is to seek, on a daily basis,
In seeking to achieve the Funds' investment objectives, ProShare Capital will utilize a mathematical approach to determine the type, quantity and mix of investment positions that ProShare Capital believes, in combination, should produce daily returns consistent with the Funds' respective objectives. ProShare Capital will rely on a pre-determined model to generate orders that result in repositioning the Funds' investments in accordance with their respective investment objectives.
Each Fund will seek to achieve its respective investment objective by investing, under normal market conditions,
In the event position, price or accountability limits are reached with respect to Futures Contracts,
Although each Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest substantially all of its assets in Futures Contracts, each Fund will also hold cash or cash equivalents, such as U.S. Treasury securities or other high credit quality, short-term fixed-income or similar securities (such as shares of money market funds and collateralized repurchase agreements) pending investment in Futures Contracts or Financial Instruments or as collateral for the Funds' investments.
The Exchange represents that, to the extent a Fund enters into swap agreements and other OTC transactions, it will do so only with large, established and well capitalized financial institutions that meet the Sponsor's credit quality standards and monitoring policies. The Exchange states that each Fund will use various techniques to minimize credit risk including early termination or reset and payment, using different counterparties and limiting the net amount due from any individual counterparty.
The Funds do not intend to hold Futures
The Exchange states that the Funds do not expect to have exposure to Futures Contracts and Financial Instruments greater than three times (3x) the Funds' net assets. Thus, the maximum margin held at a future commission merchant would not exceed three times the margin requirement for either Fund.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
The Funds' Web site,
The Benchmark will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”). The Indicative Fund Value (“IFV”)
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. If the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to the Shares is not
The Commission notes that the Exchange or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain Futures Contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange represented that:
(1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) The risks involved in trading the Shares during the Early and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IFV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (b) the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (c) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (d) how information regarding the IFV is disseminated; (e) how information regarding portfolio holdings is disseminated; (f) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (g) trading information.
(5) For initial and continued listing, each Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act,
(6) Each Fund will seek to achieve its respective investment objective by investing, under normal market conditions, substantially all of its assets in Futures Contracts.” In the event position, price or accountability limits are reached with respect to Futures Contracts, each Fund may obtain exposure to the Benchmark through investments in Financial Instruments. To the extent that a Fund invests in Financial Instruments, it would first make use of exchange-traded Financial Instruments, if available. If an investment in exchange-traded Financial Instruments is unavailable, then a Fund would invest in Financial Instruments that clear through derivatives clearing organizations that satisfy the Trust's criteria, if available. If an investment in cleared Financial Instruments is unavailable, then a Fund would invest in other Financial Instruments, including uncleared Financial Instruments in the OTC market.
(7) Not more than 10% of the net assets of a Fund in the aggregate invested in Futures Contracts shall consist of Futures Contracts whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA.
(8) To the extent a Fund enters into swap agreements and other OTC transactions, it will do so only with large, established and well capitalized financial institutions that meet the Sponsor's credit quality standards and monitoring policies. Each Fund will use various techniques to minimize credit risk including early termination or reset and payment, using different counterparties and limiting the net amount due from any individual counterparty.
(9) A minimum of 100,000 Shares of each Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange represents that all statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolios of the Funds or Benchmark, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or the Benchmark, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Funds to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations and description of the Funds, including those set forth above and in Amendment Nos. 1, 3, and 4. The Commission notes that the Shares must comply with the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 and Commentary .02 thereto to be listed and traded on the Exchange on an initial and continuing basis.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 3, and 4 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed Amendments.
In October 2014, the Participants amended the Plans' fee schedules to establish fees for non-display uses of data and to reduce the device fees assessed on professional subscribers.
• Category 1 applies when a data recipient makes non-display uses of real-time market data on its own behalf.
• Category 2 applies when a data recipient makes non-display uses of real-time market data on behalf of its clients.
• Category 3 applies when a data recipient makes non-display uses of real-time market data for the purpose of internally matching buy and sell orders within an organization.
Data recipients can be charged for each of the three categories of non-display uses. Category 3 is the only non-display fee that can be charged multiple times; a data recipient would be charged for each ATS, exchange, or ECN operated by the data recipient. In the October 2014 Non-Display Filing, the Participants also provided the following non-exhaustive list of examples of non-display use:
• Any trading in any asset class;
• Automated order or quote generation and/or order pegging;
• Price referencing for algorithmic trading;
• Price referencing for smart order routing;
• Operations control programs;
• Investment analysis;
• Order verification;
• Surveillance programs;
• Risk management;
• Compliance; and
• Portfolio valuation.
The Participants propose to clarify that any use of data that does not make the data visibly available to the data recipient on a device should be considered non-display use. When a data recipient is using data solely for display purposes, the data recipient will only be charged the device fee.
The Participants further propose to clarify that a data recipient is subject to the access fee when the data it is receiving is used for non-display, or can be manipulated and disseminated to other devices even if the data is also displayed on a device. As described below, the Participants are amending the Plans' fee schedules to clarify the applicability of the access fee.
The Participants are proposing to amend the definition of “Non-Display Use” in footnote eight of the Plans' fee schedules to explicitly state that any use of data that does not make data visibly available to a data recipient on a device is a Non-Display Use. The Participants are proposing to make a parallel amendment to footnote two of the Plans' fee schedules to state that the device fee will only be applicable where the data is visibly available to the data recipient; any other data use on a device will be considered Non-Display Use.
In the October 2014 Non-Display Filing, the Participants recognized the relative values of non-display versus display data usage. With the proliferation of automated and algorithmic trading, non-display devices consume large amounts of data and are critical to a firm's businesses. The black boxes and application programming interfaces utilized by these firms process data far more quickly, and as a result, the relative value between non-display and display data usage is pronounced. The disparity in value between non-display and display data usage led the Participants to decrease the professional subscriber device charges in the October 2014 Non-Display Filing while establishing the non-display fees. However, if data is used for non-display purposes, but is subject to the device fee and not the non-display fee, such interpretation would disrupt the balance struck by the Participants in setting the fees.
The Participants believe that amending the language of the fee schedule will create a clear understanding of when the non-display fee is applicable and therefore effectuate the change originally contemplated by the October 2014 Non-Display Filing. To notify data recipients of the amended definition, the Participants will be updating the CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy describes the applicability of the non-display fee to specific uses of real-time Network A and Network B last sale information and quotation information. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy currently reflects the applicability of the non-display fee as established by the October 2014 Non-Display Filing. The Participants are amending this policy to include the updated definition of Non-Display Use as reflected in the Plans' amended fee schedules. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy is also being updated to specify that Redistributors that provide market data to their customers and/or data recipients who use the data for Non-Display Use must submit a data feed request to the administrator, and must require that the customers and data recipients of such market data complete the necessary documentation for the data feed request.
The Participants are also amending footnote two and footnote eight of the Plans' fee schedules to make clear that the Participants reserve the right to make the sole determination as to whether a data recipient's use is subject to the non-display fee or the device fee and, if subject to the non-display fee, the category of such Non-Display Use.
The Participants are amending footnote ten of the Plans' fee schedules to clarify when the access fee is applicable. Access fees are charged to those who obtain Network A and Network B data feeds. The Participants are not proposing to modify the current access fees. Instead, the Participants are proposing to clarify in the Plans' fee schedules that the access fee is applicable if: (1) The data recipient uses the data for non-display; or (2) the data recipient receives the data in such a manner that the data can be manipulated and disseminated to one or more devices, display or otherwise, regardless of encryption or instructions from the redistribution vendor regarding who has authorized access to the data.
As discussed above, the device fee is applicable when data is displayed only. However, if the data is also used for non-display or can be manipulated and disseminated, the data recipient is subject to the access fee. For example, a data recipient may be receiving data to display on a device. In addition to being displayed on the device, if the data recipient is also able to manipulate the data via a calculation to create additional data and distribute the end result data to other users in a display format or for non-display use, that data recipient should also be subject to the access fee. In such case, even if the data recipient is reporting use for display purposes and is subject to the device fee, if the data is being manipulated and disseminated, that data recipient should also be subject to an access fee and any applicable additional device fees or non-display use fee, as may be applicable for that data recipient's use of the data. As with the proposed amendments to the fee schedule described above, this proposed clarification to the access fee is designed to address that the manner by which a data recipient uses the data drives which fees apply.
Not applicable.
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS, the Participants have designated the proposed clarification as establishing or changing fees and are submitting the amendment for immediate effectiveness.
See Item C above.
The Amendments proposed herein do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Additionally, the Participants do not believe that the proposed amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Act. The Participants have submitted this amendment to simply clarify the applicability of the non-display fees established in the October 2014 Non-Display Filing. The Amendments proposed herein will allow data recipients to understand whether a given use will be subject to the non-display fee, the device fee, or the access fee, or a combination of these fees.
As explained in the October 2014 Non-Display Filing, the non-display fees were established to comport with the proliferation of the use of data for dark pools and other non-display trading applications. In conjunction with the establishment of non-display fees, the Participants reduced the rates for professional subscriber devices in hopes of fostering the widespread availability of real-time market data. At the same time, the non-display fees allowed those who make non-display uses of data to make appropriate contributions to the costs of collecting, processing, and redistributing the data. The clarification proposed herein maintains the balance struck by the Participants in reducing the device fee while establishing the non-display fees.
Additionally, the Participants believe that the Amendments will have a positive effect on competition because the Amendments will ensure that different vendors are classifying their customer's usage in the same manner. A vendor would gain a competitive advantage if they were willing to incorrectly classify a customer's use as subject to the lower device fee rather than the non-display fee. By eliminating the ambiguity in the Plans' fee schedules, the Participants believe that all vendors will be subjected to and subject their customers to the similar fees for similar uses of data.
As previously stated, the Participants have amended the CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy to implement the proposed Amendments. A copy of the changes to the Non-Display Use Policy is attached to the Amendment.
Section XII (b)(iii) of the CTA Plan provides that “[a]ny addition of any charge to . . . the charges set forth in
The Participants have executed this Amendment and represent not less than two-thirds of all of the parties to the Plan. That satisfies the Plans' Participant-approval requirements
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Participants believe that the proposed fee is fair and reasonable and provides for an equitable allocation of dues, fees, and other charges among vendors, data recipients and other persons. As previously stated, the Amendments proposed herein simply clarify the amendments to fees set forth in the October 2014 Non-Display Filing and ensure that the relative value of non-display versus display data usage is reflected in the fees charged for such uses.
The Participants have consulted with members of the industry regarding the proposed fee amendments contained herein.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks general comments on the Amendments. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendments are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2017-02 and should be submitted on or before April 18, 2017.
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
AB Bond Fund, Inc., AB Cap Fund, Inc., AB Core Opportunities Fund, Inc., AB Corporate Shares, AB Discovery Growth Fund, Inc., AB Equity Income Fund, Inc., AB Government Exchange Reserves, AB Fixed-Income Shares, Inc., AB Global Bond Fund, Inc., AB Global Real Estate Investment Fund, Inc., AB Global Risk Allocation Fund, Inc., AB Sustainable Global Thematic, Inc., AB Relative Value Fund, Inc., AB High Income Fund, Inc., AB Institutional Funds, Inc., AB International Growth Fund, Inc., AB Large Cap Growth Fund, Inc., AB Municipal Income Fund, Inc., AB Municipal Income Fund II, AB Trust, AB Unconstrained Bond Fund, Inc., AB Variable Products Series Fund, Inc., Sanford C. Bernstein Fund, Inc., Sanford C. Bernstein Fund II, Inc., Bernstein Fund, Inc., The AB Pooling Portfolios, The AB Portfolios, Alliance California Municipal Income Fund, Inc., Alliance Bernstein Global High Income Fund, Inc., AllianceBernstein National Municipal Income Fund, Inc. and AB Multi-Manager Alternative Fund, each an investment company organized as a Maryland corporation or a Massachusetts business trust and registered under the Act as an open-end or closed-end management investment company,
The application was filed on July 22, 2016 and amended on January 11, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 17, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC, 20549-1090; Applicants: Emile D. Wrapp, AllianceBernstein L.P., 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10105 and Paul M. Miller, Seward & Kissel LLP, 901 K Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001.
Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6868 or Nadya Roytblat, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6823 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Among others, the Adviser, through a designated committee, would administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management and administrative agreements with the Funds and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the facility. The facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the open-end Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of the open-end Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On January 25, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would
OBP Capital, LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Spinnaker ETF Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Capital Investment Group, Inc. (the “Initial Distributor”), a North Carolina corporation and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
The application was filed on December 5, 2014, and amended on April 6, 2015, April 10, 2015, January 13, 2017, and February 14, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 17, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: the Initial Adviser and the Trust, 116 South Franklin Street, Rocky Mount, NC 27804; and the Initial Distributor, 100 E. Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27609.
Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6812, or Robert H. Shapiro at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities and other assets and investment positions (“Portfolio Holdings”). Each Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Holdings that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the day.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Holdings and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds,
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those Portfolio Holdings currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).
10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of California dated 03/20/2017.
Effective Date: 03/20/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15092 6 and for economic injury is 15093 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California, Nevada.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky dated 03/20/2017.
Effective Date: 03/20/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15090 B and for economic injury is 15091 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Kentucky.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4299-DR), dated 02/10/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oklahoma, dated 02/10/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California (FEMA-4305-DR), dated 03/16/2017.
Effective Date: 03/16/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 03/16/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15088B and for economic injury is 15089B.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 30, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than April 27, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID 2017-0004 by any of the following methods:
Karen Scurry, 609-637-4207, Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 202, West Trenton, NJ, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The existing provisions of Title 23 U.S.C. 130, Railway-Highway Crossings Program, as well as implementing regulations in 23 CFR part 924, remain in effect. Included in these combined provisions are requirements for State DOTs to annually produce and submit to FHWA by August 31 reports related to the implementation and effectiveness of their HSIPs, that are to include information on: (a) Progress being made to implement HSIP projects and the effectiveness of these projects in reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries [Sections 148(h)]; and (b) progress being made to implement the Railway-Highway Crossings Program and the effectiveness of the projects in that program [sections 130(g) and 148(h)], which will be used by FHWA to produce and submit biennial reports to Congress. To be able to produce these reports, State DOTs must have safety data and analysis systems capable of identifying and determining the relative severity of hazardous highway locations on all public roads, based on both crash experience and crash potential, as well as determining the effectiveness of highway safety improvement projects. FHWA provides an online reporting tool to support the annual HSIP reporting process. Additional information is available on the Office of Safety Web site at
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA.
The actions relate to a proposed highway project that would widen approximately four miles of Interstate 64 from approximately Exit 200 to approximately Exit 205. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For FHWA: Mr. John Simkins, Planning and Environment Team Leader, Federal Highway Administration, 400 North 8th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; telephone: (804) 775-3352; email:
Notice is hereby given that FHWA 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:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID 2017-0005 by any of the following methods:
Mr. David Bartz, (512) 536-5906, Office of Program Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 300 East 8th Street, Suite 826, Austin, Texas 78701. Office hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA is seeking to conduct the information collection activities listed below. Before submitting this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activity identified below.
Comments must be received no later than May 30, 2017.
Submit written comments on the following information collection activity by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB control number 2130—NEW”, and should also include the title of the information collection. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). These telephone numbers are not toll-free.
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following summary of an information collection activity regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activity is necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimate of the burden of the information collection activity, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimate; (3) how FRA can enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) how FRA can minimize the burden of the information collection activity on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology (
FRA believes soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) ensure it organizes information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
Below is a brief summary of the proposed ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as required under the PRA:
In 2011, FRA published the Railroad Industry Modal Profile: An Outline of the Railroad Industry Workforce Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities (Railroad Industry Modal Profile), which provided a comprehensive overview of the railroad industry workforce as of December 31, 2008. This document is available to the public through FRA's Web site at
The prevailing workforce concerns during the early stages of the DOT National Transportation Workforce Development Initiative were the large number of retirement-eligible employees in transportation-related fields and the national shortage of science, technology, engineering, and math graduates. Since the railroad industry did very little hiring in the late 1980s and through most of the 1990s, the retirement-eligible population became quitelarge—even more than most other industries and transportation modes (which were grappling with similar retirement population concerns).
