| Page Range | 15457-15606 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 15605 - Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 15543 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 82 FR 15544 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15524 - Deletion of Items From Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15544 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15493 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of Less Than Fair Value Investigation and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 15557 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Forms 14134 and 14135 | |
| 82 FR 15461 - Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List | |
| 82 FR 15458 - Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List; Addition of a Person to the Entity List; and EAR Conforming Change | |
| 82 FR 15497 - National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Executive Council Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15547 - Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures Against Rosoboronexport, Including a Ban on U.S. Government Procurement | |
| 82 FR 15517 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 15523 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 15548 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Alsayed Murtadha Majeed Ramadhan Alawi, aka Murtadha Majeed Ramadan Al Sindi, aka Murtadha Majeed Ramadhan al-Sindi, aka Mortada Majid Al-Sanadi as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 82 FR 15528 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier's Certificate and Release | |
| 82 FR 15530 - Agency Information Collection Activities: e-Allegations Submission | |
| 82 FR 15530 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Documents Required Aboard Private Aircraft | |
| 82 FR 15529 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Foreign Trade Zone Annual Reconciliation Certification and Record Keeping Requirement | |
| 82 FR 15548 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Ahmad Hasan Yusuf, aka Abu-Maryam, aka Sajjad Hassan Nasir Al Zubaydi as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 82 FR 15547 - Determination and Certification Under Section 490(b)(l)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act Relating to the Largest Exporting and Importing Countries or Certain Precursor Chemicals | |
| 82 FR 15522 - Mercury; Initial Inventory Report of Supply, Use, and Trade | |
| 82 FR 15492 - Meeting of Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 15559 - Amended: Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15457 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Correction | |
| 82 FR 15549 - Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice; Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15532 - Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Fourth Quarter of Calendar Year 2016 | |
| 82 FR 15524 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 15494 - Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Final Decision To Rescind the Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review of Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd. | |
| 82 FR 15549 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Harris and Chambers Counties, Tex. | |
| 82 FR 15560 - Increase in Maximum Tuition and Fee Amounts Payable Under the Post-9/11 GI Bill | |
| 82 FR 15539 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Deep South Expansion Project, Lander and Eureka Counties, NV | |
| 82 FR 15550 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 15476 - Safety Zone; Tall Ships Charleston, Cooper River, Charleston, SC | |
| 82 FR 15478 - Safety Zone, Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor; Charleston, SC | |
| 82 FR 15518 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 15551 - Household Goods (HHG) Consumer Protection Working Group Second Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15531 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Request for Federal Assistance Form-How To Process Mission Assignments in Federal Disaster Operations | |
| 82 FR 15526 - Request for Information for the Development of the Fiscal Year 2019 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research | |
| 82 FR 15514 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Extend Collection 3038-0049: Procedural Requirements for Requests for Interpretative, No-Action, and Exemptive Letters | |
| 82 FR 15552 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 82 FR 15554 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 15495 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meetings | |
| 82 FR 15496 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15543 - Recommended Practice for Dealing With Outlying Observations | |
| 82 FR 15517 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for United States Air Force F-35a Operational Beddown-Pacific | |
| 82 FR 15474 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation Turboshaft Engines | |
| 82 FR 15516 - Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15555 - Prevention of Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations | |
| 82 FR 15486 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2018 End-to-End Census Test-Peak Operations | |
| 82 FR 15519 - Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) | |
| 82 FR 15556 - Transfer of Federally Assisted Land or Facility | |
| 82 FR 15527 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15464 - Revisions to the Requirements for Authority To Manufacture and Distribute Postage Evidencing Systems | |
| 82 FR 15524 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10411, SunFirst Bank, St. George, Utah | |
| 82 FR 15492 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 15558 - Voluntary Service National Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15559 - Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15521 - National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 15520 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 15522 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 15519 - Ryan Yoder; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 15546 - Kansas Disaster Number KS-00099 | |
| 82 FR 15548 - Notice of Public Meeting of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board | |
| 82 FR 15547 - Wyoming Disaster #WY-00038 | |
| 82 FR 15541 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 15541 - Biodiesel From Argentina and Indonesia: Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
| 82 FR 15468 - Candidate Debates | |
| 82 FR 15527 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 15526 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Meetings | |
| 82 FR 15525 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 15545 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 15518 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 15481 - Information Collection Request; Customer Data Worksheet Request for Business Partner Record Change | |
| 82 FR 15481 - Information Collection Request; Disaster Assistance (General) | |
| 82 FR 15525 - Agency Information Collection Request; 30-Day Public Comment Request, Grants.gov | |
| 82 FR 15483 - Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 15482 - Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 15514 - Endangered Species; File No. 21043 | |
| 82 FR 15484 - Sitka Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 15486 - Siskiyou (OR) Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 15483 - Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 15485 - Forest Resource Coordinating Committee | |
| 82 FR 15513 - Meeting of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 15485 - New Mexico Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Technical Advisory Panel | |
| 82 FR 15527 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 15544 - Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations | |
| 82 FR 15457 - Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United States | |
| 82 FR 15497 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seattle Multimodal Construction Project in Washington State | |
| 82 FR 15564 - Securities Transaction Settlement Cycle | |
| 82 FR 15557 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 5306A | |
| 82 FR 15558 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Cognitive and Psychological Research Coordinated by Statistics of Income on Behalf of All IRS Operations Functions |
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Economic Analysis Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule; technical correction.
On March 21, 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published in the
On March 21, 2017, DOE further temporarily postponed the effective date of its final rule amending the test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps published in the
As published, the March 21, 2017, notice may potentially result in confusion regarding how to correctly conduct DOE's central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure. Because this final rule would simply correct errors in the preamble without making any changes to the test procedures, the changes addressed in this document are technical in nature. Accordingly, DOE finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to not issue a separate document to solicit public comment on the changes contained in this document. Issuing a separate document to solicit public comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the January 5, 2017 test procedure final rule remain unchanged for this final rule technical correction. These determinations are set forth in the January 5, 2017, final rule. 82 FR 1426.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
This action changes the effective date of a final rule published in the
The effective date of the final rule published on February 27, 2017 (82 FR 11804) is delayed from April 27, 2017 to October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published a final rule amending area navigation (RNAV) routes Q-39 and Q-67 in the eastern United States (82 FR 11804, February 27, 2017), Docket No. FAA-2016-0986. The effective date for that final rule is April 27, 2017. The FAA expects to complete associated enroute and terminal procedures for these routes by for October 12, 2017; therefore the rule
Area navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 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 area navigation routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of Title 5, United States Code, (the Administrative Procedure Act) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. The FAA finds that prior notice and public comment to this final rule is unnecessary due to the brief length of the extension of the effective date and the fact that there is no substantive change to the rule.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective date of the final rule, Airspace Docket 15-AEA-7, as published in the
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., P. 389.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing two persons listed under the destination of China from the Entity List. The two removals are the result of a request for removal received by BIS pursuant to the section of the EAR used for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entry and a review of information provided in the removal request in accordance with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity. In light of the recent settlement of administrative and criminal enforcement actions against ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun, the End-User Review Committee (ERC) has determined that these two persons being removed have performed their undertakings to the U.S. Government in a timely manner and have otherwise cooperated with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter which led to the two entities' listing.
This final rule also adds one person to the Entity List. This person who is added to the Entity List has been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. This person will be listed on the Entity List under the destination of China.