These industry hiring practices create risk in maintaining a viable workforce, and, to take effective and efficient action to minimize these risks, FRA requires railroads to submit trustworthy information on current Work Force Development strategies and challenges. Initial data FRA collected for the Railroad Industry Modal Profile established a baseline understanding of the risks and status. FRA proposes this survey to validate and further develop its understanding of the risks. With this submission, FRA is requesting permission to acquire the necessary information on the railroad industry workforce.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request(s) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on the collection(s) listed below.
Comments should be received on or before April 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request(s) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on the collection(s) listed below.
Comments should be received on or before April 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request(s) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on the collection(s) listed below.
Comments should be received on or before April 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on April 13, 2017 on “China's Hotspots along China's Maritime Periphery”.
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, April 13, 2017 from 9:30 a.m. to 3:50 p.m.
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 419, Washington, DC. A detailed agenda for the hearing will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Leslie Tisdale, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005), as amended by Public Law 113-291 (December 19, 2014).
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by the Veterans' Compensation COLA Act of 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is hereby giving notice of adjustments in certain benefit rates. These adjustments affect the compensation program.
These adjustments became effective on December 1, 2016, the date provided by the Act.
Jonathan Hughes, Chief, Policy Staff (211B), Compensation Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
Section 2 of the Veterans' Compensation COLA Act of 2016, Public Law 114-197, provides for an increase in each of the rates in sections 1114, 1115(1), and 1162 of title 38, United States Code. VA is required to increase these benefit rates by the same percentage as increases in the benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act. The increased rates are required to be published in the
The Social Security Administration has announced that there will be a 0.3 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits for 2017. Therefore, applying the same percentage, the following rates for VA's compensation program became effective on December 1, 2016:
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 16, 2017, for publication.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts the framework to allocate funds to assist in the deployment of 4G LTE to areas that are so costly that the private sector has not yet deployed there and to preserve such service where it might not otherwise exist. This framework redirects funding from legacy subsidies and distributes them through the Mobility Fund Phase II and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase II, using market-based, multi-round reverse auctions, and contains defined, concrete compliance requirements to help ensure rural consumers will be adequately served by mobile carriers receiving universal support.
Effective April 27, 2017 except for additions of §§ 54.1013, 54.1014, 54.1015(a) through (e), 54.1016(a) and (b), 54.1017, 54.1019, 54.1020, and 54.1021, which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Auction and Spectrum Access Division, Mark Montano, at (202) 418-0660. For further information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918, or via the Internet at
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
This is a summary of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted in this document. The FRFA is set forth in an appendix to the
The
The Commission will send a copy of this
1. In the
2. The Commission expects to release a list of presumptively eligible areas shortly, to finalize the challenge process in the coming months, and to conclude the challenge process by January 31, 2018. The Commission expects to commence the auction shortly thereafter. The phase-down of legacy support is scheduled to commence in the first month following the close of the MF-II auction.
3. In the
4. Applying those goals, the Commission targeted funding to expand mobile coverage, while ensuring that the funding is “cost-effective and targeted to areas that require public funding to receive the benefits of mobility.” As a result, the Commission eliminated the “identical support rule,” which previously had set the level of support for competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CETCs), including those providing mobile services, at the level received by the incumbent local exchange carrier, and had limited CETC support to those areas where wireline providers received support because of their high costs. The Commission concluded that “[t]he support levels generated by the identical support rule bear no relation to the efficient cost of providing mobile voice service in a particular geography,” and established the Mobility Fund to assure that universal service support for mobile service would be targeted in a more cost
5. To minimize “shocks to service providers that may result in service disruptions for consumers,” the
6. Following the comments filed in response to the
7. In April 2014, the Commission in the
8. In September 2016, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released its analysis of mobile broadband providers' December 2015 Form 477 submissions in order to identify and quantify the areas in the country that may require support on an ongoing basis in order to have 4G LTE coverage. In addition to identifying the specific areas of the country without 4G LTE coverage, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff examined the current distribution of high-cost support to assess the efficacy of that support. That analysis reveals that 4G LTE is absent from or only provided with support in one-fifth of the area of the United States excluding Alaska and that a conservative estimate is that three-quarters of support currently distributed to mobile providers is being directed to areas where it is not needed. In other words, carriers are receiving approximately $300 million or more each year in subsidies to provide service even though such subsidies are unnecessary and may deter investment by unsubsidized competitors from increasing competition in those areas.
9. The Commission reaffirms the following goals for Phase II of the Mobility Fund.
10. First, the Commission reaffirms that universal service funding for the preservation and advancement of high-speed advanced services such as 4G LTE is an appropriate and necessary use of universal service funds. Because they are unmoored from a fixed point, mobile devices empower Americans to make calls and access the web and web-based applications while on the go.
11. Second, the Commission reaffirms that it should target universal service funding to support the deployment of the highest level of mobile service available today—4G LTE. In the
12. Third, the Commission reaffirms that it should target universal service funding to coverage gaps, not areas already built out by private capital. Despite a surge in private investment in mobile deployment, recent analysis shows that at least 575,000 square miles (approximately 750,000 road miles and 3 million people) either lack 4G LTE service or are being served only by subsidized 4G LTE providers. Virtually all commenters agree that proceeding with MF-II is critically important to supporting mobile voice and broadband coverage. Thus, by proceeding to MF-II, the Commission seeks to assure that 4G LTE service is preserved and advanced to those areas of the country where there is no unsubsidized service, all consonant with the Commission's goal of “ubiquitous availability of mobile services.”
13. Fourth, the Commission reaffirms that it is committed to minimizing the overall burden of universal service contributions on consumers and businesses by expending the finite funds it has available in the most efficient and cost effective manner. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's latest analysis indicates that a substantial majority of current ongoing legacy CETC support is allocated to census blocks that already have complete 4G LTE coverage from one or more unsubsidized competitors.
14. The Commission adopts a reverse auction to distribute high-cost support for mobile services to areas that lack unsubsidized 4G LTE service, while completing the phase-down of legacy support going to mobile CETCs, thereby eliminating duplicative and unnecessary CETC support, and better managing its finite financial resources. Utilizing an annual budget of $453 million for a term of ten years, the Commission will provide ongoing support for provision of service in areas that would lack mobile voice and broadband coverage absent government subsidies. Likewise, consistent with the Commission's decision in the
15. The Commission adopts a nationwide, multi-round reverse auction with competition within and across geographic areas to award MF-II support. Utilizing an auction mechanism will allow the Commission to distribute support consistent with its policy goals and priorities in a transparent, speedy, and efficient manner. An auction provides a straightforward means of identifying those providers that are willing to provide 4G LTE service at the lowest cost to the budget, targeting support to prioritized areas, and determining support levels that awardees are willing to accept in exchange for the obligations the Commission imposes. Moreover, a reverse auction is consistent with the Commission's decision to provide support to at most one provider per area. While auction alternatives suggested by commenters may address some of these objectives—for example, a cost model could theoretically determine appropriate support amounts for an area—the Commission is not persuaded that there is an alternative approach that would achieve all its core policy objectives that could be implemented in a timely manner. Furthermore, the Commission's experience in administering Auction 901 for MF-I funding was a new endeavor in 2012, and it can apply the lessons learned to the MF-II auction.
16. The Commission finds that those parties advocating for use of a model do not acknowledge or resolve the myriad policy goals that are addressed by the Commission's reverse auction proposal, and therefore do not offer a realistic alternative—consistent with its decisions—to the proposed auction mechanism. This determination is substantiated by the fact that the Commission has not received a fully developed cost model for ongoing support since it first sought comment on the issue in 2011. The Commission received a developed model regarding Alaska, but it recently adopted a different approach for mobile carriers there. The Alaska Mobile Plan is a consensus plan among the mobile providers in remote areas of Alaska that provides predictable, stable high-cost support to those providers, frozen at 2014 levels for a term of ten years. Because the Commission adopted the Alaska Plan for mobile carriers as an Alaska-specific comprehensive substitute mechanism for mobile high-cost support, the Commission decided that no support provided under MF-II or Tribal MF-II will be provided for mobile service within Alaska. In the absence of a workable, nationwide model to award ongoing support that addresses all of the Commission's core policy objectives, the Commission adopts its proposal to use a reverse auction mechanism to distribute MF-II support.
17. The Commission declines to adopt a federal-state broadband mobile grant program in lieu of an auction as proposed earlier this year by one commenter. This proposal would impose significant responsibilities on the states that choose to participate, including an obligation to contribute funds (that the Commission would match), review service providers' applications and subsequently award grants, and verify providers' compliance with the Commission's performance requirements. It would require significant Commission coordination and oversight to implement such a proposal, which is inconsistent with the Commission's desire to act quickly so that providers can expand to those areas lacking 4G LTE coverage and the Commission can take fiscally responsible measures to redistribute current support from those areas with unsubsidized 4G LTE. Based on the record before the Commission, as well as its experience in MF-I, the Commission is not convinced that this approach would be a more efficient or effective means of awarding MF-II support than using a reverse auction.
18. The Commission adopts a budget of $4.53 billion for MF-II over ten years—the amount of legacy support mobile carriers outside Alaska would receive over the next decade less the funding needed to phase-down support in census blocks fully built with private capital. Current legacy high-cost support received by wireless providers is approximately $483 million per year, excluding Alaska, and around $300 million of that amount is being provided to census blocks fully covered with unsubsidized 4G LTE. In the
19. The cost of universal service programs is ultimately borne by the consumers and businesses that pay to fund these programs, and the Commission has a corresponding obligation to exercise fiscal responsibility by avoiding excessive subsidization and overburdening communications consumers. The courts have recognized that over-subsidizing universal service programs can actually undermine the statutory principles set forth in section 254(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), 47 U.S.C. 254. The Commission adopts an MF-II budget to balance the various competing objectives in section 254 of the Communications Act, including the objective of providing support that is sufficient, but not so excessive so as to impose an undue burden on consumers and businesses. The Commission further notes that MF-II is only one component of its broader reform efforts, and the MF-II annual budget also reflects a careful analysis of the respective needs and objectives of all aspects of the universal service program.
20. The Commission finds that this level of support over the next ten years will allow MF-II to achieve its objectives in a fiscally responsible manner. The Commission recognizes that the currently unserved areas are likely the most expensive areas in the country to serve; however, its budget—when distributed cost-effectively—should make meaningful progress in eliminating the lingering coverage gaps. The Commission also remains free, after the auction has concluded, to assess its results and determine whether additional funding is needed to advance the deployment of advanced mobile services throughout rural America.
21. The Commission declines to adopt the proposal in the
22. The Commission declines to adopt two separate budgets—one to fund operating expenses for preservation of service and one to fund capital expenses for expansion of service—as proposed by one commenter. This proposal would require two separate auctions to award support from two funds, which would be administratively less efficient and risk duplicative funding to eligible areas. Moreover, two funds would require the Commission to decide in advance the levels of support for each, and would require the Commission to monitor and enforce restrictions on the purposes for which these two types of support can be used. By contrast, a single fund allows reverse auction bidders to make their own efficiency tradeoffs between operating and capital expenses.
23. In establishing the MF-II annual budget, the Commission affirms its commitment to fiscal responsibility, and takes steps herein to ensure that the support awarded is not excessive. The Commission makes clear that there is discretion to set reserve prices as part of the procedures for the reverse auction, which will provide a backstop in the event there is insufficient competition to act as a restraint on the price of the support to be provided in particular cases. To safeguard the monies dedicated to this budget, the Commission adopts requirements to ensure that MF-II support recipients are meeting the service obligations and conditions associated with the ongoing award of such annual support. The Commission retains the discretion to distribute less than the total amount authorized in a given year if support recipients fail to meet performance or other program obligations.
24. The Commission denies the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by United States Cellular Corporation, requesting that the Commission award to “next-in-line” bidders in Auction 901 more than $68 million of undisbursed MF-I support on which the winning bidders in that auction defaulted. The Commission will not award the unclaimed MF-I support to the next-in-line bidders in Auction 901. As the petitioner recognizes, the Commission addressed undisbursed support payments in the
25. The Commission reserves support to Tribal lands (excluding Alaska) as part of the overall MF-II budget. The Commission will calculate this budget by applying the ratio of square miles in eligible Tribal lands to square miles of all eligible areas (adjusting for a terrain factor) to the total budget it has chosen for MF-II. The Commission expects that Tribal lands likely will be more expensive to serve than non-Tribal lands due to their lower population density and income levels, as well as the lack of power or roads in some parts of Indian country and the need for federal approval (such as from the Bureau of Indian Affairs) before broadband can be deployed there. The Commission concludes that reserving this support within MF-II is a fair means and reasonable metric to ensure that Tribal lands are not left behind in the auction. Current estimates are that this ratio would be about 7%, so the Commission expects to reserve at least $340 million from the MF-II budget as support for Tribal Lands. The definitive budget will be set when the final set of eligible areas is determined after the challenge process.
26. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to freshly consider the size of the Tribal MF-II budget rather than seek to simplistically follow earlier Commission decisions pre-dating several important developments. The Commission originally proposed to set aside up to $100 million annually for Tribal lands, but then later dedicated $96 million annually to Tribal lands in remote areas of Alaska. Subtracting the latter from the former would leave a Tribal MF-II budget of only $4 million. If the Commission looked to the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I auction as a way of apportioning the Commission's initial estimate, it would see that the vast majority of those funds (81 percent) were won by Alaskan bidders. Subtracting that proportion for the Commission's initial $100 million proposal would leave mainland Tribal lands with only $19 million. The Commission believes that premising the Tribal MF-II budget on the Commission's earlier actions is likely insufficient to reflect the need for funding to advance 4G LTE services on Tribal lands in 2017 and beyond. Rather, the Commission finds that the methodology described in the
27. Providers of service to eligible areas within Tribal lands will also be able to bid for general support in MF-II—so, with sufficient auction participation, the funds reserved as part of the Tribal Mobility Fund will be a floor, not a ceiling, on support for Tribal lands.
28. The Commission adopts the proposal to award MF-II support for Tribal lands subject to the same terms and conditions as are applicable to all eligible areas in MF-II. The Commission declines to adopt the rules proposed in the
29. The Commission will establish procedures for MF-II in consultation and coordination with the Commission's Office of Native Affairs and Policy. This will allow funds reserved for Tribal lands to be included as part of the MF-II auction. The Commission believes this path of conducting Tribal MF-II as a component of MF-II is best for quickly initiating support for mobile networks on tribal areas.
30. The Commission declines to adopt a formal Tribal engagement obligation or a bidding credit preference for Tribally-
31. The Commission will use geographic area expressed in square miles as the metric for measuring coverage, comparing bids, and assessing compliance with the corresponding coverage requirement for winning bids in MF-II. The Commission will only award support for those geographic areas without 4G LTE from an unsubsidized provider. The Commission will be making eligible for support only the unserved geographic areas within a census block, rather than the entire area within the block.
32. Requiring coverage of a geographic area most closely reflects the Commission's goal to have mobile services available everywhere people live, work, and travel. A geographic area is a broad measure that encompasses all the alternative metrics proposed in the record, such as roads, population, farm land, and areas remote from roads or significant population centers. Targeting support for mobile broadband service based solely on where people may live or where roads of certain sizes may be located is not enough. Those narrower approaches would not direct support everywhere consumers need and use a mobile service. Basing the award of MF-II support on a bid for square miles takes into account many of the other areas where mobile service is important but for which standardized data are less available—such as business locations, recreation areas, work sites, and agricultural spaces. For example, precision agriculture relies on mobile networks for connectivity, so the value of having coverage in farmland is not directly related to the number of people or number of roads there.
33. Using geographic areas as the metric for MF-II will be relatively simple to administer. The Commission will examine the areas that do not appear in the coverage shapefiles from providers' Form 477 data. There will be no need to obtain and validate the accuracy of another data source (
34. The Commission concludes that the minimum geographic area for bidding should be census block groups or census tracts containing one or more census blocks with eligible areas for bidding and support for MF-II. The Commission expressed its intent to employ this same approach in the
35. Although the Commission continues to recognize that using census blocks allows it to target support to specific areas thereby providing bidders the ability to tailor their bids to their business plans, its experience with the MF-I auction demonstrates the need to limit the number of discrete biddable units. The Commission concludes it is best to set performance requirements based on an area larger than a census block. The Commission adopts a broader, more manageable approach that will combine one or more census blocks containing eligible areas into census block groups or census tracts.