Lastly, this final rule makes a conforming change to the EAR as a result of the removal of these two persons from the Entity List.
This rule is effective March 29, 2017.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email:
The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The “license review policy” for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the
The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove the following two entries from the Entity List: Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporation and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. These two entities were added to the Entity List on March 8, 2016 (see 81 FR 12006).
The U.S. Government recently reached an agreement with ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun for the settlement of administrative charges and entry of a guilty plea in a criminal case against the companies. On March 7, 2017, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., issued a statement regarding the settlement and guilty plea, which resulted in a very substantial monetary penalty, intrusive independent monitoring, and additional suspended penalties that will be imposed if ZTE fails to meet its obligations or further violates U.S. export controls.
In light of the settlement, the ERC has determined that ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun have performed their undertakings to the U.S. Government in a timely manner and have otherwise cooperated with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter which led to the two entities' listing. Therefore, the ERC has decided to remove these two entities from the Entity List.
This final rule implements the decision to remove the following two entities located in China from the Entity List:
(1)
(2)
The removal of the persons referenced above, which was approved by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to these entities. However, the removal of these persons from the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally, this removal does not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.
This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add one person to the Entity List. This person is being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The person added to the Entity List will be listed under the destination of China.
The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add this person to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List if there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 include an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.
Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that this person, Shi Lirong, located in the destination of China, be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that Shi Lirong has been involved in actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, Shi Lirong was the CEO of ZTE Corporation at the time the ZTE documents that contributed to ZTE's listing were signed. Shi Lirong signed and approved the document “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters,” which described how ZTE planned and organized a scheme to establish, control and use a series of “detached” (
Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of this person raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving this person, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the person, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR. Therefore, this person is being added to the Entity List.
For this person added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to this person or in which such person acts as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to this person being added to the Entity List in this rule.
This final rule adds the following person to the Entity List:
(1)
This final rule removes Supplement No. 7 to part 744—Temporary General License, which was originally added to the EAR in a final rule on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15633). The March 24 final rule amended the EAR by adding Supplement No. 7 to part 744 to create a temporary general license that returned, until June 30, 2016, the licensing and other policies of the EAR regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to those which were in effect prior to their addition to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. BIS subsequently extended the validity date of the temporary general license on four occasions (June 28, 2016 (81 FR 41799), August 19, 2016 (81 FR 55372), November 18, 2016 (81 FR 81663), and February 24, 2017 (82 FR 11505)), resulting in the current validity end-date of March 29, 2017.
As described above under the section
Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (
Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
5. For the two persons removed from the Entity List in this final rule and for the conforming EAR change to remove Supplement No. 7 to part 744, BIS finds good cause, pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.
In determining whether to grant a request for removal from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed persons requesting removal from the Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR 49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). These two removals have been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales to the entities removed by this rule because the customer remained a listed person on the Entity List even after the ERC approved the removal pursuant to the regulatory process established by the rule published at 73 FR 49311 on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS allows the applicants to receive U.S. exports immediately because the applicants already have received approval by the ERC pursuant to 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b).
Removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5 and 15 CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public the detailed information on which the ERC relied to make the decisions to remove these entities. In addition, the information included in the removal request is information exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List contain confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such removal requests.
Additionally, section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the
No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
The addition reads as follows:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing seven persons under ten entries from the Entity List. This rule removes four persons listed under the destination of Germany, one person listed under the destination of Hong Kong, one person listed under the destination of India, one person listed under the destination of Singapore, one person listed under the destination of Switzerland, and two persons under the destination of the United Arab Emirates from the Entity List. The three additional entries are being removed to account for two persons listed under more than one destination on the Entity List. All seven of the removals are the result of requests for removal received by BIS pursuant to the section of the EAR used for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity and a review of information provided in the removal requests in accordance with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity.
This rule is effective March 29, 2017.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email:
The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The “license review policy” for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the
The ERC, composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove the following ten entries from the Entity List on the basis of removal requests received by BIS: Industrio GmbH, Martin Hess, Peter Duenker, and Wilhelm “Bill” Holler, all located in Germany; Frank Genin, located in Hong Kong and the U.A.E. (which accounts for two of the entries this final rule removes); Beaumont Trading AG, located in India, Switzerland, and the U.A.E. (which accounts for three of the entries this final rule removes); and Amanda Sng, located in Singapore. These seven persons under ten entries were added to the Entity List on March 21, 2016 (see 81 FR 14958). The ERC decided to remove these seven persons under ten entries based on information received by BIS pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR
This final rule implements the decision to remove the following four entities located in Germany, one entity located in Hong Kong, one entity located in India, one entity located in Singapore, one entity located in Switzerland, and two entities located in the U.A.E. from the Entity List:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
The removal of the persons referenced above, which was approved by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to these entities. However, the removal of these persons from the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally, this removal does not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.
Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 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 been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. For the seven persons under ten entries removed from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.
In determining whether to grant a request for removal from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed persons requesting removal from the
Removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5 and 15 CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relied to make the decisions to remove these entities. In addition, the information included in the removal request is information exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List contain confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such removal requests.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the
No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is making further revisions to the rules concerning PC postage payment methodology. This change adds supplementary information to clarify the revenue assurance requirements.
Alfred Rodriguez, Jr., Industry Liaison, Payment Technology, U.S. Postal Service, (202) 268-5022.
On July 17, 2015, the United States Postal Service published a final rule to revise the rules concerning authorization to manufacture and distribute postage evidencing systems, and to reflect new revenue assurance practices (80 FR 42392). Postage collection under the new rules will start on August 1, 2017. On September 6, 2016, the Postal Service published a proposal for further revisions to the rules concerning revenue assurance in 39 CFR 501.16 to support our efforts to collect the appropriate revenue on mail pieces in a more automated fashion (81 FR 61159). If adopted, these additional changes were also to be implemented on August 1, 2017.
In response to this further proposal, the Postal Service received a number of comments from the mailing industry. The Postal Service appreciates all of the comments that were provided, and has, where appropriate, modified the proposed rules in response. The industry comments and corresponding Postal Service responses are outlined as follows.
With respect to allowing certain PC Postage providers to aggregate and reconcile postage adjustments (as defined in paragraph 501.16(i)(2)(i)) on a monthly basis, the Postal Service does not agree with this approach and maintains that all collection and refund transactions and reconciliations must occur within the time frames set forth in paragraph 501.16(i)(2)(iii) . Currently, all postage payments in existing systems are reconciled daily; since we are taking advantage of existing processes it makes sense to reconcile the adjustments daily or else entire new processes would need to be put in place. Moreover, permitting payment plans or partial payments for certain PC Postage providers would only complicate the adjudication and reconciliation processes and put burdens on both of our accounting and finance teams.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 501 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605, Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95-452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3.