36. The Commission reaffirms its goals and now seeks to promote the deployment of 4G LTE in all areas where it would not be offered by the private sector in the absence of universal service support. The Communications Act directs the Commission to fund “reasonably comparable” services in rural areas to those commonly available in urban areas. Looking to the mobile speeds generally reported by nationwide carriers on their Form 477 submissions, the Commission finds that such carriers are generally reporting the deployment of 4G LTE reported at minimum advertised download speeds of at least 5 Mbps. The Commission will use this speed benchmark to identify areas eligible for MF-II. The Commission rejects requests to use the same 10/1 Mbps thresholds for determining area eligibility that it requires of MF-II support recipients for determining compliance with performance requirements.
37. The Commission concludes that any census block that is not fully covered by unsubsidized 4G LTE will
38. The Commission concludes that Form 477 data is the most reliable data currently available for the purpose of determining the coverage levels of existing mobile services, including unserved areas, and areas served by the various technologies that provide 2G, 3G, 4G, and 4G LTE services. The Commission will use Form 477 mobile wireless coverage data and high-cost disbursement data available from the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to determine coverage levels in individual census blocks and whether high-cost support is being awarded. Prior to an MF-II auction, the Commission will compile the list of potentially eligible areas from the data submissions that are most recently available for this purpose.
39. In the
40. The Commission has recently concluded that “data from the Form 477 . . . help [it] better analyze mobile broadband deployment than in years past.” The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau determined that the Form 477 coverage data “provide the most accurate depiction the Commission has on the deployment of mobile networks,” and none of the commenters criticizing the Form 477 data has identified a better data source for moving forward expeditiously to implement MF-II. Recognizing that no data source—including Form 477—will be perfectly accurate, the Commission will utilize a challenge process to improve the accuracy of the coverage analysis underlying eligibility determinations reached in reliance on Form 477 data.
41. Finally, one public service commission urges the Commission to seek input from states that have instituted programs to identify areas lacking coverage. The Commission recognizes that some state commissions have acquired detailed information about coverage within their states, and encourage states to submit information that is probative for determining eligibility during the challenge process. However, because individual state and territory information may not be uniform throughout the nation, the Commission declines to rely on such data to the exclusion of other sources and will continue to rely primarily on Form 477 data certified by providers. Nonetheless, the Commission will consider coverage data from states and other sources in its challenge process.
42. The Commission concludes that it will apply an actual coverage analysis to determine presumptive eligible areas for MF-II support, in lieu of the centroid method employed in MF-I. In the time that has passed since the Commission first proposed using the centroid method in MF-II, the Commission has been able to gather much more robust information about service coverage areas from the certified Form 477 data that providers are required to submit twice a year. The Commission can now more reliably identify those areas within census blocks that do not today have unsubsidized 4G LTE coverage; use high-cost support data to determine where 4G LTE is provided without subsidy; and by overlaying the coverage and the support data, identify the areas presumptively lacking unsubsidized 4G LTE. The resulting analysis presents the most accurate data currently available on which areas should be eligible for MF-II. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff released its analysis using providers' Form 477 data last fall and will publish a preliminary list of eligible areas as part of the pre-auction process. The data released on eligible square miles will be grouped by census blocks, which in turn will be grouped by census block group or census tract as the minimum geographic area for bidding, and include the total eligible square miles in each census block and the location of each eligible area. As explained in the
43. In response to the
44. Consistent with the general approach adopted for MF-I and more recently, for Connect America Fund Phase II (CAF-II), the Commission concludes that it will provide a robust
45. The Commission expects that the challenge process will conclude by the end of January 2018. At the conclusion of the challenge process, the Commission directs the Bureaus to make a final determination of areas eligible for MF-II support.
46. The Commission amends its rules for the phase-down of identical support in order to smoothly transition to the Commission's provision of MF-II support, as well as to provide continuing support to those eligible areas that do not receive MF-II support. The Commission's phase-down rules have been designed so as not to be inconsistent with the provisions in 47 CFR 54.307(e)(5)-(6) (2015), unless and until the restrictions in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, Div. E, Title VI, section 631, 129 Stat. 2242, 2470 (2015), are no longer in effect. The Commission adopts differing phase-down schedules for CETC support in ineligible and eligible areas.
47. First, as part of the pre-auction process, the Commission directs the Bureaus to disaggregate each CETC's legacy support among the census blocks it serves using that support. Currently, legacy support is provided to a CETC's entire study area (SAC), with no attribution to particular sub-areas within the SAC. That creates a problem for comparing support among CETCs to serve a given area and for determining how much support is being used to compete with private capital. The Commission faced a similar problem when it decided to disaggregate support for legacy rate-of-return carriers last year and retarget that support to areas unserved by unsubsidized competitors.
48. In choosing a disaggregation method, the Commission is persuaded that it should account for the relative costs of deploying a coverage-based network given the differing terrain throughout the United States. Specifically, the Commission declines to adopt a disaggregation method that assumes that support is allocated uniformly throughout a provider's SAC—doing so would specifically ignore the additional costs that wireless providers incur to deploy service in more difficult terrain. Instead, the Bureaus shall apply a more-refined methodology that uses a terrain factor as a proxy for determining higher cost areas. For example, more mountainous terrains with greater variations in slope are areas that tend to be more costly to serve than level plains. The terrain factor would be used to weight the area of a block such that eligible areas in more mountainous areas would be allocated a greater amount of a CETC's total legacy support to reflect the higher costs of serving such areas.
49. Second, the Commission establishes the following schedule for the phase-down of legacy support and commencement of auction payments. In census blocks determined (after the completion of the challenge process) not to be eligible for MF-II support, legacy support will be phased down starting the first day of the month following release of a public notice announcing the close of the MF-II auction. On that same date, legacy support for current recipients in eligible census blocks shall either be converted to MF-II support (for the winning bidder), maintained (for one CETC in areas without a winning bidder), or subject to phase down (for all other CETCs). The Commission concludes that this schedule is fully consonant with its rules, which require that CETCs continue to receive support at current levels until MF-II and Tribal MF-II are implemented. MF-II and Tribal MF-II will be implemented when the public notice announcing the close of the MF-II auction and identifying the winning bidders has been released. This schedule will apply only to the recipients of legacy support. A different schedule will apply to winning bidders that do not receive legacy support in the areas of their winning bids.
50. More specifically, in census blocks determined (after the completion of the challenge process) not to be eligible for MF-II, legacy support will be phased down starting the first day of the month following the close of the MF-II auction. For the first 12 months thereafter, phase-down support shall be
51. For a winning bidder that is a CETC receiving legacy support in the area of its bid, MF-II support shall commence on the first day of the month after the auction concludes. To ensure a smooth transition to MF-II support, and to the extent the Commission authorizes a winning bidder to receive MF-II support after that date, a winning bidder will receive support payments at the current legacy support level until such Commission action. A winning bidder that is also entitled to legacy support for an area subject to its winning bid will not be entitled to receive MF-II support until the Commission issues a public notice authorizing support to that bidder. In the public notice, the Commission will direct and authorize USAC to disburse monthly MF-II payments to the winning bidder and to cease paying it at the legacy support level. Furthermore, to ensure that the winning bidder receives the appropriate amount of MF-II support, the Commission will direct USAC to adjust, on a going-forward basis, the amount of the monthly MF-II payments for a limited period of time to account for the difference between the payments at the legacy support level and the MF-II payments in the amounts to which the winning bidder has committed at auction, for the period between the close of the auction and the issuance of the public notice.
52. If the Commission does not authorize the bidder to receive MF-II support, it will direct USAC to adjust the amount of the bidder's preservation-of-service or phase-down support under the MF-II rules, on a going-forward basis, to account for the difference between the payments at the legacy support level and the preservation-of-service or phase-down payments for the period between the close of the auction and the Commission's denial of authorization. As an additional mechanism to prevent perverse incentives, however, the Commission finds that, in applying these rules, a winning bidder committing an auction default will be considered as having received support in the amount of its
53. The Commission adopts a different schedule for winning bidders that are not CETCs in the areas of their winning bids. Because non-CETC winning bidders must meet the same construction deadlines as CETC winning bidders, the Commission will provide an initial balloon payment of MF-II support to non-CETC winning bidders to place non-CETC winning bidders on approximately the same footing as other winning bidders. The balloon payment will consist of the non-CETC winning bidder's monthly MF-II payment amount multiplied by the number of whole months between the first day of the month after the close of the auction and the issuance of the public notice authorizing support. Unlike other winning bidders, a non-CETC winning bidder will not receive MF-II support for the area of its winning bid on the first day of the month after the auction concludes because it would not necessarily be designated as an ETC in that area. A non-CETC winning bidder instead will receive MF-II support once the Commission issues a public notice authorizing MF-II support to the bidder. Based on this schedule, there is no need to adjust payments to account for the continued payments at the legacy support level. The remainder of the discussion in this section concerns the phase down of legacy support for mobile CETCs.
54. In eligible areas where there is no winning bidder in MF-II, the CETC receiving the minimum level of sustainable support will continue to receive such support until further Commission action, but for no more than five years from the first day of the month following the close of the MF-II auction. The Commission defines the minimum level of sustainable support to be the lowest amount of legacy support among CETCs that have deployed the highest technology for that area. The Commission concludes maintaining such support is necessary to preserve service for consumers in such areas pending further Commission action.
55. For CETCs receiving support in areas eligible for MF-II that do not either win MF-II support or receive the minimum level of sustainable support, the phase-down of support shall commence on the first day of the month after the auction concludes. For the first 12 months, phase-down support shall be
56. The Commission adopts this phase-down schedule to fund new service obligations undertaken by new MF-II auction winners, protect customers of current support recipients from a potential loss of service, and minimize the disruption to legacy support providers from a loss of funding. The Commission balances the concerns recipients of legacy support express regarding a rapid termination of legacy support with its need to preserve its finite universal service funds and begin funding service under the terms and amounts established by winning bids in its MF-II reverse auction. Accordingly, in the Commission's implementation of MF-II support, it now establishes a certain path toward no longer paying such legacy support, except to preserve service where it exists on a subsidized basis in eligible areas where there is no winning bidder in the MF-II auction.
57. Finally, in light of the phase down schedules the Commission is adopting, it sees no need to treat differently the phase down of support going to any mobile CETC for which high-cost support represents one percent or less of its wireless revenues. As a result, legacy CETC support to these providers will proceed on the same phase-down schedule as for other providers.
58. The Commission limits support to a single provider for a given geographic area going forward. The Commission has a statutory obligation to ensure access to advanced telecommunications and information service in all regions of the country at reasonably comparable rates, and a related obligation to ensure that public funding is used effectively and efficiently in furtherance of the Commission's statutory mandate. It is therefore incumbent upon the Commission to adopt a structure for awarding universal service support that ensures the finite public funds available are directed in a way that sustains and expands the availability of mobile services to maximize consumer benefits.
59. Having established the framework of MF-II, the Commission now addresses the public interest obligations that must be met by recipients of MF-II support, including performance metrics for minimum data speeds, maximum latency measurements, and minimum usage allowances, consistent with the provision of 4G LTE service. These performance requirements will be used to measure compliance with established benchmarks during the ten-year term of support.
60. The Commission will require recipients of MF-II support to deploy 4G LTE. Around 84 percent of the nation's square miles (excluding Alaska) are covered by 4G LTE networks, as of December 2015. As the transition to 4G LTE service and the transition of voice to voice over LTE technology become widespread, the Commission anticipates that older devices will be retired and future devices will be LTE capable. With the nearly universal deployment of 4G LTE comes a broad record consensus that the network technology for any new deployment the Commission funds in MF-II should be 4G LTE. Targeting MF-II support to 4G LTE will ensure that the Commission does not relegate rural areas to substandard service that is not comparable to urban LTE service, and that the supported service is technologically capable of supporting roaming on the industry LTE standard, including the networks of the four nationwide mobile wireless service providers. The Commission's standards for supported service should ensure that its finite universal service funds are used efficiently to provide consumers access to robust mobile broadband service that is comparable to the 4G LTE service being offered today in urban areas. By requiring the deployment of 4G LTE with on-going MF-II support, the Commission can better utilize universal service support to reach the approximately 575,000 square miles that either lack 4G LTE coverage or only have coverage because of subsidized service.
61. The Commission requires recipients of MF-II support to offer voice service, and it adopts minimum requirements for network performance and an offered service plan that, together with the 4G LTE requirement, will define the baseline 4G LTE performance standard for MF-II recipients. Recipients of MF-II funding will be required to meet minimum baseline performance requirements for data speeds, data latency, and data allowances in areas that receive support for at least one plan that they offer. The median data speed of the network for the supported area must be 10 Mbps download speed or greater and 1 Mbps upload speed or greater, with at least 90 percent of the required download speed measurements being not less than a certain threshold speed. For latency, at least 90 percent of the required measurements must have a data latency of 100 milliseconds or less round trip. Support recipients must offer at least one service plan that includes a data allowance comparable to mid-level service plans offered by nationwide providers. Currently, mid-level plans offer a data allowance of at least 2 GB of data per month. Because industry and consumer practices may evolve over time, the Commission will consider, after an opportunity for comment, whether to require a larger data allowance, initially or during the term of support, based on then-available mid-level plans and/or the average per subscriber data usage. The Commission will conduct the initial consideration of these issues, with subsequent consideration occurring by the Bureaus on delegated authority. A support recipient's service plan with the required data allowance must be offered to consumers at a rate that is within a reasonable range of rates for similar service plans offered by mobile wireless providers in urban areas. These conditions will be defined more precisely in the pre-auction process. The Commission will retain its authority to look behind recipients' performance certifications and take action to address any violations that develop.
62. The Commission adopts a ten-year term for MF-II support, which will begin on the first day of the month after the MF-II auction concludes. As the Commission approaches the end of the ten-year term, it can reassess the marketplace and determine whether a mechanism to provide future support for mobile services is needed. In addition, the Commission declines to adopt a renewal expectancy for winning bidders.
63. A ten-year term of support is consistent with the term adopted by the Commission for Connect America Phase II support. As the Commission recognized in the
64. The Commission further agrees with commenters that a ten-year term of support is appropriate in light of the significant capital and effort needed to deploy and upgrade broadband networks and is consistent with the timeframe used by rural carriers to plan and schedule network upgrades. The certainty provided by a term of this length will help encourage more bidders—particularly smaller wireless carriers—to participate in the auction.
65. Although the Commission does expect the marketplace to evolve over the next ten years, it will not adopt performance metrics that increase over the term of support. The Commission concludes that the disincentives to auction participation potentially created by evolving performance standards and the administrative complexity of establishing such standards outweigh the performance benefits to consumers during the latter portion of the support period. Winning bidders are required under section 254(e) of the Communications Act to use their support throughout their term for “the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services,” and the Commission expects winning bidders, to the extent possible, to upgrade their networks to increase capacity and offer better services over time.
66. The Commission declines to adopt any renewal expectancy or similar preference for winning bidders after their ten-year term of support expires. Although a few parties support a renewal that is based on whether a carrier has met its deployment and service obligations, a renewal expectancy might undermine the Commission's ability to satisfy fiscal management principles, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act. The Commission therefore declines to adopt a renewal expectancy, because to do so may undermine its ability to target future universal service support where it is most needed.
67. Consistent with the approach the Commission adopted in the
68. The Commission concludes that the benchmarks serve as an appropriate construction schedule for MF-II recipients. Interim milestones ensure that sufficient progress is being made with the finite funds it has available. Aligning the MF-II deployment requirements with the CAF-II requirements not only strikes an appropriate balance among carriers' competing concerns, but also increases efficiency and eases administration by leveraging the knowledge and experience the Commission gained during the CAF-II process. The Commission finds that by setting these benchmarks, it will ensure that support recipients make consistent progress towards providing 4G LTE service to unserved areas of our nation, while still allowing winning bidders flexibility to address unforeseen problems or delays in reaching their overall coverage obligations. The Commission observes that while several commenters sought only a 75 percent coverage requirement with the expectation of providing 4G LTE mobile broadband within three years, the Commission concludes that its 85 percent coverage requirement is more consistent with its policy objective of ubiquitous mobile coverage.
69. Recipients that fail to meet and maintain these performance obligations within the time provided to submit their representative data and to certify to coverage requirements will be subject to defined measures, and must cure these failures to meet the deployment requirements or they will be in performance default.
70. Consistent with the Commission's CAF-II framework, support recipients
71. In accordance with the data the Commission will ultimately require for a successful challenge of the eligibility of an area, it will require parties awarded MF-II support to submit data sufficient to demonstrate compliance with its coverage requirements. Parties' demonstrations shall be consistent with the evidence the Commission determines to be necessary to be submitted in the challenge process. Concurrent with their submissions of data, recipients of support will have to certify that they have met the Commission's deployment benchmarks. The Commission directs the Bureaus to precisely define these requirements in the pre-auction process. This is consistent with the
72. The Commission adopts the same collocation and voice and data roaming obligations for MF-II winning bidders as the Commission adopted for MF-I, with certain minor, non-substantive changes. With respect to collocation obligations, the Commission requires that recipients of MF-II support allow for reasonable collocation by other providers on all towers that they own or manage in the areas for which they receive support. The Commission also requires that support recipients comply with its voice and data roaming requirements on networks that receive MF-II support. Specifically, consistent with the approach adopted for MF-I, the Commission requires that recipients of MF-II support provide roaming pursuant to 47 CFR 20.12 and comply with any modifications of the roaming rules that it makes during the period MF-II support is provided throughout networks that receive MF-II support.
73. The Commission declines to expand the data roaming obligations as some commenters suggest, as the Commission's experience in MF-I indicates that the rules it adopted there provide sufficient safeguards. Violations of these obligations by support recipients could result in the withholding of monthly universal service support, a finding of performance default, and losing eligibility for future Mobility Fund or USF participation. The Commission's general enforcement tools are also available to redress any violation of its rules.
74. To implement the statutory principle for MF-II, the Commission adopts the proposed rules and will require recipients to certify in their long-form applications and annually that in areas where they receive support they offer service at rates that are within a reasonable range of rates for similar service plans offered by mobile wireless providers in urban areas. Recipients' service offerings will be subject to this requirement until the end of the term of support.
75. The Commission adopts a presumption that if a given provider is offering the same rates, terms and conditions (including usage allowances, if any, for a specified rate) to both urban and rural customers, then that is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement that services be reasonably comparable.
76. The Commission further concludes that a recipient can demonstrate compliance with the required certification if its stand-alone voice plan and one service plan that offers data services is substantially similar to a service plan offered by that provider, if the provider has urban service areas, or by at least one mobile wireless provider in an urban area and is offered for the same or lower rate than the matching urban service plan. During the pre-auction process, the Commission may define more precisely the circumstances under which a provider can demonstrate compliance with this certification. The Bureaus will conduct any subsequent consideration of possible revisions regarding compliance with this requirement. The Commission retains its authority to look behind recipients' certifications and take action to address any violations that develop.
77. The requirements the Commission adopts are essentially the same as those adopted for MF-I, with the limited exception that for MF-II, an applicant seeking to participate in the auction will be permitted to be designated as an ETC after it is announced as a winning bidder for a particular area in accordance with procedures it implements. Consistent with the eligibility requirements for MF-I, a qualified MF-II applicant must demonstrate access to spectrum capable of the appropriate level of service in the geographic areas to be served, and certify as to its financial and technical capability to provide service within the specified timeframe. The Commission concludes that it will not impose any additional eligibility requirements to participate in MF-II.
78. The Commission will permit a winning bidder in the MF-II auction to obtain its ETC designation after the close of the auction, provided it submits proof of its ETC designation within 180 days of the public notice identifying winning bidders. Before MF-II support is disbursed to a winning bidder, it must demonstrate that it has been designated an ETC covering each of the geographic areas for which it seeks to be authorized for support and that its ETC designation allows it to fully comply with the Commission's coverage requirements. The Commission declines to disturb the current system of state jurisdiction over ETC designations, even as the Commission permits winning bidders to obtain ETC status after being announced as winners in the MF-II auction.
79. Although the Commission initially proposed to follow the approach it adopted for MF-I and require all applicants to demonstrate ETC designations prior to the auction, its experience after Auction 901 and Auction 902, and its most recent conclusions regarding ETC designations in the CAF-II context, weigh in favor of a more flexible approach for MF-II.
80. As the Commission concluded in the CAF-II context, permitting post-auction ETC designations for MF-II may improve applicant participation in the auction. It will also conserve participants' resources by avoiding obligations for auction participants who do not win any coverage areas in the auction, as well as safeguarding potential bidding strategies of applicants seeking ETC designation before an auction. The Commission will not provide any support until a winning bidder has obtained and demonstrated ETC designation for its entire winning bid area, and is not persuaded by the concerns raised by one commenter, which argues that allowing applicants to seek ETC designation after winning
81. Similar to the process adopted for CAF-II support, the Commission requires winning bidders of MF-II support to submit proof of their ETC designations within 180 days of the public notice announcing them as winning bidders. Failure to obtain ETC status and submit the required documentation by the deadline will be considered an auction default, though the Commission will consider applications for waiver of the 180-day deadline from entities who are diligently pursuing ETC designation.
82. Based on what the Commission observed in the rural broadband experiments, when considering waivers of the 180-day timeframe for obtaining ETC designation, the Commission will presume that an entity will have acted in good faith if the entity files its ETC application within 30 days of the release of the public notice announcing that it is a winning bidder. Consistent with the rural broadband experiments, where the Commission delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to act on waivers, here, the Commission directs the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to act on any such waivers.
83. Any circumstances where a state will need more time due to procedural requirements or resource issues can be dealt with through the waiver process. Accordingly, to preserve the primary role that Congress gave the states in designating ETCs, the Commission reaffirms that it will act on an ETC designation petition pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(6) “only in those situations where the carrier can provide the Commission with an affirmative statement from the state commission or a court of competent jurisdiction that the carrier is not subject to the state commission's jurisdiction.”
84. The Commission concludes that forbearance from the 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) service area conformance requirement for recipients of the MF-II competitive bidding process serves the public interest. The Commission has decided that providing MF-II support to only one provider in a given geographic area in exchange for its commitment to offer service that meets its requirements throughout the funded area achieves its objectives for fiscal responsibility.
85. For those entities that obtain ETC designations as a result of being selected as winning bidders for the MF-II auction, the Commission forbears from applying 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) and 47 CFR 54.207(b). Forbearing from the service area conformance requirement eliminates the need for redefinition of any rural telephone company service areas in the context of the MF-II auction. Accordingly, Commission rules regarding the redefinition process are inapplicable to petitions that are subject to this order. However, if an existing ETC seeks support through the MF-II auction for areas within its existing service area, this forbearance will not have any impact on the ETC's pre-existing obligations with respect to other support mechanisms and the existing service area.
86. The Commission concludes that forbearance is warranted in these limited circumstances. The Commission's objective is to distribute support to winning bidders as soon as possible so that they can begin the process of deploying mobile service to consumers in those areas. Case-by-case forbearance would likely delay the Commission's post-auction review of entities once they are announced as winning bidders. The Communications Act requires the Commission to forbear from applying any of its requirements or the Commission's regulations to a telecommunications carrier if it determines that: (1) Enforcement of the requirement is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of that requirement is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying that requirement is consistent with the public interest. The Commission's experience in MF-I has shown that service area conformance forbearance was just and reasonable in accomplishing the goals of the Mobility Fund, did not harm consumer protections, and was in the public interest in the Mobility Fund context. The Commission concludes that each of these statutory criteria is met for winning bidders of the MF-II competitive bidding process, and the Commission incorporates by reference here the analysis of these forbearance factors that it considered and found warranted forbearance in MF-I and CAF-II.
87. The Commission requires that an applicant for an MF-II auction have access to spectrum necessary to fulfill any obligations related to support. An MF-II applicant must describe its required spectrum access and certify that the description is accurate and that the applicant will retain such access for at least ten years from the date on which it is authorized to receive support. Specifically, an applicant will be required to disclose whether it currently holds or leases the spectrum, including any necessary renewal expectancy, and whether such spectrum access is contingent on obtaining support in a MF-II auction. The Commission specifies that any other contingency will render the relevant spectrum access insufficient for the party to meet the Commission's requirements for participation. For the described spectrum access to be sufficient, the Commission further concludes that the applicant must obtain any necessary approvals from the Commission prior to filing its short-form application.
88. Because it would be inconsistent with the level of commitment the Commission thinks a serious applicant should demonstrate, the Commission declines to adopt the suggestion of some commenters to allow for a substantially more relaxed standard that would permit entities to seek to acquire access to spectrum on a “fill-in” basis after the short-form filing deadline.
89. Consistent with the Commission's decision in MF-I, the Commission concludes that an applicant seeking MF-II support must have access to spectrum necessary to fulfill any MF-II obligations prior to participating in the MF-II auction because allowing otherwise would be inconsistent with the serious undertakings implicit in bidding for ongoing support. The Commission therefore requires applicants to ensure that if they become winning bidders, they will have the spectrum to meet their obligations as quickly and successfully as possible, and adopts the spectrum access rule proposed in the
90. The Commission will require that applicants identify the particular frequency bands and the nature of the access on which they assert their spectrum access necessary to demonstrate eligibility for support. The Commission will assess the reasonableness of those eligibility certifications based on information it will require to be submitted in short- and long-form applications. The Commission cautions applicants that if they make this certification and do not have or maintain access to the appropriate level of spectrum, they will be subject to the auction or performance default rules.
91. In MF-I, the Commission concluded that it would require a party to be financially and technically capable of satisfying the performance requirements of providing service within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas for which it sought support. In proposing that parties seeking MF-II support satisfy this same eligibility requirement, the Commission proposed to require an entity to certify, in the pre-auction short-form application and in the post-auction long-form application, that it is financially and technically capable of providing service within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas for which it seeks support. The Commission's experience with MF-I indicates that requiring these certifications is a reasonable protection for the auction process and to safeguard the award of universal service funds. The Commission adopts its proposed requirement and the proposed rule, with the clarification that the applicant must certify that it is financially and technically qualified to provide the services supported by MF-II within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas for which it sought support.
92. The Commission will permit all qualified eligible applicants to participate in the MF-II auction. In so doing, the Commission seeks to encourage participation by the widest possible range of applicants possible, regardless of their size. The Commission's commitment to fiscal responsibility requires that it distributes its finite budget to the provider that submits the superior, most cost-effective bid in the MF-II auction. The Commission will not limit eligibility for MF-II to smaller providers thereby potentially limiting the Commission's ability to further close the 4G LTE coverage gap. The Commission therefore declines to adopt the proposals of some small, rural providers that suggest that it should restrict the participation of certain classes of carriers in order to facilitate participation. Furthermore, as the Commission concluded in MF-I, it will not bar any party from seeking MF-II support based solely on the party's past decision to relinquish Universal Service Funds provided on another basis. Consistent with its approach in spectrum auctions, the Commission expects that its general auction rules and procedures will provide the basis for an auction process that will promote the Commission's objectives for MF-II and provide a fair opportunity for all serious, interested parties to participate.
93. Consistent with the record, the Commission will allow recipients of MF-I support to participate in an MF-II auction. While the Commission does not anticipate that it will prohibit MF-II winning bidders from seeking support through other universal service mechanisms merely because they have received MF-II support, the Commission notes that the goals of Phase II of the Mobility Fund are to help ensure the availability of mobile voice and broadband services across the country. The Commission emphasizes that in establishing rules for each separate universal service funding mechanism, it is including rules to prevent the disbursement of redundant support.
94. The Commission stresses that because Phase I provided strictly non-recurring support, the Commission required an MF-I participant to certify at the pre-auction, short-form stage that it was financially and technically capable of providing 3G or better service within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas for which it sought support without any assurance of ongoing support, but it did not foreclose the potential of such an entity subsequently receiving ongoing support to maintain that service after the five-year time frame expired. Insofar as it furthers the Commission's policy goals to expand and preserve service to areas that would not be covered absent government subsidies, the Commission concludes that a winning bidder in MF-I may participate in the auction to seek ongoing support in MF-II for any area deemed eligible.
95. On the issue of the interrelationship of MF-II and the Remote Areas Fund (RAF), the Commission has not limited the availability of MF-II support based on the existence of the RAF, which is a concern for several commenters. Rather, the Commission has set the budget based on the reasons discussed in the
96. The Commission concludes that the rules it is adopting for MF-II are sufficiently flexible to allow recipients of MF-II to fulfill their public interest obligations associated with MF-II. The Commission is committed to preserving and expanding mobile voice and broadband coverage to those areas that lack services without subsidies, and concludes that allowing support recipients to reach agreements with other providers for this purpose may further that objective. The Commission recognizes based on its experience with MF-I that providers are best suited to determine the most efficient and cost effective manner to fulfill their public interest obligations, and the Commission has designed rules that should afford them the flexibility to consider arrangements that meet their individual business needs without prescribing any particular solutions or limitations, provided that such agreements otherwise comply with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The Commission cautions applicants seeking support, however, that regardless of any agreements they may enter, the winning bidder is the entity responsible for maintaining its eligibility, including but not limited to its ETC status, and meeting its performance obligations for MF-II support. Similarly, all monies awarded through the auction process must flow directly to the winning bidder as that is the entity upon which the Commission has assessed compliance with all support requirements, including its ETC status.
97. The Commission declines to adopt a bidding preference for small businesses for MF-II. In view of the Commission's experience with MF-I, where numerous smaller carriers placed winning bids to receive funding for service without the aid of bidding credits, the Commission concludes that it is unnecessary to adopt small business bidding credits for a MF-II auction. Also, a bidding credit for small businesses would potentially reduce the reach of the Commission's finite funds. The Commission is unwilling to forgo additional coverage expansion or preservation in order to favor smaller providers, particularly in light of the participation and success of small and rural businesses in MF-I.
98. The Commission adopts rules that govern the auction process for MF-II, including pre-auction requirements and general rules for auction design and the bidding process. These rules provide the basic framework and requirements for participating in an auction for MF-II support. Consistent with past practice, the specific procedures will be established as part of the pre-auction process, including determining auction-related timing and dates, identifying areas eligible for support, and establishing detailed bidding procedures consistent with the
99. Based on the Commission's experience with MF-I and the process it adopted in CAF-II, the Commission adopts a two-stage application process for an applicant seeking to participate in the MF-II auction. Under this process, interested parties will submit a pre-auction “short-form” application, providing basic information and certifications regarding their eligibility to receive support. After the application deadline, Commission staff will review the short-form applications to determine whether applicants have provided sufficient information required at the short-form stage to be eligible to participate in a MF-II auction. Once review is complete, Commission staff will release a public notice indicating which short-form applications are deemed complete and which are deemed incomplete. Applicants whose short-form applications are deemed incomplete will be given a limited opportunity to cure defects and to resubmit correct applications. Only minor modifications to an applicant's short-form application will be permitted. Major modifications would include, for example, changes in ownership of the applicant that would constitute an assignment or transfer of control. The Commission will then release a second public notice designating the applicants that are qualified to participate in the MF-II auction. After the close of the auction, winning bidders will be required to submit “long-form” applications with more extensive information to allow for an in-depth review of their qualifications prior to authorization of support.
100. The Commission also adopts the proposals, with certain amendments, in the
101. Each applicant will be required to disclose and certify its ETC status, although, the Commission does not require an applicant to obtain an ETC designation prior to bidding in MF-II. With respect to eligibility requirements relating to spectrum access, applicants will be required to disclose and certify the source of the spectrum they plan to use to meet Mobility Fund obligations in the particular area(s) for which they plan to bid. Specifically, applicants will be required to disclose whether they currently hold a license or lease the spectrum, including any necessary renewal expectancy, and whether such spectrum access is contingent on obtaining support in an MF-II auction. Applicants must have secured any Commission approvals necessary for the required spectrum access prior to submitting an auction application. Moreover, applicants will be required to certify that they will retain their access to the spectrum for at least ten years from the date support is authorized. The Commission notes that no commenters addressed the Commission's proposed pre-auction application process for MF-II, and therefore concludes that the rules it adopted will best serve the Commission's ability to hold a fair and efficient auction.