(i)
(2)(i) For the purposes of this paragraph, a
(ii) When the collection of a postage adjustment or the provision of a refund is appropriate because a customer has underpaid or overpaid the amount of postage that should have been paid, and such postage adjustment exceeds a threshold amount to be set by the Postal Service from time to time in its discretion, the PC Postage provider must, upon receiving notice from the Postal Service, pay, attempt to collect, or refund, as applicable, the postage adjustment in accordance with paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section. The Postal Service will supply the PC Postage provider with the details necessary to explain the correction and the amount of the postage adjustment to be used in the adjustment process. As part of this process, the PC Postage provider shall enable customers to submit disputes concerning the postage adjustment to the Postal Service, in a method approved by the Postal Service, including via phone call to the customer care center or API in the PC Postage provider's user interface of postage collections. In addition, the PC Postage provider must convey the Postal Service's dispute decision to the customer. If the Postal Service determines the customer's dispute was valid, and the customer had already paid the postage adjustment, the PC Postage provider must return the postage adjustment to the customer when notified by the Postal Service according to the rules set forth in paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
(iii)(A) In the case of an underpayment that exceeds the threshold amount, within 14 business days of receiving notice of the underpayment from the Postal Service the PC Postage provider must pay the postage adjustment directly to the Postal Service, or seek to collect the postage adjustment from the customer in accordance with this paragraph. If the PC Postage provider opts to pursue collection activity, it must notify the customer of the details of the postage adjustment (including the dispute process), retain evidence that such notice was actually received by the customer, and attempt to collect the postage adjustment by adjusting the funds available to the customer in the Postage Evidencing System, or if funds are not available, facilitating customer payment by invoicing the customer or by pursuing other methods available to collect against the customer or access funds of the customer. If the customer has a Postage Evidencing System account, the PC Postage provider must process any refunds due to the customer under paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(B) of this section before processing any collections due to the Postal Service hereunder. If the PC Postage provider opts to pursue collection activity, it shall continue to make affirmative efforts to collect the postage adjustment from the customer until the postage adjustment is satisfied in whole or the collection period (as defined in paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(C) of this section) expires. Immediately upon receiving or securing access to funds of the customer, the PC Postage provider shall remit to the Postal Service any and all available funds from the customer's account from the Postage Evidencing System or that are otherwise recovered by the PC Postage provider to the extent necessary to satisfy the postage adjustment. The postage adjustment must be paid in full; no partial payments will be accepted by the Postal Service, except for payments made under paragraph paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(C) of this section.
(B) In the case of an overpayment that exceeds the threshold amount, the Postal Service shall within 14 business days of identifying the overpayment, provide notice of the postage adjustment to the PC Postage provider and instruct the PC Postage provider to give the customer a credit and adjust the funds available to the customer in the Postage Evidencing System. If the Postage Evidencing System account has been closed or for customers who do not have individual Postage Evidencing System accounts, the Postal Service shall instruct the PC Postage provider to issue a refund to the customer and the Postal Service shall either refund the postage adjustment to the PC Postage provider or permit the PC Postage provider to submit a reconciliation to the Postal Service. The PC Postage provider must immediately upon receiving notice of the overpayment from the Postal Service, notify the customer and, consistent with the Postal Service's instructions, adjust the funds available to the customer in the Postage Evidencing System, refund the postage adjustment to the customer, or provide a credit to the customer. If the PC Postage provider is unable to comply with the above requirements within 2 business days, the PC Postage provider must immediately notify the Postal Service.
(C) The
(iv)(A) In the case of an underpayment that exceeds the threshold amount, immediately upon receiving notice of the underpayment from the Postal Service the PC Postage provider shall prohibit the customer from printing additional postage labels until the postage adjustment is satisfied in accordance with paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, or the customer disputes the adjustment and prevails. The Postal Service may, in its discretion, waive or delay this prohibition in specific instances.
(B) Separately, without regard to any threshold, in certain cases (such as where a customer is suspected of having intentionally or repeatedly underpaid postage) the Postal Service may, in its discretion, instruct the PC Postage provider to shut down temporarily or permanently a customer's ability to print PC Postage, and the PC Postage provider shall promptly comply with such instruction.
(C) In no event shall the Postal Service be liable to any PC Postage provider, customer or other party for any direct, indirect, exemplary, special, consequential, or punitive damages (including without limitation damages relating to loss of profit or business interruption) arising from or related to any customer's permanent or temporary inability to print postage labels in accordance with this paragraph (i)(2)(iv) or as a result of funds offset in accordance with this paragraph.
(v) The Postal Service, in its discretion, may adopt and modify from time to time, and the PC Postage providers shall comply with, business rules setting forth processes (including
(3)(i) Without regard to any threshold, if the PC Postage provider incorrectly programmed postage rates, delayed programming postage rate changes, or otherwise provided systems or software which caused customers to pay incorrect postage amounts, then within two calendar weeks of the PC Postage provider being made aware of such error, the PC Postage provider shall:
(A) Correct the programming error;
(B) Provide the Postal Service with a detailed breakdown of how the error affected the PC Postage provider's collection of revenue; and
(C) Pay the Postal Service for the postage deficiency caused by the programming error, except in instances where the error was caused by the Postal Service or as a direct result of incorrect specifications provided by the Postal Service.
(4) The PC Postage provider is responsible for ensuring that:
(i) All customers pay (and the Postal Service receives) the current published prices that are available to customers who purchase postage through an approved PC Postage provider, or negotiated contracted prices where applicable in accordance with this paragraph; and
(ii) All payments to the Postal Service (or the log files necessary for the Postal Service to collect payments directly from customers) are complete and accurate and are initiated or transmitted, as applicable, to the Postal Service each day.
(5) Each PC Postage provider shall:
(i) Before each customer's first transaction following the implementation date of August 1, 2017, provide notice to such customer of the terms, conditions and processes described in this paragraph—including, without limitation, that the customer may be charged for deficient payments and prevented from printing additional postage labels while a postage adjustment remains unpaid—and obtain a certification from each customer that the customer has read, understands and agrees to such terms, conditions and processes, as they may be amended or supplemented from time to time;
(ii) Ensure that each customer certifies that it:
(A) Will comply with all laws and regulations applicable to Postal Service services, including, without limitation, the provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual and the International Mail Manual,
(B) Does not owe any money to the Postal Service and is not a controlling member or officer of an entity that owes money to the Postal Service, and
(C) Authorizes the PC Postage provider to disclose the customer's personal information to the Postal Service and such other information retained by the PC Postage provider that may enable the Postal Service to collect debts owed to it;
(iii) Maintain a complete and accurate record for each customer, which includes such customer's current name and a valid U.S. address that is sufficient for service of process under the law, as well as a copy of all terms agreed to by the customer and the date of such agreements;
(iv) Comply with applicable laws, rules, regulations and guidelines and ensure that its Postage Evidencing Systems, software, interfaces, communications and other properties that are used to sell or market Postal Service products accurately describe such products;
(v) Cover any costs or damages that the Postal Service may incur as a result of such PC Postage provider or its employees, contractors, or representatives failing to comply with the terms of this section, or any applicable law, regulation, rule, or government policy; and
(vi) In performing its obligations hereunder, comply with the business rules that shall be published in the
(6) In the event that the Postal Service fails to exercise or delays exercising any right, remedy, or privilege under this paragraph, such failure or delay shall not operate as a waiver thereof or of any other provision hereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, remedy, or privilege preclude any further exercise of the same. The rights and remedies available to the Postal Service under this paragraph are cumulative and in addition to, and do not diminish, any rights or remedies otherwise available to the Postal Service.
Federal Election Commission.
Supplemental Notice of Disposition of Petition for Rulemaking.