102. The Commission adopts, with certain minor non-substantive changes, the existing 47 CFR part 1 rules on competitive bidding for universal service support contained in Subpart AA. The high-level auction rules for competitive bidding procedures for universal service support that the Commission adopts set out a range of options and mechanisms that the Commission may use for such purposes. The Commission takes the opportunity to reorganize the way it articulates certain of the relevant rules, without altering the substance, to be consistent with the latest developments regarding the Commission's approach to competitive bidding in other contexts. Specifically, the Commission restructures the rules to present them in terms of auction procedures governing bid collection, assignment of winning bids, determination of support payment amounts, as well as particular mechanisms for conducting the auctions. The reorganized competitive bidding procedures rules will facilitate the development of procedures for the MF-II auction that are consistent with the universal service support technical requirements and policies generally and that address the needs of the Commission and interested bidders. The bidding procedures for the MF-II auction will include, among other things, details pertaining to multiple round bidding and package bidding.
103. To maximize competition and promote fairness, the Commission proposed to retain for MF-II its usual auction policies regarding permissible communications during the auction and the public release of certain auction-related information. The Commission adopts the proposed rules prohibiting auction applicants from communicating with one another regarding the substance of their bids or bidding strategies, and providing for limited public disclosure of auction-related information as appropriate.
104. In the
105. The Commission adopts rules to govern the post-auction process and the authorization of support for MF-II. These rules provide the basic framework and requirements for winning bidders to demonstrate their qualifications for MF-II support. This post-auction process will be similar to that used for MF-I support. Shortly after bidding has ended, the Bureaus will issue a public notice declaring the auction closed, identifying the winning bidders, and establishing details and deadlines for next steps, beginning with the long-form application.
106. In the
107. The Commission also adopts the ownership disclosure requirements proposed in the
108. Consistent with the eligibility requirements adopted in the
109. Before MF-II support is authorized, a winning bidder must demonstrate that it has been designated an ETC covering each of the geographic areas for which it seeks to be authorized for support and that its ETC designation allows it to fully comply with the Commission's coverage requirements within the time provided to meet this requirement. A winning bidder must submit appropriate documentation of its ETC designation in all the areas for which it will receive support in its long form application or certify that it will do so within 180 days of the public notice identifying winning bidders. Appropriate documentation should include the original designation order, any relevant modifications (
110. As in the pre-auction short-form application stage, a long-form applicant must certify that it is financially and technically capable of providing the required coverage and performance levels within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas in which it won support. An applicant should take care to review its resources and its plans before making the required certification and be prepared to document its review, if necessary. Thus, the Commission adopts the proposed rule regarding financial and technical capability certification, as amended.
111. For winning bids, the applicant must submit a project description that describes the network to be built or upgraded; identifies the proposed technology; demonstrates that the project is technically feasible; discloses the complete project budget; and discusses each specific phase of the project (
112. The Commission adopts its proposed rule to require applicants to provide a description of the spectrum access that the applicant will use to meet its obligations in areas for which it is the winning bidder, including whether it currently holds a license or leases the spectrum, along with any necessary renewal expectancy, and certify that the description is accurate and that the applicant will retain such access for the entire ten year support term. The description should identify the license applicable to the spectrum to be accessed. The description of the license must include the type of service (
113. With regard to certifications of program requirements, the Commission concludes that an applicant must certify in its long-form application that it has the funds available for all project costs that exceed the amount of support to be received, and that it will comply with all program requirements. These requirements include the public interest obligations contained in the Commission's rules and set forth in the
114. Any additional information that is required to establish whether an applicant is eligible for MF-II support will be announced by public notice.
115. The award of MF-II support is based upon the eligibility and performance of the winning bidder. Therefore, a recipient of MF-II support that later seeks to transfer control or assign its licenses in the winning bid area to another carrier should be aware that, if the buyer or assignee carrier is not eligible to receive MF-II funds or is uninterested in remaining in the program, the winning bidder will remain liable for its winning bid obligations and will be considered to have committed a performance default if it can no longer fulfill those obligations after completing the transfer or assignment. All assignees seeking to receive MF-II support will become subject to the eligibility, certification, and disclosure requirements included in the MF-II rules.
116. In the
117. In MF-I, the Commission required all winning bidders to obtain LOCs ensuring the successful fulfillment of each winning bid and protecting the Commission's investment of universal service funds. In the CAF-II auction context, the Commission adopted LOC requirements with standards that initially cover the first year of support of a recipient's winning bid, and that are adjusted annually thereafter, reasoning that LOCs were an effective means for fulfilling the Commission's role as stewards of public funds.
118. Consistent with the rules governing MF-I and CAF-II auctions, the Commission adopts a rule for MF-II requiring that, prior to the authorization of support, all winning bidders for support must provide us with an irrevocable standby LOC by a bank that is acceptable to the Commission in substantially the same form as the model Letter of Credit set forth in the appendix to the
119. The Commission concludes that an LOC meeting the requirements set out below is neither unreasonably burdensome nor excessively costly for a winning bidder to obtain in light of the benefit to the universal service program. While obtaining an LOC incurs costs, the Commission anticipates that bidders can incorporate these costs when determining their bids. As the Commission found in MF-I, and in considering this issue in other aspects of the Connect America Fund, companies with existing lending relationships often use LOCs in the normal course of operating their businesses and, generally, are able to maintain multiple forms of financing for varying purposes. Therefore, on balance, the Commission concludes that the government's need to safeguard the disbursement of these monies outweighs the limited burden incurred by winning bidders.
120. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission carefully weighed the comments it received on whether it should require LOCs for MF-II. While the concerns expressed by some commenters do not warrant abandoning an LOC requirement altogether, they do support the Commission's decision to depart from the LOC provisions utilized in MF-I, and to instead adopt LOC provisions that closely align with the CAF-II LOC process and MF-II performance requirements. For instance, allowing the LOC to decrease over time as a support recipient satisfies its minimum coverage and service requirements, as the Commission allowed in the CAF-II context, should effectively protect public funds under less onerous terms than were applied in the MF-I auction. Moreover, the Commission can also incorporate other terms and processes adopted in the CAF-II auction context to address the concerns of commenters to achieve greater efficiencies in the MF-II LOC requirements. The Commission therefore requires an LOC for MF-II winning bids that will remain in place until USAC, in conjunction with the Commission, verifies that a MF-II winning bidder has met its minimum coverage and service requirements at the end of the six-year milestone.
121. Consistent with the approach utilized in CAF-II, the Commission will require that the initial value of the LOC to be set to at least the amount of authorized MF-II support for the first year. Before the winning bidder can receive its next year's MF-II support, it must modify, renew, or obtain a new letter of credit to ensure that it is valued at a minimum at the total amount of money that has already been disbursed plus the amount of money that is going to be provided in the next year.
122. Moreover, similar to the process adopted in CAF-II, the Commission will allow a support recipient to modestly reduce its LOC as it meets its interim benchmarks. The LOC must be maintained for 100 percent of the total support amount disbursed plus the amount to be disbursed in the next year until USAC, in coordination with the Commission, has determined that the recipient has met its interim benchmark for deployment to 60 percent of the required coverage area; and subject to USAC's consent, the amount of the LOC may decrease to an amount equal to 90 percent of the total support amount already disbursed plus the amount that will be disbursed in the coming year.
123. These LOC requirements should help to achieve the Commission's goal of fiscal responsibility and should protect the disbursement of universal service funds while also being responsive to concerns expressed in the record that MF-II LOC requirements should not be onerous. The reporting and performance requirements that it has adopted for MF-II together with these LOC provisions, which are consistent with the CAF-II auction LOC requirements previously adopted by the Commission, should ensure that in the event of a performance default, monies are in place to satisfy a recipient's obligations for failing to comply with the terms of support. All MF-II recipients, along with the federal government, should bear the responsibilities of safeguarding these funds. However, the Commission nonetheless recognizes that there may be a need for greater flexibility regarding LOCs for Tribally-owned and controlled winning bidders. Thus, if any Tribally-owned and -controlled MF-II winning bidder is unable to obtain a LOC, it may file a petition for a waiver of the LOC requirement. Waiver applicants must show, with evidence acceptable to the Commission, that the Tribally-owned and -controlled winning bidder is unable to obtain a LOC.
124. In addition to providing greater flexibility on the amount of support the LOC will cover, the Commission concludes that there are additional specific measures it can take to provide MF-II recipients greater flexibility in obtaining their LOCs. For instance, to reduce the number of LOCs that a winning bidder may need, the Commission will allow winning bidders to provide a single LOC covering all its winning bids within a single state. The Commission therefore directs the Bureaus to establish a reasonable means to permit a winning bidder to provide a single LOC that covers all its winning bids within a single state in the amount specified in the
125. Furthermore, consistent with the acceptable bank standards recently adopted for the CAF-II auction process, the Commission amends and expands the definition of an “acceptable bank” for the purposes of MF-II LOC requirements. By expanding the list of banks eligible to provide LOCs, the Commission seeks to lower barriers for entities, particularly small and rural businesses that might otherwise face obstacles in obtaining an LOC from a smaller pool of banks, while still ensuring that there are adequate considerations given to the soundness of the bank issuing a letter of credit.
126. Accordingly, the Commission will require that, for U.S. banks, the bank must be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and have a Weiss bank safety rating of B− or higher. This modification to the definition of acceptable banks expands the number of eligible U.S. banks from fewer than 70 banks, as were allowed in MF-I, to approximately 3,600 banks for MF-II winning bidders. These provisions together should help to ensure that LOCs are secured by financially sound institutions. Moreover, unlike credit ratings obtained by banks in the commercial markets, Weiss rates all banks that report sufficient data for Weiss to analyze and, more importantly, is a subscription service and is not compensated by the banks that it rates. Weiss therefore offers an independent and objective perspective of the safety of the banks it rates based on capitalization, asset quality, profitability, liquidity, and stability indexes. Requiring that the banks have a Weiss rating of at least B− ensures that the bank has a rating that at a minimum demonstrates that the bank offers good financial security and has the resources to deal with a variety of adverse economic conditions. And requiring that U.S. issuing banks also be FDIC-insured has the added benefit of relying on the oversight of the FDIC and its protections. The Commission therefore concludes that this more expansive definition of acceptable banks achieves an appropriate balance between reducing burdens for winning bidders, particularly small and rural entities, while still protecting the public funds.
127. For similar reasons, the Commission will also permit entities to obtain letters of credit from CoBank, ACB (CoBank) or the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) as long as each of these two entities maintains assets that place them among the top-100 U.S. banks in terms of the amount of assets, and they maintain a credit rating of BBB− or better from Standard & Poor's (or the equivalent from a nationally-recognized credit rating agency). The entity's assets will be determined on the basis of total assets as of the end of the calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the letter of credit, determined on a U.S. dollar equivalent basis as of such date. The Commission has recognized that these entities are not traditional banks in that they do not accept deposits from members of the public. Thus, these entities do not have a Weiss bank safety rating and are not FDIC-insured. However, CFC and CoBank can be considered banks in the context of the Commission's program because they use their capital resources to make loans. Accordingly, the Commission finds these two entities to be sufficiently comparable to commercial depository banks to issue letters of credit in the MF-II program.
128. CoBank has met the more stringent issuing bank eligibility requirements for MF-I and rural broadband experiments, and has issued a number of letters of credit for these programs. Although CoBank is not FDIC-insured, it is insured by the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, which the Commission found provides protections that are equivalent to those indicated by holding FDIC-insured deposits. As long as CoBank retains its standing with assets equivalent to a top-100 U.S. bank and a qualified credit rating, the Commission sees no reason to depart from its conclusion not to exclude CoBank from eligibility simply because CoBank is not rated by Weiss.
129. CFC's assets also make it comparable to commercial depository banks that are in the top 100 based on
130. The Commission further notes that it is not adopting alternative eligibility requirements that would permit banks that are not FDIC or FCSIC-insured or that do not have a Weiss bank safety rating to issue letters of credit. Instead, the Commission concludes that, for purposes of providing security for winning bidders, an LOC from CFC provides assurances that are equivalent to those provided by banks meeting the Commission's general criteria, due to CFC's uniquely extensive experience in financing rural networks, its significant participation in other federal government programs, and its long-standing relationship with many entities that may become MF-II winning bidders.
131. If a recipient seeks to obtain its LOC from a non-U.S. bank, the Commission requires that the bank be among the 100 largest non-U.S. banks in the world (determined on the basis of total assets as of the end of the calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the letter of credit, determined on a U.S. dollar equivalent basis as of such date) and maintain a credit rating of BBB− or better from Standard & Poor's (or the equivalent from a nationally-recognized credit rating agency). The bank must also have a branch in the District of Columbia or such other branch office as agreed to by the Commission and must issue the letter of credit payable in United States dollars.
132. As in the process permitted in the CAF-II rules and also followed in MF-I, if the winning bidder is not prepared to present its LOC at the time of the long-form application filing, the Commission will allow the submission of a commitment letter from the bank issuing the LOC in the long-form application filing. A winning bidder will, however, be required to have its LOC in place and approved by USAC before it is authorized to receive MF-II support.
133. Consistent with the rules for MF-I and CAF-II, at the time a winning bidder for MF-II support submits its LOC, it also will be required to provide an opinion letter from legal counsel clearly stating, subject only to customary assumptions, limitations and qualifications, that, in a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court would not treat the LOC or proceeds of the LOC as property of the winning bidder's bankruptcy estate, or the bankruptcy estate of any other bidder-related entity requesting issuance of the LOC, under 11 U.S.C. 541. A winning bidder will be required to have its opinion letter in place before it is authorized to receive MF-II support and before any support is disbursed.
134. Consistent with the process adopted in the CAF-II auction context, the Commission concludes that MF-II support should be disbursed in monthly installments over the course of the ten-year support term. For MF-II, support recipients will have made winning bids to provide service at established performance requirements to at least 85 percent of the eligible square miles across all winning bid areas for which they win MF-II support in a state by the final milestone, to provide service to at least 75 percent of every census block group or census tract in a state (depending on minimum bidding unit), and to continue to provide service throughout the ten-year support term. During the ten-year support term, provided that the winning bidder files acceptable, complete, and timely annual and milestone reports, fulfills the milestone coverage requirements, and does not otherwise have a performance default, the recipient will receive monthly disbursements of 100 percent of the total winning bid(s).
135. This approach provides MF-II recipients with reliable and predictable support payments that conform to a variety of business cycles and correspond to suggestions in the record. The Commission is mindful that some carriers might incur higher up-front project costs prior to their ability to commence the provision of service to the targeted area because infrastructure expansion projects might require larger payments in the earlier years of the disbursement term. The Commission concludes that MF-II monthly disbursements will best accommodate carriers' project schedules or ongoing expenses of providing service in a manner that is efficient from an administrative prospective. Moreover, because the Commission decides that support payments should be regular and predictable over the entire course of the ten-year term for all recipients, and because the Commission seeks to not exceed the budget in any one year of the term, recipients will not be able to receive accelerated payment of their support for attaining the interim milestones early. This determination aligns with the decision to reject accelerated payments in CAF-II as well.
136. All MF-II recipients have a continuing obligation to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in their long-form applications and their annual and milestone reports. All winning bidders shall provide information about any substantial change that may be of decisional significance regarding their eligibility for MF-II support and compliance with MF-II requirements.
137. The Commission reserves the right for USAC to cease monthly disbursements immediately should the winning bidder have a performance default, or if it fails to comply with any of the terms or conditions for the receipt of the support under any of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Commission directs the Bureaus and the Office of Managing Director to postpone disbursements and/or the incurrence of additional obligations, to preclude an ADA violation if the USF's current exemption expires or is repealed.
138. As the Commission recognized from the outset of this proceeding, the monies used to achieve the Mobility Fund goals come from American consumers and businesses, and therefore it is critical for the success of the program that support recipients meet their obligations. This task requires ongoing vigilance and oversight by the Commission together with the Fund administrator, USAC. As the Commission noted in the CAF-II proceeding, reporting obligations serve the public interest by enhancing the ability to monitor the use of Connect America Fund support and ensure its use for intended purposes.