On February 1, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Commission to reconsider its disposition of the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Level the Playing Field and to issue a new decision consistent with the Court's opinion. The Petition for Rulemaking asks the Commission to amend its regulation on candidate debates to revise the criteria governing the inclusion of candidates in presidential and vice presidential general election debates. In this supplement to the Notice of Disposition, as directed by the Court, the Commission provides further explanation of its decision to not initiate a rulemaking at this time.
March 29, 2017.
The petition and other documents relating to this matter are available on the Commission's Web site,
Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff, Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
On September 11, 2014, the Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking from Level the Playing Field (“Petitioner”) regarding the Commission's regulation at 11 CFR 110.13(c). That regulation governs the criteria that debate staging organizations use for inclusion in candidate debates. The regulation, to prevent corporate spending on debates from constituting contributions to the participating candidates, requires staging organizations to “use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate in a debate” and further specifies that, for general election debates, staging organizations “shall not use nomination by a particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine whether to include a candidate in a debate.” 11 CFR 110.13(c). The petition asks the Commission to amend 11 CFR 110.13(c) in two respects: (1) To preclude sponsors of general election presidential and vice presidential debates from requiring that a candidate meet a polling threshold in order to be included in the debate; and (2) to require sponsors of general election presidential and vice presidential debates to have a set of objective, unbiased criteria for debate participation that do not require candidates to satisfy a polling threshold. The petition included, in addition to legal arguments, reports and other evidence in support of its position.
The Commission published a Notice of Availability seeking comment on the petition on November 14, 2014. Candidate Debates, 79 FR 68137. The Commission received 1264 comments in response to that notice, including one from the Petitioner that included updated and additional factual submissions. On November 20, 2015, the Commission published in the
The Petitioner and others sued on the basis that the Commission's failure to initiate a rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In accordance with the Court's instructions, the Commission has reconsidered the full rulemaking record. On the basis of this review, the Commission again declines to initiate a rulemaking to amend 11 CFR 110.13(c) at this time. The analysis below is intended to supplement, rather than replace, the analysis that the Commission provided in its original Notice of Disposition. 80 FR 72616.
As the Commission stated in adopting the current candidate debate regulation in 1995, “the purpose of section 110.13 . . . is to provide a specific exception so that certain nonprofit organizations . . . and the news media may stage debates, without being deemed to have made prohibited corporate contributions to the candidates taking part in debates.” Corporate and Labor Organization Activity; Express Advocacy and Coordination with Candidates, 60 FR 64260, 64261 (Dec. 14, 1995).
In the first major enforcement action under this regulation almost two decades ago, the Commission found that CPD's use of polling data (among other criteria) did not result in an unlawful corporate contribution, with five Commissioners observing that it would make “little sense” if “a debate sponsor could not look at the latest poll results even though the rest of the nation could look at this as an indicator of a candidate's popularity.” MUR 4451/4473 Commission Statement of Reasons at 8 n.7 (Commission on Presidential Debates) (Apr. 6, 1998),
The petition and many of the comments supporting it essentially argue that CPD's 15% threshold is a non-objective criterion because it is unreliable and/or intended to unfairly benefit major party candidates at the expense of independent and third-party candidates. The Court summarized the petition's arguments as attempting to establish, first, that “CPD's polling threshold is being used subjectively to exclude independent and third-party candidates” and, second, that “polling thresholds are particularly unreliable and susceptible to . . . subjective use at the presidential level, undermining the FEC's stated goal of using `objective criteria to avoid the real or apparent potential for a
In essence, the petition argues that there are biases against third-party and independent candidates in accurate polling, and therefore that a polling threshold requirement like CPD's presents these candidates with a Catch-22 scenario:
[A polling threshold] effectively institutionalizes the Democratic and Republican candidates as the only options with which the voters are presented. A third-party or independent candidate who is excluded from the debates loses the opportunity to take the stage against the major party nominees and demonstrate that he or she is a better alternative; the media does not cover the candidate; and the candidate does not get the public exposure necessary to compete. The “determination” that a [third-party or independent] candidate is not viable because he or she lacks a certain amount of support becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In support of the argument that polling thresholds have the purpose or effect of favoring major party candidates over third-party or independent candidates, the petition presents facts and analysis regarding the name recognition required to poll at CPD's 15% threshold and the amount of money required to gain that level of name recognition. The petition provides further factual submissions that, according to the petition, show that the unreliability of polling—both generally and with respect to independent and third-party candidates—renders the 15% threshold unattainable and unreasonable for independent and third-party candidates.
The crux of the petition's factual submissions consists of two reports that purport to show that CPD's 15% threshold is designed to result in the exclusion of independent or third-party candidates. The first report, by Dr. Clifford Young, concludes that in order to reach a 15% threshold, a candidate must achieve name recognition among 60-80% of the population.
The Young Report's conclusion that third-party and independent candidates require a 60-80% name recognition to meet CPD's 15% threshold does not provide a persuasive basis for changing the candidate debate regulation. Dr. Young acknowledges that his report's analysis is one-dimensional; it correlates polling results to name recognition alone, and then it draws conclusions regarding hypothetical third-party candidate performance based on that one factor. More
Moreover, even within the confines of name recognition, the Young Report is only weakly applicable to the debates at issue, which are presidential general election debates. The Young Report reaches its 60-80% name recognition result through three models, all of which extrapolate from data about name recognition of major party candidates at the early stages of the party primary process (
In addition, the petition appears to draw inapposite conclusions from the Young Report's data. Critically, neither the Young Report nor other evidence submitted with the petition or comments establishes that third-party or independent candidates do not or cannot meet 60-80% name recognition. In fact, at least one third-party candidate was reported to achieve over 60% name recognition in the most recent presidential campaign prior to the general election debates.
Instead, the petition uses Dr. Young's name recognition threshold as a springboard to the primary argument of the Schoen Report: That the cost of achieving 15% vote share is prohibitively high for independent candidates. The Schoen Report starts from the premise that 60-80% name recognition is necessary to gain a 15% vote share and proceeds to estimate the amount of money that an independent candidate would need to spend to reach 60-80% name recognition. For the reasons stated above, the Commission does not find that this premise is adequately established by the Young Report, and therefore the Commission questions whether the Schoen Report possesses any meaningful evidentiary value. But even assuming that a candidate must reach 60-80% name recognition to achieve a 15% threshold in vote share, the Commission finds the Schoen Report not to provide a reasoned evidentiary basis for amending the rule at issue.
The Commission is unpersuaded by the Schoen Report primarily because the report builds its conclusion through an extensive series of unsupported suppositions and assertions. For example, to explain a significant portion of its calculations, the report states that “the media will not cover an independent candidate until they are certainly in the debates.” Schoen Report at 3. But the report provides no basis for this assertion other than an unexplained reference to the number of publications “follow[ing]” one particular candidate (
In another premise that the report uses to build its later conclusions, the Schoen Report asserts that independent candidates are disadvantaged because they “must resort to launching a massive national media campaign” while major party candidates “by competing in small state primaries, can build their name recognition without
In addition, the Schoen Report states that media costs to accomplish 60% name recognition are higher in three-way races due to increased competition, and the report increases its cost estimate accordingly.
The Schoen Report ultimately adopts an estimated cost of at least $100 million for a media buy that an independent candidate would require to gain the name recognition to meet the 15% threshold. Schoen Report at 6. Not only does this figure rely upon the faulty assumptions that the Commission has already noted, it is also unreliable for at least four additional reasons.
First, the $100 million figure is taken from an estimate from “a leading corporate and political media buying firm,” without any underlying data and without any explanation of the circumstances under which the firm purportedly offered that estimate. Nor does the report address (or even acknowledge) any biases in that estimate that may stem from a media buying firm's financial interest in estimating or promoting high media buy costs. The Schoen Report simply provides no evidentiary basis for the Commission to credit this third-person estimate.
Second, the $100 million estimate presumes that a candidate must go from zero percent name recognition to 60% name recognition, without noting the likelihood of a candidate starting from zero or otherwise explaining this assumption. The Schoen Report suggests, by consistently comparing the hypothetical independent candidate's position with the positions of his “two” (and only two) major party candidate competitors, that this zero percent baseline occurs at some point after the major parties have established presumptive nominees.
Third, the Schoen Report bases its estimate of campaign and paid media costs on the assertion that independent candidates are unable to attract news media coverage.
Fourth, the Schoen Report's media cost estimates do not appear to take account of media purchases in support of a candidate by outside groups, including independent expenditure-only political committees (“IEOPCs”). IEOPCs may create, produce, and distribute communications in support of, but independently of, a particular candidate, and in 2016 several IEOPCs supported third-party candidate Gary
Ultimately, the unreliability of the Schoen Report's conclusions is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that third-party candidate Gary Johnson reached 60% name recognition by August 31, 2016.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds the Schoen Report unpersuasive.
Finally, the petition acknowledges that a number of third-party presidential candidates have performed sufficiently well that they were included or would have been included in debates with 15% thresholds.
In sum, the Commission concludes that the petition does not present credible evidence that a 15% threshold is so unobtainable by independent or third-party candidates that it is
The Young Report's examination of polling error in three-way races with independents seeks to determine, essentially, if the threshold is drawn in the right place to identify candidates that actually have a 15% vote share. Young Report at ¶ 60. The Young Report concludes that polls in three-way races have greater errors than polls in two-way races. Specifically, the Young Report extrapolates from gubernatorial election polls taken two months before the general election (the point at which CPD uses polls as a debate inclusion criterion) where there is an 8% error rate in three-way races compared to a 5.5% error rate in two-way races.
The Commission is unpersuaded by this analysis for two fundamental reasons. First, as the Commission noted in its original notice of disposition, the fact that polling data can be erroneous does not mean that a debate staging organization acts subjectively in using it. 80 FR at 72618 n.6. By way of analogy, consider a school district with a policy of canceling school if a majority of local television news stations predict at least six inches of snow for the next day. That policy would be facially objective, even though such weather forecasts are known to be significantly
The Petitioner also submitted in response to the Notice of Availability a comment with additional data concerning “grossly inaccurate” polling in 2014 midterm Senate and gubernatorial elections. Level the Playing Field, Comment at 1 (Nov. 26, 2014),
The petition does imply that third-party and independent candidates are at a disadvantage because “there is no requirement that pollsters test third-party and independent candidates,” and therefore the CPD might “cherry pick from among the myriad polls that exist in order to engineer a specific outcome.” Petition at 17-18. But the petition presents no evidence that such manipulation has ever occurred, and the Commission is unwilling to predicate a rule change on unsupported speculation of wrongdoing. A debate sponsor who took actions to manipulate the “pre-established” and “objective” selection criteria so as to “select[ ] certain pre-chosen participants” by cherry-picking polls that excluded other candidates would violate the existing rule. Corporate and Labor Organization Activity; Express Advocacy and Coordination with Candidates, 60 FR at 64262.
The petition further argues that lowering the polling threshold is insufficient to solve polling error problems. As an initial matter, the Commission notes that the Young Report does not conclude that any and all polling thresholds are unreliable. On this point, in addition to the Young and Schoen Reports discussed above, Petitioner cites an article from Nate Silver on Republican primaries for the conclusion that “a simple poll does not capture a candidate's potential.” Petition at 17 (citing Nate Silver,
The petition and most of the commenters who support it rely primarily on policy arguments that polling thresholds are inconsistent with the purposes of the existing regulations and that those purposes would be better served by, in essence, including more voices on the debate stage.
Another commenter, FairVote, indicated that it “do[es] not oppose the use of polling as a debate selection criterion so long as candidates have an alternative means of qualifying for inclusion.”
The evidence presented to the Commission in the petition and comments on the impracticability of independent candidates reaching the 15% threshold and on the unreliability of polling do not lead the Commission to conclude that the CPD's use of such a threshold for selecting debate participants is per se subjective, so as to require initiating a rulemaking to amend 11 CFR 110.13(c). While the reports by Dr. Young and Mr. Schoen, in addition to the historical polling and campaign finance data presented with the petition, demonstrate certain challenges that independent candidates may face when seeking the presidency, these submissions do not demonstrate either that the threshold is so high that only Democratic and Republican nominees could reasonably achieve it, or that the threshold is intended to result in the selection of those nominees to participate in the debates.
For all of the above reasons, in addition to the reasons discussed in the Notice of Disposition published in 2015,
On behalf of the Commission,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-22, which applies to certain Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) model 250 turboprop and turboshaft engines. AD 2015-02-22 currently requires repetitive visual inspections and fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPIs) on certain 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels for cracks in the turbine wheel blades. Since we issued AD 2015-02-22, we determined that it is necessary to remove the 4th-stage wheels at the next inspection. We are also proposing to revise the applicability to remove all RRC turboprop engines and add additional turboshaft engines. This proposed AD would require repetitive visual inspections and FPIs of 3rd-stage turbine wheels while removing from service 4th-stage turbine wheels. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847-294-8180; fax: 847-294-7834; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 20, 2015, we issued AD 2015-02-22, Amendment 39-18090 (80 FR 5452, February 2, 2015), (“AD 2015-02-22”), for certain RRC 250-B17, -B17B, -B17C, -B17D, -B17E, -B17F, -B17F/1, -B17F/2, turboprop engines; and 250-C20, -C20B, -C20F, -C20J, -C20R, -C20R/1, -C20R/2, -C20R/4, -C20S, and -C20W turboshaft engines. Note that, for the purposes of this proposed AD, we now consider the RRC 250-C20S engine a turboprop engine. RRC engine type certificate data sheet No. E4CE, Revision 42, dated June 29, 2010, classifies it as a turboshaft engine, but then clarifies in Note 11 that it functions as a turboprop engine.
AD 2015-02-22 requires repetitive visual inspections and FPIs on certain
Since we issued AD 2015-02-22, we determined that it is necessary to remove the 4th-stage wheels at the next inspection, before the scheduled life limit for these wheels. We also determined that the RRC turboprop engines are not susceptible to the unsafe condition and therefore do not require inspection or removal. We are, therefore, not including RRC turboprop engines in the applicability of this proposed AD. Additionally, we determined two additional part number turbine wheels are susceptible to the unsafe condition and are being included in this proposed AD.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2015-02-22. This proposed AD would revise the requirement for the initial inspection from 1,750 hours since last inspection (HSLI) to 1,775 hours since last visual inspection and FPI or before the next flight after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Based on discussions with the manufacturer, we found that 1,775 hours since last visual inspection and FPI is an appropriate interval. We are also requiring inspections for additional part number wheels: (P/N) RR30000236 for the 3rd-stage turbine wheel and P/N RR30000240 for the 4th-stage turbine wheel.