139. In the
140. The Commission also proposed that MF-II support recipients should be required to include in their annual reports the same information required of MF-I support recipients. The Commission adopts certification and reporting requirements relating to the performance obligations adopted in the
141.
142.
143. All recipients of MF-II support will also be subject generally to the same audit requirements as recipients of CAF-II support and all other high-cost support.
144. Moreover, in line with the procedures adopted in CAF-II to address missed filing deadlines, the Commission adopts a rule to reduce the support for recipients that miss reporting, certification, and milestone filing deadlines. The Commission will impose a minimum reduction of seven days of total statewide support for a winning bid in any state for which a filing deadline is missed, given the importance of recipients meeting filing deadlines. In addition to the reduction of the initial seven days of support, support will be reduced further state-wide on a pro-rata daily basis until the MF-II recipient files the required report or certification. Reducing support on a day-by-day basis plus an additional seven-day reduction is an appropriate measure to create incentives for MF-II recipients to make their filings as soon as they have determined that they have missed the applicable deadlines.
145. The Commission recognizes that despite its best efforts, a recipient may miss a deadline due to an administrative oversight but still file within a few days of the deadline. For a late filer, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to provide a one-time grace period of three days so that a recipient that quickly rectifies its error within three days of the deadline will not be subject to the seven-day minimum loss of support. The Commission directs USAC to send a letter to such a recipient notifying it that its filing was late but cured within the grace period. If the recipient again files any filing late, the grace period will not be available. Repeated mistakes, even inadvertent, are indicative of a lack of adequate policies and procedures to ensure timely filing. If a recipient misses a filing deadline more than once due to its inadvertence, the support reductions that the Commission adopts should provide an incentive to recipients to revise their procedures to ensure that such inadvertence does not become a pattern.
146.
147. In MF-I, the Commission adopted two types of default payment obligations for MF-I winning bidders: An auction default payment owed by winning bidders if they failed to satisfy their auction obligations prior to being authorized to receive support, and a performance default payment owed by winning bidders authorized for support who subsequently failed to meet their
148. MF-I winning bidders, like all winning bidders in Commission spectrum auctions, had a binding obligation to file a post-auction long-form application—by the applicable deadline and consistent with other requirements of the long-form application process—and failure to do so constituted an auction default. For MF-II, the Commission proposed that a winning bidder for MF-II support would be subject to the same auction default payment obligations adopted for winning bidders of MF-I support, including a default on a winning bid before authorizations, the failure to timely file a long-form application, being found ineligible or unqualified to be a recipient of MF-II support, or if a long-form application is dismissed for any reason after the close of the auction. For CAF-II, the Commission concluded that any entity that files a short-form application to participate in the CAF-II competitive bidding process will be subject to a forfeiture in the event of a default before it is authorized to begin receiving support.
149. The Commission concludes that it will align the MF-II rules with its approach in CAF-II and adopts a rule that subjects a MF-II winning bidder to a forfeiture payment if it defaults on its bid(s) before it is authorized to begin receiving support. This forfeiture payment shall satisfy the requirements of 47 CFR 1.21004(b) with respect to default payments. The Commission holds that such an approach will ensure that each violation has a relationship to the area affected by the auction default, but will not be unduly punitive. Moreover, such an approach will also ensure that the total forfeiture for a default is generally proportionate to the overall scope of the winning bidder's bid. The Commission will determine the minimum geographic unit to be census block groups or census tracts in the pre-auction process. A winning bidder that fails to become authorized to receive MF-II support will then have violated the Commission's rules for each of the census block groups or census tracts included in its defaulted bid. If a winning bidder defaults on a bid that includes 10 census block groups/census tracts, that entity could be subject to a base forfeiture of $30,000 (10 census block groups/census tracts multiplied by the base forfeiture of $3,000).
150. An entity will be considered to have an auction default and will be subject to forfeiture if it fails to timely file a long-form application or meet the document submission deadlines outlined in the
151. For MF-II competitive bidding purposes, the Commission defines a violation as any form of default with respect to each geographic unit subject to a bid. However, to ensure that the amount of the base forfeiture is not disproportionate to the amount of an entity's bid, the Commission limits the total base forfeiture that could be owed by a winning bidder to five percent of its total bid amount for the entire ten-year support term. This would occur in situations where the dollar amount associated with the bid is low. As an example, assume Bidder A bids to serve 100 census block groups (CBGs) for $100,000 over the ten-year support term. The Commission would impose a base forfeiture of $5,000 (5 percent of $100,000) because otherwise the base forfeiture would be $300,000 ($3,000 × 100 CBGs), which is three times the entire bid amount. In contrast, if Bidder B bids to serve 100 census block groups for $7,000,000 over the support term, the Commission would impose a base forfeiture of $300,000 ($3,000 × 100 CBGs), which is 4.3 percent of the total bid.
152. By adopting such a forfeiture, the Commission impresses upon recipients the importance of being prepared to meet all requirements for the post-selection review process, and emphasizes the requirement that the recipients conduct a due diligence review to ensure that they are qualified to participate in the MF-II competitive bidding process and meet its terms and conditions.
153. Failures by MF-II bidders to fulfill their auction obligations will undermine the stability and predictability of the auction process, and impose costs on the Commission and higher support costs for USF. The Commission therefore finds that subjecting entities to a forfeiture for an auction default is appropriate to ensure the integrity of the auction process and to safeguard against costs to the Commission and the USF. Thus, as a condition of participating in an MF-II auction, entities acknowledge that they are subject to a forfeiture in the event of an auction default.
154. The Commission distinguishes between an MF-II winning bidder that is subject to an auction default, and a winning bidder whose long-form application is approved but subsequently has a performance default or otherwise fails to comply with the terms and conditions of receiving MF-II support.
155. In the
156. In CAF-II, the Commission adopted a framework for reporting and support reductions for all CAF-II recipients that fail to meet the requisite service milestones. Specifically, the framework was adopted to calibrate support reductions to the extent of an ETC's non-compliance with service milestones. The Commission subsequently extended that framework to rate-of-return carriers.
157. Given the policy goals underlying MF-II support, the public interest benefit of establishing procedures for MF-II that are substantially the same as those adopted for CAF-II, and the record gathered on this issue, the Commission concludes that it should adopt a more measured approach to recouping payment in the event of default than the Commission employed in the MF-I auction. Accordingly, the Commission adopts a process by which the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will authorize USAC to draw on the LOC(s) to recover all the support that has been disbursed in a state in the event that the MF-II recipient does not meet the relevant service milestones and does not cure its compliance gap pursuant to the steps outlined below. For CAF-II, the Commission determined that USAC would recover support from ETCs
158. First, for interim milestones, if the ETC has a compliance gap of 50 percent or more of the eligible square miles that the ETC is required to have covered by the relevant interim milestone (
159. Second, if an ETC misses the final milestone(s), it must identify by what percentage the milestone has been missed at the state level and/or any of the census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state. The ETC will then have 12 months from that date to come into full compliance with both of those milestones. If it does not come into full compliance within 12 months because it fails to meet the 85 percent benchmark (even if it meets the 75 percent benchmark for some or all the census block group(s) or census tract(s)), the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a letter, and USAC will recover disbursement(s) in an amount of support that is equal to 1.89 multiplied by the average amount of support the ETC received per eligible square mile in the state over the six-year period multiplied by the number of square miles unserved in the ETC's winning areas in the state that would be required to meet the 85 percent benchmark, plus 10 percent of the ETC's total MF-II support received in the state over the six-year period for deployment. It is reasonable to assume that many of the areas left unserved would have higher than the average cost per area of the winning bid. Therefore, a higher amount per area than the average is appropriate. Moreover, the Commission wants to provide more incentive to carriers to complete the build out for their winning bid. Thus, the Commission finds that the administrative simplicity and predictability of using one factor for all bidders outweighs the precision that would come from applying a factor specific to each winning bidder and area. This multiplier was adopted by the Commission for CAF-II.
160. After the ETC has paid the calculated recovery amount for failure to comply with the final deployment milestone, the Bureaus will calculate a reduced support payment for the remaining support term based on the percentage of deployment coverage completed. The reduced ongoing annual support amount will be the total of the ETC's original winning bid amounts for annual support in the state multiplied by the sum of the actual deployment percentage plus 15 percent (
161. If at the end of six months the ETC has not fully paid back the support for missing the relevant 85 percent benchmark, the ETC shall be liable for repayment of all the support that has been disbursed to the ETC for that state, the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a letter to that effect, and USAC will draw on the LOC(s) to recover all the support that has been disbursed to the ETC for that state.
162. A similar approach will apply if the ETC meets the 85 percent statewide benchmark but misses the 75 percent benchmark(s) for any census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state at the final milestone and the ETC does not come into full compliance by meeting the 75 percent benchmark within 12 months. The Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a letter for any such census block group(s) or census tract(s), and USAC will recover disbursement(s) in an amount of support that is equal to 1.89 multiplied by the average amount of support the ETC received per eligible square mile in the census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state over the six-year period multiplied by the number of square miles unserved in each of the ETC's winning census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state that would be required to meet their respective 75 percent benchmarks, plus 10 percent of the ETC's total MF-II support received in the relevant census block group(s) or census tract(s) over the six-year period for deployment. At this point, the ETC will have six months to repay the support USAC seeks to recover. After the ETC has paid the calculated recovery amount, the Bureaus will calculate a reduced support payment for the remaining support term. The reduced ongoing annual support amount will be the ETC's original winning bid amount for annual support in any such census block group or census tract, multiplied by the sum of the actual deployment percentage plus 25 percent (
163. Third, after compliance with the final build-out milestones has been verified and the ETC closes its letter of
164. Drawing on the letter of credit in the event that the ETC fails to repay the support that USAC is instructed to recover will ensure that the Commission will be able to recover the support in the event that the ETC is unable to pay. Through the support reduction framework the Commission adopted for CAF-II, the ETC will have a number of opportunities to cure before the Commission will seek to recover the support that is associated with the compliance gap. And the Commission will only recover 100 percent of the support that has been disbursed via the LOC in those cases where the ETC is unable to repay the support associated with its compliance gap. Because an ETC that is unable to repay the support is also unlikely to be able to meet its obligations to use the support disbursed to offer service meeting the Commission's requirements, recovering 100 percent of the support will allow the Commission to re-award the support through an alternative mechanism to an ETC that will be able to meet its obligations. This decision is consistent with the conclusions reached by the Commission in the CAF II context, that if an entity fails to repay the support amount associated with its compliance gap, the risk becomes greater that the entity will be unable to continue to serve its customers or may go into bankruptcy, and thus it is necessary to ensure that the Commission can recover the entire amount of support that it has disbursed.
165. If an ETC has a performance default for reasons other than compliance with its construction milestones, such as the failure to maintain its spectrum access, its LOC, or its ETC eligibility, these performance defaults are incurable. The ETC must report its incurable performance default within 10 days to the Commission, USAC will cease disbursing MF-II support payments in the following month for the affected area (whether one or more census block groups or a state), the ETC's participation in MF-II in the affected census block group(s) or census tract(s) will immediately end, and the amount of support subject to recoupment for the ETC's non-compliance will then be calculated based upon the final six-year milestone for either the relevant census block group(s) or census tract(s) or the entire state, depending upon the circumstances of the performance default. Specifically, the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a letter for any census block group(s) or census tract(s) or the entire state in which there has been an incurable performance default. If the incurable performance default is only for some of the ETC's census block group(s) or census tract(s), USAC will recover disbursement(s) in an amount of support that is equal to 1.89 multiplied by the average amount of support the ETC received per eligible square mile in the census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state over the time period it has received MF-II disbursements multiplied by the number of square miles unserved in each of the ETC's winning census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state that would be required to meet its respective 75 percent benchmarks, plus 10 percent of the ETC's total MF-II support received in the relevant census block group(s) or census tract(s) over the relevant period for deployment. If the incurable performance default is for an entire state, USAC will recover disbursement(s) in an amount of support that is equal to 1.89 multiplied by the average amount of support the ETC received per eligible square mile in the state over the time period it has received MF-II disbursements multiplied by the number of square miles unserved in the ETC's winning areas in the state that would be required to meet the 85 percent benchmark, plus 10 percent of the ETC's total MF-II support received in the state over the relevant period for deployment. At this point, the ETC will have six months to repay the support USAC seeks to recover. If at the end of six months the ETC has not fully paid back the support for missing the relevant benchmark, the ETC shall be liable for repayment of all the support that has been disbursed to the ETC for that state, the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a letter to that effect, and USAC will draw on the LOC(s) to recover all of the support that has been disbursed to the ETC for that state. After the ETC has paid the calculated recovery amount for an incurable performance default in a portion of a state, the Bureaus will calculate a reduced support payment for the remaining support term as set out in the
166. Finally, the Commission notes that MF-II recipients may also be subject to other sanctions for non-compliance with the terms and conditions of high-cost funding, including, but not limited to potential revocation of ETC designation and suspension or debarment.
167. In the
168. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
169. Despite the growing expansion of 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) service, rural and high-cost areas of our country have been left behind. At the same time, the Universal Service Fund spends $25 million a month (a conservative estimate) distributing legacy subsidies to mobile carriers that compete with private capital and millions more distributing duplicative subsidies to multiple carriers in the same area.
170. In the
171. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the
172. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) as a result of those comments.
173. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
174. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
175.
176.
177.
178. In the
179. Recipients of MF-II support will be required to deploy 4G LTE and to offer voice service. Recipients of MF-II funding will be required to meet minimum baseline performance requirements for data speeds, data latency, and data allowances in areas that receive support for at least one plan that they offer. Specifically, the median data speed of the network for the supported area must be 10 Mbps download speed or greater and 1 Mbps upload speed or greater, with at least 90 percent of the required download speed measurements being not less than a certain threshold speed. For latency, at least 90 percent of the required measurements must have a data latency of 100 milliseconds or less round trip. For data allowances, support recipients must offer at least one service plan that includes a data allowance comparable to mid-level service plans offered by nationwide providers—currently at least 2 GB of data per month—and that is at a rate that is within a reasonable range of rates for similar service plans offered by mobile wireless providers in urban areas. These conditions will be defined more precisely in the pre-auction process.
180. MF-II support recipients will be given a ten-year term of support with no renewal expectancy, which will begin on the first day of the month after the MF-II auction concludes. The Commission adopts interim benchmarks as well as a final benchmark for deployment of service that meets the performance metrics. The starting point for the interim benchmarks is defined as six months from the first day of the month that follows the month in which the MF-II auction closes. The Commission requires a winning bidder to demonstrate coverage of at least 40 percent by three years after the starting point, 60 percent by four years after the starting point, 80 percent by five years after the starting point, and 85 percent by six years after the starting point across all areas for which they receive MF-II support in a state. Support recipients must meet their required benchmarks across all areas for which they receive MF-II support in a state. However, for the final benchmark, every census block group or census tract in a state (depending on minimum bidding unit) must also be at least 75 percent covered. Recipients that fail to meet and maintain the performance obligations within the time provided to submit their representative data and to certify to coverage requirements will be subject to defined measures, and must cure these failures to meet the deployment requirements or they will be in performance default.
181. Entities that are interested in participating in the MF-II auction will be required to file a short-form application in order to establish their eligibility to participate. Each auction applicant will be required to provide information to establish its identity, including disclosure of parties with ownership interests, consistent with the ownership interest disclosure required in 47 CFR part 1 for applicants for spectrum licenses, as well as any agreements the applicant may have relating to the support to be sought through the auction. Each applicant will also be required to disclose and certify its ETC status, although an applicant will not be required to obtain an ETC designation prior to bidding in MF-II. Applicants will be required to disclose and certify the source of the spectrum they plan to use to meet Mobility Fund obligations in the particular area(s) for which they plan to bid. Specifically, applicants will be required to disclose whether they currently hold a license or lease the spectrum, including any necessary renewal expectancy, and whether such spectrum access is contingent on obtaining support in an MF-II auction. Applicants must have secured any Commission approvals necessary for the required spectrum access prior to submitting an auction application. Moreover, applicants will be required to certify that they will retain their access to the spectrum for at least ten years from the date support is authorized. The short-form application may also include additional certifications or requirements that are adopted in a public notice.
182. Within a specified number of days of the release of a public notice identifying an entity as a winning bidder, that winning bidder will be required to file a long-form application. In this long-form application, an applicant for MF-II support will be required to fully disclose its ownership structure as well as information regarding the real party- or parties-in-interest of the applicant or application. An applicant will also be required to submit with its long-form application appropriate documentation of its ETC designation, including the original designation order and any relevant modifications or name-change orders, in all the areas for which it will receive support or certify that it will do so within 180 days of the public notice identifying winning bidders. An applicant will be required to certify that it is financially and technically capable of providing the required coverage and performance levels within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas in which it won support.
183. For winning bids, the applicant must submit a project description that describes the network to be built or upgraded; identifies the proposed technology; demonstrates that the project is technically feasible; discloses the complete project budget; and discusses each specific phase of the project (
184. In addition, each applicant must provide in its long-form application a description of the spectrum access that it will use to meet its obligations in areas for which it is the winning bidder, including whether it currently holds a license or leases the spectrum, along with any necessary renewal expectancy, and certify that the description is accurate and that the applicant will retain such access for the entire ten-year support term. Each applicant must certify in its long-form application that it has the funds available for all project costs that exceed the amount of support to be received, and that it will comply with all program requirements, which include the public interest obligations contained in the Commission's rules. Each applicant must also certify that it will offer service in supported areas at rates that are within a reasonable range of rates for similar service plans offered by mobile wireless providers in urban areas during the term of support the applicant seeks.
185. Applicants must certify that they will meet the applicable deadlines and requirements for demonstrating interim and final performance benchmarks set forth in the rules, and that they will comply with the MF-II collocation, voice and data roaming, and reasonably comparable rate obligations. The long-form application may also include additional certifications or requirements that are adopted in a public notice.
186. Prior to the authorization of support, all winning bidders must provide the Commission with an irrevocable standby letter of credit (LOC) by a bank that is acceptable to the Commission in substantially the same form as the model Letter of Credit set forth in an appendix to the
187. At the time a winning bidder in MF-II submits its LOC, it also will be required to provide an opinion letter from legal counsel clearly stating, subject only to customary assumptions, limitations and qualifications, that in a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court would not treat the LOC or proceeds of the LOC as property of the winning bidder's bankruptcy estate, or the bankruptcy estate of any other bidder-related entity requesting issuance of the LOC, under 11 U.S.C. 541. If the winning bidder is not prepared to present its LOC at the time of the long-form application filing, it may submit a commitment letter from the bank issuing the LOC in the long-form application filing.
188. An entity will be considered to have an auction default and will be subject to a forfeiture payment if it fails to timely file a long-form application or meet the document submission deadlines, or is found ineligible or unqualified to receive MF-II support, or otherwise defaults on its bid or is disqualified for any reason prior to the authorization of support. All bidders will be subject to the same $3,000 base forfeiture per violation, subject to adjustment based on the criteria set forth in the Commission's forfeiture guidelines. A violation is defined as any form of default with respect to each geographic unit subject to a bid. However, the total base forfeiture that could be owed by a winning bidder is limited to five percent of its total bid amount for the entire ten-year support term.
189. The Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will authorize USAC to draw on the LOC(s) to recover all the support that has been disbursed in a state in the event that the MF-II recipient does not meet the relevant service milestones and does not cure its compliance gap. USAC will recover support from ETCs associated with their compliance gap in three separate circumstances. First, for interim milestones, if the ETC has a compliance gap of 50 percent or more of the eligible square miles that the ETC is required to have covered by the relevant interim milestone (
190. Second, if an ETC misses the final milestone(s), it must identify by what percentage the milestone has been missed at the state level and/or any of the census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state. The ETC will then have 12 months from that date to come into full compliance with both of those milestones. If it does not come into full compliance within 12 months because it fails to meet the 85 percent benchmark (even if it meets the 75 percent benchmark for some or all the census block group(s) or census tract(s)), the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a letter, and USAC will
191. Third, after compliance with the final build-out milestones has been verified and the ETC closes its letter of credit, if at any point during the remainder of the 10-year term of support it is determined that the ETC does not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is offering the requisite service to the required percentage of square miles by census block group or census tract, or state, USAC will withhold support for a period not to exceed six months until the ETC demonstrates that it is again providing the requisite service to the required percentage of square miles. When the ETC's demonstration of coverage has been verified by USAC, USAC will pay any withheld support and resume ongoing disbursements. If the ETC cannot provide a verifiable demonstration of coverage within the permitted six-month period, USAC will recover an amount of support that is equal to 1.89 times the average amount of support per square mile received in the winning bid area over the six-year deployment period for the relevant number of square miles for which the ETC has failed to produce sufficient evidence, plus 10 percent of the ETC's total support received in that winning bid over the six-year deployment time period and will reduce ongoing annual support. If the ETC does not repay the Commission after a six-month period permitted for repayment, it may be subject to additional non-compliance measures, including the reduction of support payments for the remaining support term and forfeitures. MF-II recipients may also be subject to other sanctions for non-compliance with the terms and conditions of high-cost funding, including, but not limited to potential revocation of ETC designation and suspension or debarment.
192. Once an MF-II recipient has been authorized to begin receiving support, it will be required to report certain information so that the Commission and USAC can track the progress of MF-II recipients and monitor their use of the public's funds before and after they meet service milestones. All MF-II recipients will be required to file annual reports. Recipients will be required to file their reports each year following the year in which the auction closes by July 1, including all the certifications required under the MF-II rules, and in which the recipient will update information, as required for the following year.
193. MF-II recipients will be required to file a Milestone Report on or before its third, fourth, fifth, and sixth year performance deadline. The Bureaus will define more precisely the content and format of the information, including substantiation that recipients are required to include in their Milestone Reports, such that it is consistent with the evidence that will be required from challenging parties in the challenge process. Reports should be filed via the portal that USAC is creating to receive filings by universal service support recipients.
194. Support will be reduced for recipients that miss reporting, certification, and milestone filing deadlines. A minimum reduction of support of seven days of total statewide support for a winning bid in any state for which a filing deadline is missed will be imposed. In addition to the reduction of the initial seven days of support, support will be reduced further state-wide on a pro-rata daily basis until the MF-II recipient files the required report or certification. For a late filer, a one-time grace period of three days will be provided so that a recipient that quickly rectifies its error within three days of the deadline will not be subject to the seven-day minimum loss of support. USAC will send a letter to such a recipient notifying it that its filing was late but cured within the grace period. If the recipient again files any filing late, the grace period will not be available.
195. Each recipient will be required to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the information it furnishes in its long-form application and its annual and milestone reports. Recipients must update their annual reports and milestone reports to provide information about any substantial change that may be of decisional significance regarding their eligibility for MF-II support and compliance with MF-II requirements. Such notification of a substantial change, including any reduction in the percentage of eligible square miles being served or any failure to comply with any of the MF-II requirements, must be submitted within 10 business days after the reportable event occurs. If a support recipient drops below the level of service to which it has certified in a milestone report or an annual report during the six-year deployment period, it will be subject to the Commission rules for non-compliance.
196. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements
197. The Commission has considered the economic impact on small entities in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding. The rules adopted in the
198. To determine coverage levels in individual census blocks and whether MF-II support is being awarded, the Commission has decided to rely on Form 477 and high-cost disbursement data available from USAC. Not only is this information the most reliable data currently available for the purpose of determining the coverage levels of existing mobile services, but it can also provide sufficiently granular information to identify those areas of the country that lack 4G LTE service or where such service is only provided by a subsidized provider. Moreover, the Commission will utilize a streamlined challenge process to provide interested parties, including small entities, with an opportunity to challenge the coverage analysis and improve its accuracy. The Bureaus will make an initial determination of eligible areas by census block as part of the pre-auction process. Subsequently, the Bureaus will implement a process consistent with the decisions the Commission will make after review of the record received in response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included with the
199. The Commission amends its rules for the phase-down of identical support to account for the relative costs of deploying a coverage-based network given the differing terrain throughout the United States. Wireless providers, including smaller providers, incur additional costs to deploy service in more difficult terrain. Accordingly, the Bureaus will apply a more-refined methodology that uses a terrain factor as a proxy for determining higher cost areas. In census blocks determined (after the completion of the challenge process) not to be eligible for MF-II support, legacy support will be phased down starting the first day of the month following release of a public notice announcing the close of the MF-II auction. On that same date, legacy support for current recipients in eligible census blocks shall either be converted to MF-II support (for the winning bidder), maintained (for one CETC in areas without a winning bidder), or subject to phase down (for all other CETCs). More specifically, in census blocks determined (after the completion of the challenge process) not to be eligible for MF-II, legacy support will be phased down starting the first day of the month following the close of the MF-II auction. For the first 12 months thereafter, phase-down support shall be
200. The Commission has taken a number of steps to ensure that small entities have the opportunity to participate in the MF-II auction. For example, the Commission adopts more flexible eligibility requirements by permitting a winning bidder in the MF-II auction to obtain its ETC designation after the close of the auction, provided that it submits proof of its ETC designation within 180 days of the public notice identifying winning bidders. The Commission found that the benefits of encouraging greater participation in the competitive bidding process by all interested parties, including small entities, outweigh the possible risk that a winning bidder will not meet the necessary requirements to be designated as an ETC. The Commission also recognized that some qualified bidders, including small entities, may be hesitant to invest resources to apply for an ETC designation prior to the competitive bidding process without any sense of whether they are likely to be awarded MF-II support.
201. While the Commission requested comment on whether to adopt a bidding credit preference for Tribally-owned-and-controlled entities, it finds that such a bidding credit preference is unnecessary for the MF-II auction. Setting aside funds specifically to serve Tribal lands is likely to accomplish the Commission's goal of ensuring greater coverage on Tribal lands. The Commission also finds that layering an additional bidding credit for Tribal carriers on top of the funding exclusively available for service to Tribal lands could deter other entities from bidding to serve Tribal lands, reducing both the competitiveness of the auction and the potential reach of the Commission's finite funds for MF-II. Furthermore, commenters fail to demonstrate that the benefits of a bidding credit preference outweigh the costs of potentially depriving other eligible areas of MF-II support.
202. The Commission requested comment on the adoption of a small business bidding preference and the small business definition that should apply if it adopts such a bidding preference for MF-II. The Commission, however, declines to adopt a bidding preference for small businesses for MF-II. It agrees with commenters that
203. The Commission adopts requirements for the short-form and long-form applications that will maximize the number and types of entities that can participate. For example, it adopts a two-stage application process for an applicant seeking to participate in the MF-II auction under which interested parties will submit a pre-auction “short-form” application, providing basic information and certifications regarding their eligibility to receive support, and then a long-form application, fully disclosing its ownership structure, information and certifications regarding applicant eligibility, and plans to meet performance requirements. This process is similar to that used in spectrum license auctions and for Mobility Fund Phase I. Since the Commission anticipates that many interested parties, including small entities, will already be familiar with these requirements, it expects that the application procedures will minimize burdens on applicants and encourage a wide variety of parties to participate.
204. In light of concerns expressed by commenters, including small entities, the Commission adopts more flexible provisions for MF-II LOCs to help ease the administrative burden for support recipients. For example, the Commission adopts LOC provisions that closely align with the CAF-II LOC process and the MF-II performance requirements, allowing the LOC to decrease over time as a support recipient satisfies its minimum coverage and service requirements. The Commission also allows winning bidders to provide a single LOC covering all its winning bids within a single state, reducing the number of LOCs that a winning bidder may need. Moreover, the Commission amends and expands the definition of an “acceptable bank” for the purposes of MF-II LOC requirements, which will lower barriers for entities, particularly small and rural businesses that might otherwise face obstacles in obtaining an LOC from a smaller pool of banks. The Commission also allows the submission of a commitment letter from the bank issuing the LOC in the long-form application filing, if the winning bidder is not prepared to present its LOC at the time of the long-form application filing.
205. Similarly, the Commission adopts more flexible measures for non-compliance that will better enable support recipients, including small entities, to meet the MF-II goals of preserving and expanding service. For example, the Commission adopts a more measured approach to recouping payment in the event of default than the Commission employed in the MF-I auction. The Commission also limits when USAC will be permitted to recover support from ETCs associated with their compliance gap and conclude that only if the ETC fails to repay in full after six months, USAC will be authorized to draw on the letter of credit to recover 100 percent of the support that has been disbursed to the ETC within the state.
206. The Commission notes that the reporting requirements it adopts are tailored to ensuring that support is used for its intended purposes and so that the Commission and USAC can monitor the ongoing progress and performance of all MF-II recipients. The Commission finds the benefits in establishing annual and milestone reporting obligations outweigh any potential burdens on the recipients in filing these reports because the targeted information required will be the type of data that MF-II recipients will be already collecting for their own business purposes and will help to ensure that program goals are met. Nevertheless, to help minimize the burden of reporting requirements, including the burden on small businesses, the Commission has adopted annual and milestone reporting requirements that are consistent with the reporting requirements for MF-I and CAF-II support recipients, including grace periods for missed filing deadlines.
207. The Commission will send a copy of the
208. Accordingly,
209.
210.
211.
212.
Administrative practice and procedures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Communications common carriers, Internet, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 54 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 79,
(b)
(1)
(ii) Procedures for collecting bids on an item-by-item basis, or using various aggregation specifications.
(iii) Procedures for collecting bids that specify contingencies linking bids on the same item and/or for multiple items.
(iv) Procedures allowing for bids that specify a support level, indicate demand at a specified support level, or provide other information as specified by the Commission.
(v) Procedures to collect bids in one or more stage or stages, including for transitions between stages.
(2)
(ii) Procedures to incorporate public interest considerations into the process for assigning winning bids.
(3)
(ii) Procedures that provide for support amounts based on the amount as bid or on other pricing rules, either uniform or discriminatory.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
The revision reads as follows:
(e) * * *
(5)
(A) Upon the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus' release of a public notice approving a mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier's application submitted pursuant to § 54.104(b) and authorizing the carrier to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support, the carrier shall no longer receive support at the level of monthly baseline support pursuant to this section for such area. Thereafter, the carrier shall receive monthly support in the amount of its Mobility Fund Phase II winning bid, provided that USAC shall adjust the amount of the carrier's support to the extent necessary to account for any difference in support the carrier received during the period between the close of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction and the release of the public notice authorizing the carrier to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support.
(B) A mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier that is a winning bidder in the Mobility Fund Phase II auction but is not authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support shall receive monthly support as set forth in paragraphs (e)(5)(iii) and (iv) of this section for such area, as applicable, provided that USAC shall decrease such
(ii) A mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier that receives monthly baseline support pursuant to this section shall receive the following monthly support amounts for areas that are ineligible for Mobility Fund Phase II support, as determined by the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus:
(A) For 12 months starting the first day of the month following the close of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction, each mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier shall receive two-thirds (
(B) For 12 months starting the month following the period described in paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, each mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier shall receive one-third (
(C) Following the period described in paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(B) of this section, no mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier shall receive monthly baseline support for the ineligible area pursuant to this section.
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, to the extent Mobility Fund Phase II support is not awarded at auction for an eligible area, as determined by the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus, the mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier receiving the minimum level of sustainable support for the eligible area shall continue to receive support at the level described in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section until further Commission action, but such support shall not extend for more than 60 months from the first day of the month following the close of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction. The “minimum level of sustainable support” is the lowest monthly baseline support received by a mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier that deploys the highest technology for the eligible area.
(iv) All other mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carriers shall receive the following monthly support amounts for areas that are eligible for Mobility Fund Phase II support, as determined by the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus:
(A) For 12 months starting the first day of the month following the close of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction, each mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier shall receive two-thirds (
(B) For 12 months starting the month following the period described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(A) of this section, each mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier shall receive one-third (
(C) Following the period described in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(B) of this section, no mobile competitive eligible telecommunications carrier shall receive monthly baseline support for the eligible area pursuant to this section.