This proposed AD would continue to require repetitive inspections of 3rd-stage turbine wheels. This proposed AD would also require removing from service 4th-stage turbine wheels at a reduced life limit. In addition, this proposed AD would add RRC 250-C300/A1 and 250-C300/B1 turboshaft engines in the applicability.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3,769 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 15, 2017.
This AD replaces Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-22, Amendment 39-18090 (80 FR 5452, February 2, 2015).
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) 250-C20, -C20B, -C20F, -C20J, -C20R, -C20R/1, -C20R/2, -C20R/4, -C20W, -C300/A1, and -C300/B1 turboshaft engines with either a 3rd-stage turbine wheel, part number (P/N) 23065818 or RR30000236, or a 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23055944 or RR30000240, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by in-service turbine wheel blade failures that revealed the need for changes to the inspections of certain 3rd-stage turbine wheels and removal from service of certain 4th-stage turbine wheels. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheel blades, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 1,775 hours since last visual inspection and fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI) or before the next flight after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later:
(i) Remove 3rd-stage turbine wheels, P/N 23065818, and perform a visual inspection and an FPI on the removed turbine wheels for cracks at the trailing edge of the turbine blades, near the fillet at the rim.
(ii) Thereafter, re-inspect the affected turbine wheels every 1,775 hours since last inspection (HSLI).
(2) Within 2,025 hours after the effective date of this AD:
(i) Remove 3rd-stage turbine wheels, P/N RR30000236, and perform a visual inspection and an FPI on the removed turbine wheels for cracks at the trailing edge of the turbine blades, near the fillet at the rim.
(ii) Thereafter, re-inspect the turbine wheels every 2,025 HSLI.
(3) Any time the power turbine is disassembled, perform a visual inspection and an FPI on 3rd-stage turbine wheels, P/N 23065818 or P/N RR30000236, for cracks at the trailing edge of the turbine blades, near the fillet at the rim.
(4) Do not return to service any turbine wheels found to have cracks.
(5) Within 1,775 HSLI, or at the next engine shop visit, whichever occurs later, remove 4th-stage turbine wheels, P/N 23055944, from service.
(6) Within 2,025 HSLI, or at the next engine shop visit, whichever occurs later, remove 4th-stage turbine wheels, P/N RR30000240, from service.
For the purpose of this AD, “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
For more information about this AD, contact John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847-294-8180; fax: 847-294-7834; email:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Cooper River in Charleston, South Carolina. This proposed safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of participant vessels, and the general public during Tall Ships Charleston, an event allowing for public tours of tall ships (large sailing vessels) from various countries while at the docks of Veterans Terminal on the Cooper River in Charleston, South Carolina. This rule is intended to prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston 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 28, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0121 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email
On December 1, 2016, Tall Ships Charleston notified the Coast Guard that they will be sponsoring the Tall Ships Charleston event on May 18, 2017 through May 21, 2017. Approximately 10,000 spectators are anticipated to participate in the public tours of tall ships (large sailing vessels) at the Veterans Terminal on the Cooper River in Charleston, South Carolina. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with public tours of these tall ships constitute a safety concern for anyone within the proposed safety zone. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Cooper River during the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Cooper River in Charleston, South Carolina, during Tall Ships Charleston from May 18 through May 21, 2017. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Cooper River at Veterans Terminal before, during, and after the schedule public touring event. No person or vessel would be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the proposed 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. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O.13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (2) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
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” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such 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 prohibiting vessel traffic from a limited area surrounding the Veterans Terminal on the waters of the Cooper River for a 3 day period. This rule 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
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 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, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving safety zone during the Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor, a parade of ships occurring on the Cooper River and Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The temporary moving safety zone is necessary to protect participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. This rule is intended to prohibit persons and non-participant vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the moving safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston 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 28, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0123 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email
On December 1, 2016, Tall Ships Charleston notified the Coast Guard that they will be sponsoring the Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on May 18, 2017. Approximately eight ships are anticipated to participate in the parade event, which will take place on certain navigable waters of the Cooper River and the Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with the parade constitute a safety concern for anyone within the proposed moving safety zone. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving safety zone on the waters of the Cooper River and Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South
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. 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.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone would be enforced for only three hours; (2) the safety zone would move with participant vessels so that once the ships clear a portion of the waterway, the safety zone would no longer be enforced in that portion of the waterway; (3) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels would still be able to enter or transit through the safety zone if authorized by the COTP or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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 (Public Law 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 temporary moving safety zone lasting three hours which would prohibit entry into, transit through,
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 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)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in the Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor and those serving as safety vessels.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, 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 regulated area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension with a revision of a currently approved information collection to support Customer Data Worksheet Request for Business Partner (BP) that contains the producer's personal information. Specifically, FSA is requesting comment on the form AD-2047, “Customer Data Worksheet Request for Business Partner Record Change”. FSA is using the collected information in support of documenting critical producer data changes (customer name, current mailing address and tax identification number) in BP made at the request of the producer to correct or update their information. The critical producer data are being used to update existing producer record data and document when and who initiates and changes the record in BP.
We will consider comments that we receive by May 30, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
• Kerry Sefton, Agricultural Program Specialist, USDA, FSA, STOP 0517, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0517.
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Kerry Sefton at the above address.
The number of respondents increased by 5,179 to account for additional customers because of new programs that have been implemented since the last OMB approval.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual of responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of burden 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.
All responses to this notice, including name and addresses when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension with a revision of a currently approved information collection in support of Disaster Assistance programs. The information collection is needed to identify disaster areas and establish eligibility for both primary and contiguous counties for assistance from FSA. This assistance includes FSA emergency loans which are available to eligible and qualified farmers and ranchers. The total burden hours have been revised to reflect the number of
We will consider comments that we receive by May 30, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comment, include the date and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Steve Peterson at the above addresses.
Tona Huggins, (202) 205-9847.
The total burden hours have been revised to reflect the number of Secretarial requests for natural disaster assistance during the 2016 crop year.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, utility and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (Recreation RAC) will meet in Louisville, Kentucky. The Recreation RAC is authorized pursuant with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (the Act) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information concerning the Recreation RAC may be found by visiting the Recreation RAC's Web site at:
The meeting will be held on:
• Thursday, April 20, 2017, from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Friday, April 21, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
All Recreation RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under the
The meeting will be held on Thurday, April 20, 2017 on a field trip to the Hoosier National Forest and Friday, April 21, 2017 at the Holiday Inn Express & Suites Louisville Downtown, 800 West Market Street, Louisville, Kentucky. The meeting will also be available via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend via teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Joanna Wilson, Eastern Region Recreation RAC Coordinator by phone at 541-860-8048, or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Attend a field visit to the Hoosier National Forest to see some fee proposal sites including the Saddle Lake Recreation Area and German Ridge Campground.
2. Review the following fee proposals:
a. Monongahela National Forest fee proposals which include the Lake Sherwood Recreation Area;
b. Hoosier National Forest fee proposals at Saddle Lake Recreation Area and German Ridge Campground;
c. Ottawa National Forest fee proposals Camp Nesbit Organizational Camp, seasonal personal watercraft docking at Black River Harbor, Lake Ottawa Pavilion, Clark Lake Day-Use Buildings, Sylvania Backcountry Campsites, and a day-use pass that covers Black River Harbor Recreation, Lake Ottawa Recreation Area, and the Sylvania Recreation Area; and the
d. White Mountain National Forest fee proposals include the elimination of fees at nine trailheads including, 19—Mile Brook Trailhead, East Pond Trailhead, Greeley Pond Trailhead, Hale Brook Trailhead, Hancock Notch Trailhead, Sugarloaf Trailhead, Downes Brook Trailhead, Oliverian Brook Trailhead and Sawyer Pond Trailhead; increase the cost of a daily recreation pass to $5, an annual pass to $30, and eliminating the weekly and household passes; adding Zealand Picnic Area to the Forest Fee Program; increasing the fees Dolly Copp Pavilion; Russell Colbath Barn; Crocker Pond Campground; 4th Iron Campsites; Black Mountain Cabin; Doublehead Cabin; and Radeke Cabin.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less at the Friday portion of the meeting starting at 3:00 p.m. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 15, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Recreation RAC may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Joanna Wilson, Eastern Region Recreation RAC Coordinator, 855 South Skylake Drive, Woodland Hills, Utah 84653; or by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet in Bend, Oregon. The committee is authorized pursuant to the implementation of E-19 of the Record of Decision and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to promote a better integration of forest management activities between Federal and non-Federal entities to ensure that such activities are complementary. PAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on April 21, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m.
All PAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Deschutes County Services Building, DeArmond Room, 1300 Northwest Wall Street, Bend, Oregon.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Beth Peer, Deschutes PAC Coordinator, by phone at 541-383-4761 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Discuss the broad topic of forest restoration,
2. Discuss how the PAC can develop strategies for continuing restoration work, including in the more specific areas:
a. Prescribed fire/smoke regulations, and
b. habitat restoration and enhancement for big game, and
c. Implementation of the sustainable road system;
3. Engage in specific issues surrounding sustainable recreation, and
4. Discuss the business of the PAC, such as:
a. The Re-chartering process and
b. Membership.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 7, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Beth Peer, Deschutes PAC Coordinator, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon, 97701; or by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet in Wenatchee, Washington. The committee is authorized pursuant to the implementation of E-19 of the Record of Decision and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to promote a better integration of forest management activities between Federal and non-Federal entities to ensure that such activities are complementary. PAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
All PAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (NF) Headquarters Office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Robin DeMario, PAC Coordinator, by phone at 509-664-9292 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to update members on the:
1. Forest Plan Revision Science Synthesis,
2. Travel Management Plan status,
3. North Cascades Smokejumper base capital investment, and
4. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration: Tapash Program update.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 10, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Robin DeMario, PAC Coordinator, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Sitka Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sitka, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site
The meeting will be held April 20, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at Sitka Ranger District, Katlian Room, 2108 Halibut Point Road, Sitka, Alaska. Meeting will also be available by teleconference, to attend via teleconference, please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Lisa Hirsch, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-747-4214 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
1. Secure Rural Schools Program,
2. Title II of the Act, and
3. Project proposal submittals.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 13, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Lisa Hirsch, RAC Coordinator, 2108 Halibut Point Road, Sitka, Alaska 99835; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act). Committee information can be found at the following Web site at
The teleconference will be held on April 19, 2017, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Scott Stewart, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff by phone at 202-205-1618, or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Report out from Committee work groups,
2. Deliver educational presentations, and
3. Perform administrative tasks.
The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by April 9, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Stewart, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250; or by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The New Mexico Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) Technical Advisory Panel (Panel) will meet in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Panel is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. II), and Title VI of the Community Forest Restoration Act (Pub. L. 106-393). Additional information concerning the Panel, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Panel's Web site at:
The meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., on the following dates:
• April 10, 2017,
• April 11, 2017, and
• April 12, 2017.
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Place Albuquerque/Uptown, 6901 Arvada Avenue Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Walter Dunn, Designated Federal Official, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway Southeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, by phone at (505) 842-3425 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
(1) Review Panel Bylaws, Charter, and what it means to be a Federal Advisory Committee,
(2) Evaluate and score the 2017 CFRP grant applications to determine which ones best meet the program objectives,
(3) Develop prioritized 2017 CFRP project funding recommendations for the Secretary,
(4) Develop an agenda and identify members for the 2017 CFRP Sub-Committee for the review of multi-party monitoring reports from completed projects, and
(5) Discuss the proposal review process used by the Panel to identify what went well and what could be improved.
The meeting is open to the public. Panel discussion is limited to Panel members and Forest Service staff. Project proponents may make brief presentations to the Panel summarizing their grant application and respond to questions of clarification from Panel members or Forest Service staff. However, the agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by April 6, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to
A summary of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 45 days after the meeting.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Siskiyou (OR) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Brookings, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on the following dates and times:
• April 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and
• April 25, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at Best Western Plus Beachfront Inn, South Conference Room, 16008 Boat Basin Road, Brookings, Oregon.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Virginia Gibbons, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 541-618-2113 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review project proposals, and
2. Make project recommendations for Title II Funds.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 7, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Virginia Gibbons, RAC Coordinator, Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Supervisor's Office, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon 97525; by email to
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before May 30, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Robin A. Pennington, Census Bureau, HQ-2K281N, Washington, DC 20233; (301) 763-8132 (or via email at
During the years preceding the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will pursue its commitment to reduce the costs of conducting a decennial census while maintaining our commitment to quality. In 2018, the Census Bureau will be performing the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. This last major test before the 2020 Census is designed to (1) test and validate 2020 Census operations, procedures, systems, and field infrastructure to ensure proper integration and conformance with requirements, and (2) produce prototypes of geographic and data products.
The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will encompass operations and systems related to (1) Address Canvassing; (2) Optimizing Self-Response, including contact strategies, questionnaire content, and language support; (3) Update Enumerate, including technical and operational testing; (4) Nonresponse Followup, including technological and operational improvements; and (5)
The Address Canvassing operation ((1) from the above), beginning in the summer of 2017, is the first operation in the 2018 End-to-End Census Test and was included in a separate Address Canvassing Operation package due to timing considerations.
New approaches to the design of the 2020 Census are classified into four key innovation areas. These areas have been the subject of Census Bureau testing this decade to identify methodological improvements, technological advances, and possibilities for cost savings over repeating the design of the 2010 Census. One of these innovation areas is Optimizing Self-Response, which is focused on improving methods for increasing the number of people who take advantage of self-response options.
The 2018 End-to-End Census Test is designed to evaluate several strategies to optimize the rate at which the public self-responds to the census, which would reduce costs of the census by decreasing the workload for following up at nonresponding units. Previous Census Bureau tests have resulted in the design of contact strategies, two of which will be in use during this test for the purpose of gathering additional metrics and making comparisons on a number of indicators. Either or both of these strategies may be included in the design of the 2020 Census, depending on a variety of factors.
In addition, the 2018 End-to-End Census Test provides the Census Bureau with an opportunity to enhance the user experience, performance, and functionality of the Internet self-response instrument compared to prior Census Tests this decade. Improvements including expanded language capabilities will support the goal of optimizing self-response by providing an easy, quick, and safe experience for respondents, and ensure that the resulting response data and paradata provide required information to follow-up and data processing operations.
The Census Bureau plans to study the following in the 2018 End-to-End Census Test:
• Comparing the self-response rates between the Internet First and the Internet Choice panels.
• Comparing item-level response by panel and by mode, including in the Update Enumerate and Group Quarters enumeration operations, both of which will be fielded for the first time this decade.