(v) Notwithstanding the foregoing schedule, the phase-down of identical support below the level described in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section shall be subject to the restrictions in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, Div. E, Title VI, section 631, 129 Stat. 2242, 2470 (2015), unless and until such restrictions are no longer in effect.
(k) This section does not apply to recipients that solely receive support from Phase I and Phase II of the Mobility Fund.
The Commission will use competitive bidding, as provided in part 1, subpart AA of this chapter, to determine the recipients of support available through Phase II of the Mobility Fund and the amount(s) of support that they may receive for specific geographic areas, subject to applicable post-auction procedures.
(a) Mobility Fund Phase II support may be made available for eligible geographic areas as identified by public notice prior to auction.
(b) Coverage units for purposes of conducting competitive bidding and disbursing support based on designated square miles in a geographic area will be identified by public notice for each area eligible for support prior to auction.
(a) An applicant shall be an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in an area in order to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support for that area. An applicant may obtain its designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier after the close of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction, provided that the applicant submits proof of its designation within 180 days of the public notice identifying the applicant as a winning bidder. An applicant shall not receive Mobility Fund Phase II support prior to the submission of proof of its designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier. After such submission, the Eligible Telecommunications Carrier shall receive a balloon payment that will consist of the carrier's monthly Mobility Fund Phase II payment amount multiplied by the number of whole months between the first day of the month after the close of the auction and the issuance of the public notice authorizing the carrier to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support.
(b) An applicant shall have access to spectrum in an area that enables it to satisfy the applicable performance requirements in order to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support for that area. The applicant shall describe its access to spectrum and certify, in a form acceptable to the Commission, that it has such access at the time it applies to participate in competitive bidding and
(c) An applicant shall certify that it is financially and technically qualified to provide the services supported by Mobility Fund Phase II within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas for which it seeks support in order to receive such support.
(a)
(1) Provide ownership information as set forth in § 1.2112(a) of this chapter as well as information on any agreement the applicant may have relating to the support to be sought through the auction;
(2) Certify that the applicant is financially and technically capable of meeting the public interest obligations of § 54.1015 in each area for which it seeks support;
(3) Disclose its status as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in any area for which it will seek support or as an entity that will file an application to become an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in any such area after winning support in Mobility Fund Phase II, and certify that the disclosure is accurate; and
(4) Describe the spectrum access that the applicant plans to use to meet obligations in areas for which it will bid for support, including whether the applicant currently holds or leases the spectrum, including any necessary renewal expectancy, and whether such spectrum access is contingent upon receiving support in a Mobility Fund Phase II auction, and certify that the description is accurate and that the applicant will retain such access for the entire ten (10) year Mobility Fund Phase II support term.
(b)
(2)
(i) Identification of the party seeking the support, including ownership information as set forth in § 1.2112(a) of this chapter;
(ii) Certification that the applicant is financially and technically capable of providing the required coverage and performance levels within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas in which it won support;
(iii) Proof of the applicant's status as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, or a statement that the applicant will become an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in any area for which it seeks support within 180 days of the public notice identifying them as winning bidders, and certification that the proof is accurate;
(iv) A description of the spectrum access that the applicant plans to use to meet obligations in areas for which it is winning bidder for support, including whether the applicant currently holds or leases the spectrum, along with any necessary renewal expectancy, and certification that the description is accurate and that the applicant will retain such access for the entire ten (10) year Mobility Fund Phase II support term;
(v) A detailed project description that describes the network to be built or upgraded, identifies the proposed technology, demonstrates that the project is technically feasible, discloses the complete project budget, and discusses each specific phase of the project (
(vi) Certifications that the applicant has available funds for all project costs that exceed the amount of support to be received from Mobility Fund Phase II and that the applicant will comply with all program requirements, including the public interest obligations set forth in § 54.1015;
(vii) Any guarantee of performance that the Commission may require by public notice or other proceedings, including but not limited to the letters of credit required in § 54.1016, or a written commitment from an acceptable bank, as defined in § 54.1016(a)(2), to issue such a letter of credit;
(viii) Certification that the applicant will offer service in supported areas at rates that are within a reasonable range of rates for similar service plans offered by mobile wireless providers in urban areas during the term of support the applicant seeks;
(ix) Certification that the party submitting the application is authorized to do so on behalf of the applicant; and
(x) Such additional information as the Commission may require.
(3)
(ii) Any application that, as of the submission deadline, either does not identify the applicant seeking support as specified in the public notice announcing application procedures, or does not include required certifications, shall be denied.
(iii) An applicant may be afforded an opportunity to make minor modifications to amend its application or correct defects noted by the applicant, the Commission, the Administrator, or other parties. Minor modifications include correcting typographical errors in the application and supplying non-material information that was inadvertently omitted or was not available at the time the application was submitted.
(iv) Applications to which major modifications are made after the deadline for submitting applications shall be denied. Major modifications include, but are not limited to, any changes in the ownership of the applicant that constitute an assignment or change of control, or the identity of the applicant, or the certifications required in the application.
(v) After receipt and review of the applications, a public notice shall identify each winning bidder that may be authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support, after the winning bidder submits a Letter of Credit and an accompanying opinion letter as required by § 54.1016, in a form acceptable to the Commission, and any final designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier that any applicant may still require. Each such winning bidder shall submit a Letter of Credit and an accompanying opinion letter as required by § 54.1016, in a form acceptable to the Commission, and any required final designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier no later than ten (10) business days following the release of the public notice.
(vi) After receipt of all necessary information, a public notice will identify each winning bidder that is authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support.
(a)
(1) Outdoor median data transmission rates of 1 Mbps upload and 10 Mbps download, with at least 90 percent of the required download speed measurements not less than a certain threshold speed that will be defined prior to the Mobility Fund Phase II auction; and
(2) Transmission latency of 100 ms or less round trip for at least 90 percent of the measurements.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(a) Before being authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support, a winning bidder shall obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit which shall be acceptable in all respects to the Commission.
(1) Each recipient authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support shall maintain the standby letter of credit or multiple standby letters of credit in an amount equal to at a minimum the amount of Mobility Fund Phase II auction support that has been disbursed and that will be disbursed in the coming year, until the Universal Service Administrative Company has verified that the recipient met the final service milestone as described in § 54.1015(d) of this chapter.
(i) Once the recipient has met its 60 percent service milestone as described in § 54.1015(b) of this chapter, it may, subject to the consent of the Universal Service Administrative Company, obtain a new letter of credit or renew its existing letter of credit so that it is valued at a minimum at 90 percent of the total support amount already disbursed plus the amount that will be disbursed in the coming year.
(ii) Once the recipient has met its 80 percent service milestone as described in § 54.1015(c) of this chapter, it may, subject to the consent of the Universal Service Administrative Company, obtain a new letter of credit or renew its existing letter of credit so that it is valued at a minimum at 80 percent of the total support amount already disbursed plus the amount that will be disbursed in the coming year.
(2)
(i) Any United States Bank—
(A) Whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and
(B) That has a Weiss bank safety rating of B− or higher, or
(ii) CoBank, ACB—
(A) As long as it maintains assets that would place it among the top-100 U.S. banks in terms of the amount of assets, determined on the basis of total assets as of the end of the calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the letter of credit;
(B) Its obligations are insured by the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation; and
(C) It has a long-term unsecured credit rating of BBB− or better from Standard & Poor's (or the equivalent from a nationally-recognized credit rating agency); or
(iii) The National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation—
(A) As long as it maintains assets that would place it among the top-100 U.S. banks in terms of the amount of assets, determined on the basis of total assets as of the end of the calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the letter of credit; and
(B) It has a long-term unsecured credit rating of BBB− or better from Standard & Poor's (or the equivalent from a nationally-recognized credit rating agency); or
(iv) Any non-U.S. bank that—
(A) Is among the 100 largest non-U.S. banks in the world, determined on the basis of total assets as of the end of the calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the letter of credit (determined on a U.S. dollar equivalent basis as of such date);
(B) Has a branch office in the District of Columbia or such other branch office agreed to by the Commission;
(C) Maintains a credit rating of BBB− or better from Standard & Poor's (or the equivalent from a nationally-recognized credit rating agency); and
(D) Issues the letter of credit payable in United States dollars.
(b) Before being authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support, a winning bidder shall provide with its letter of credit an opinion letter from legal counsel clearly stating, subject only to customary assumptions, limitations, and qualifications, that in a proceeding under Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. 101
(c) Authorization to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support is conditioned upon full and timely performance of all the requirements set forth in this section, § 54.1015, and any additional terms and conditions upon which the support was granted.
(1) If a Mobility Fund Phase II recipient has triggered a recovery action by USAC as set out in § 54.1017 and has failed to repay the requisite amount of support within six (6) months, USAC will be entitled to draw the entire amount of the letter of credit and may disqualify the Mobility Fund Phase II recipient from the receipt of Mobility Fund Phase II auction support or additional universal service support.
(2) The default will be evidenced by a letter issued by the Chief of either the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau or Wireline Competition Bureau or their respective designees, which letter, describing the performance default and attached to a standby letter of credit draw certificate, shall be sufficient for a draw on the standby letter of credit.
(a) Mobile eligible telecommunications carriers subject to defined build-out milestones in § 54.1015 must notify the Commission and USAC, and the relevant state, U.S. Territory, or Tribal government, if applicable, within ten (10) business days after the applicable deadline if they have failed to meet a build-out milestone.
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A) USAC will withhold 50 percent of the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's monthly support for that state, and the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier will be required to file quarterly reports. As with the other tiers, as the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier reports that it has lessened the extent of its non-compliance, and the Wireline Competition Bureau or Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issues a letter to that effect, it will move down the tiers until it reaches Tier 1 (or no longer is out of compliance with the relevant interim milestone).
(B) If, after having 50 percent of its support withheld for six (6) months, the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier has not reported that it has a compliance gap of less than 50 percent, USAC will withhold 100 percent of the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's monthly support for the state and will commence a recovery action for a percentage of support that is equal to the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's compliance gap plus 10 percent of the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's support that has been disbursed to that date.
(v)
(2)
(i) If the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier does not report that it has come into full compliance with this milestone within twelve (12) months because it fails to meet the 85 percent benchmark (even if it meets the 75 percent benchmark for some or all the census block group(s) or census tract(s)), the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a letter, and USAC will recover disbursement(s) in an amount of support that is equal to 1.89 multiplied by the average amount of support the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier received per eligible square mile in the state over the six year period multiplied by the number of square miles unserved in the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's winning areas in the state that would be required to meet the 85 percent benchmark, plus 10 percent of the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's total Mobility Fund Phase II support received in the state over the six-year period for deployment. After the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier has paid the calculated recovery amount for failure to comply with the final deployment milestone, the Bureaus will calculate a reduced support payment for the remaining support term based on the percentage of deployment coverage completed. The reduced ongoing annual support amount will be the total of the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's original winning bid amounts for annual support in the state multiplied by the sum of the actual deployment percentage plus 15 percent (
(ii) If the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier does not report that it has come into full compliance with this milestone within twelve (12) months because it fails to meet the 75 percent benchmark(s) for any census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state at the final milestone (even if it meets the 85 percent statewide benchmark), the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a letter for any such census block group(s) or census tract(s), and USAC will recover disbursement(s) in an amount of support that is equal to 1.89 multiplied by the average amount of support the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier received per eligible square mile in the census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state over the six year period multiplied by the number of square miles unserved in each of the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's winning census block group(s) or census tract(s) in the state that would be required to meet their respective 75 percent benchmarks, plus 10 percent of the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's total Mobility Fund Phase II support received in the relevant census block group(s) or census tract(s) over the six-year period for deployment. The mobile eligible telecommunications carrier will have six months to repay the support USAC seeks to recover. After the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier has paid the calculated recovery amount, the Bureaus will calculate a reduced support payment for the remaining support term. The reduced ongoing annual support amount will be the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier's original winning bid amount for annual support in any such census block group or census tract, multiplied by the sum of the actual deployment percentage plus 25 percent (
(3)
(b) [Reserved].
(a) A winning bidder for Mobility Fund Phase II support will be advised by public notice whether it has been authorized to receive such support. The public notice will detail how disbursements will be made.
(b) Mobility Fund Phase II support will be available for monthly disbursement to a winning bidder authorized to receive such support for ten years from the first day of the month that follows the month in which the Mobility Fund Phase II auction closes.
(a) A winning bidder authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support shall submit an annual report no later than July 1 in each year for the ten (10) years after it is so authorized.
(b) The party submitting the annual report must certify that it has been authorized to do so by the winning bidder.
(c) Each annual report shall be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, clearly referencing the appropriate docket for Mobility Fund Phase II reporting; the Administrator; and the relevant state commissions, relevant authority in a U.S. Territory, or Tribal governments, as appropriate, until such time that the Administrator announces that annual reports shall be filed solely via the Administrator's online portal.
(d) In each annual report, a recipient of Mobility Fund Phase II support shall certify that it is in compliance with all requirements for receipt of such support to continue receiving Mobility Fund Phase II disbursements.
(e) Winning bidders have a continuing obligation to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in their long-form applications and their annual reports. All winning bidders shall provide information about any substantial change that may be of decisional significance regarding their eligibility for Mobility Fund Phase II support and compliance with Mobility Fund Phase II requirements as an update to their annual report submitted to the entities listed in § 54.1019(c). Such notification of a substantial change, including any reduction in the percentage of eligible square miles being served or any failure to comply with any of the Mobility Fund Phase II requirements, shall be submitted within ten (10) business days after the reportable event occurs.
(f) In order for a recipient of Mobility Fund Phase II support to continue to receive support for the following calendar year, it must submit the annual report required by this section annually by July 1 of each year. Mobile eligible telecommunications carriers that file their reports after the July 1 deadline shall receive a reduction in support pursuant to the following schedule:
(1) A mobile eligible telecommunications carrier that files after the July 1 deadline, but by July 8, will have its support reduced in an amount equivalent to seven (7) days of support;
(2) A mobile eligible telecommunications carrier that files on or after July 9 will have its support reduced on a pro-rata daily basis equivalent to the period of non-compliance, plus the minimum seven-day reduction.
(f) A mobile eligible telecommunications carrier that submits the annual reporting information required by this section within three (3) days of the July 1 deadline will not receive a reduction in support if the mobile eligible telecommunications carrier has not missed the July 1 deadline in any prior year.
(a) A winning bidder authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support shall submit the reports required in § 54.1015(a) through (d) as well as certifications that it has met the construction requirements in § 54.1015(a) through (d).
(b) The party submitting the report must certify that it has been authorized to do so by the winning bidder.
(c) Each report shall be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, clearly referencing the appropriate docket for Mobility Fund Phase II reporting; the Administrator; and the relevant state commissions, relevant authority in a U.S. Territory, or Tribal governments, as appropriate, until such time that the Administrator announces that such reports shall be filed solely via the Administrator's online portal.
(d) Winning bidders have a continuing obligation to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in their long-form applications and their milestone reports. All winning bidders shall provide information about any substantial change that may be of decisional significance regarding their eligibility for Mobility Fund Phase II support and compliance with Mobility Fund Phase II requirements as an update to their milestone report submitted to the entities listed in paragraph (c) of this section. Such notification of a substantial change, including any reduction in the percentage of eligible square miles being served or any failure to comply with any of the Mobility Fund Phase II requirements, shall be submitted within ten (10) business days after the reportable event occurs.
(e) In order for a recipient of Mobility Fund Phase II support to continue to receive support for the following calendar year, it must submit the milestone reports required by this section by the deadlines set forth in § 54.1015(a) through (d). Mobile eligible telecommunications carriers that file their reports after the relevant deadlines shall receive a reduction in support pursuant to the following schedule:
(1) A mobile eligible telecommunications carrier that files after the deadline, but within seven days of the deadline, will have its support reduced in an amount equivalent to seven (7) days of support;
(2) A mobile eligible telecommunications carrier that files on or after the eighth day following the deadline will have its support reduced on a pro-rata daily basis equivalent to the period of non-compliance, plus the minimum seven-day reduction.
(g) A mobile eligible telecommunications carrier that submits the milestone reporting information required by this section within three (3)
A winning bidder authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support and its agents are subject to the record retention requirements in § 54.320.
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 |