• Measuring the effects of incorporating additional household contact strategies to encourage self-response, including letter and postcard reminders.
The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will allow the Census Bureau to continue to refine, optimize, and assess the operational procedures and technical design of the Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) operation. The NRFU operation is a field operation for determining housing unit status (occupied, vacant, or delete) and for gathering the enumeration data at addresses for which no self-response was received. This test will build upon the results of previous field tests this decade where the NRFU operation has been conducted. In particular, NRFU is now a fully-automated operation, whereas it was performed using paper materials in the 2010 Census. For this test, the Census Bureau will examine:
• Operational procedures.
○ Testing continued refinements to the field data collection instrument for enumeration, particularly where previous testing has shown potential problems in our question branching or issues with the interview software user interface. The Census Bureau will critically assess navigation within the instrument via debriefing sessions for field enumerators after operations complete.
○ Continuing refinement of our methods for enumerating multi-unit structures, particularly identifying vacant households in multi-units with a minimal number of contact attempts, thereby minimizing respondent burden.
○ Continuing refinement of procedures for interviewing proxy respondents to gather information from hard-to-enumerate households.
○ Continuing refinement of processes used to detect and deter falsification by field enumerators.
○ Continuing evaluation of enumerator training procedures and materials, including both online training modules and classroom training.
○ Integrating a Field Verification assignment into the NRFU workload. The Field Verification cases are intended to verify the existence and location of certain types of self-responses that were received without a preassigned census identification code, called a User ID.
○ Integrating into NRFU the ability to designate an area for an earlier NRFU operation in order to enumerate college and university students living in off-campus housing before the end of the spring semester.
• Technical design.
○ Continuing refinement of the management alerts to identify potentially problematic field behavior in real time.
○ Continuing refinement of the optimization and routing algorithms used to make daily NRFU field assignments.
○ Continuing work to integrate into the Census Bureau's enterprise data collection systems.
The Update Enumerate (UE) operation as planned for the 2020 Census is significantly changed from the UE operation that was used in the 2010 Census at about one percent of all addresses. At root, the UE methodology is designed for areas that require an enumeration methodology other than self-response followed by NRFU. The current design capitalizes on 2020 Census methodological improvements such as Internet Self-Response, automated field operations, and an approach to collect responses without a User ID that is greatly expanded in scale. The 2020 Census UE operation combines address listing methodologies with person enumeration methodologies. UE is conducted mostly in geographic areas that have one or more of the following characteristics:
• Do not have city-style addresses like 123 Main Street.
• Do not receive mail through city-style addresses.
• Receive mail at post office boxes rather than at their physical address.
• Have unique challenges associated with accessibility, such as dirt roads or seasonal access.
• Have recently been affected by natural disasters.
• Have high concentrations of seasonally vacant housing.
The following objectives are being tested for Update Enumerate:
• Integrating listing and enumeration operations and systems.
• Evaluating the impact on cost and quality of the UE contact strategy on enumerator productivity and efficiency.
• Testing refinements to the field data collection instrument for enumeration, especially for atypical situations, such as movers.
• Testing field supervisor to enumerator ratios.
The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will inform Census Bureau technological and operational planning and design for the enumeration of the population residing in Group Quarters (GQs). GQs are living quarters where people who are typically unrelated have group living arrangements and frequently are receiving some type of service. College dormitories and nursing homes are examples of GQs. To date, some small-scale testing has been done to test electronic transmission of GQ's enumeration responses. The 2018 End-to-End Census Test expands on these results to allow the opportunity to evaluate procedures and technologies for conducting GQ enumeration operations. The set of operations planned for GQ enumeration is GQ Advance Contact, Service-Based Enumeration, and, finally, GQ Enumeration. These operations have been used in previous censuses. The GQ Advance Contact is an operation where facility contact and planning data are collected, including the ability of the GQ facility to provide electronic records for the enumeration. Service-Based Enumeration has the objective of counting individuals who will not be enumerated at a living quarter but are receiving some type of service. The GQ Enumeration is the final stage of enumerating individuals residing at the GQ.
• Operational procedures.
○ Testing updated procedures for handling newly discovered GQs during field operations.
○ Continuing testing of the various GQ operations, process flows, estimated staffing levels, supporting processes, and workload estimates.
○ Continuing refinement of procedures for linking paper questionnaire response records collected by multiple enumerators during enumeration at a single GQ.
○ Continuing evaluation and refinement of the optimal enumerator to GQ ratios for multiple GQ types.
○ Testing multiple modes of enumeration.
• Technical design.
○ Testing the use of electronic methodologies to:
Create the initial universe for the GQ Advance Contact.
Conduct In-Office GQ Advance Contact.
Update the GQ frame prior to GQ enumeration.
Accept electronically transmitted response data in multiple formats.
○ Integrating GQ operations with listing and enumeration operations and systems.
The Census Bureau recognizes that OMB is continuing to lead the discussion among federal agencies and other stakeholders on race/ethnicity from the perspective of data collection and dissemination guidance and standards, and that the final determination has not been made on the format of the race/ethnicity question for the 2020 Census. If it is determined that the combined race/ethnicity question format may be used for the 2020 Census (versus the separate race and Hispanic Origin questions used for the 2010 Census), it will be crucial for the Census Bureau to ensure that critical operations are fully prepared to go into production for the 2020 Census using the combined question. Therefore, the 2018 End-to-End Census Test data collection operations will utilize the combined race/ethnicity question version (that includes a Middle Eastern or North African category) to further its analysis and understanding of mode differences for the race/ethnicity responses before deploying the 2020 Census questionnaire.
•
•
•
The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will take place in three sites within the continental United States: Pierce County, Washington; Providence County, Rhode Island; and the Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, West Virginia area. These locations offer particular characteristics that support the Census Bureau's testing goals, including: various types of addresses (such as city-style, rural, and location description-only); population with varying demographics (such as age, race, and language spoken at home); variety of housing types (such as single-units, multi-units, vacant units, GQs, and mobile homes); varied levels of Internet access and usage; various time zones; and challenging environmental conditions (such as weather extremes, rough terrain).
The housing units in the areas selected for inclusion in the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will be contacted by mail and invited to complete their questionnaire via the Internet. Optimizing Self-Response contact methods include follow-on letter and postcard reminders. The Census Bureau will also test strategies for delivering paper questionnaires to households that do not or cannot respond online, as measured by low Internet connectivity or low Internet usage rates.
The Census Bureau will continue to test Non-ID Processing methodology as another strategy for Optimizing Self-Response. A User ID that links to a unique housing unit is on many of the mailed materials, but respondents can also submit a response without using the ID, particularly on the Internet or telephone. Non-ID Processing refers to address matching and geocoding for census responses that lack this preassigned census ID. This processing allows such responses to be linked up with the associated census enumeration data and can occur through automated or clerical procedures. Additionally, the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will allow the Census Bureau to continue to develop the capability to conduct real-time Non-ID Processing, where a respondent is prompted interactively
This test will allow the Census Bureau to understand better the requirements related to scalability of planned systems and to determine metrics for each of the Non-ID Processing steps. If the address match is not resolved during the initial automated or real-time processing, Census Bureau staff will attempt manually to match or geocode the address. It is estimated that about two percent of the overall non-ID respondents will be contacted via telephone as part of the manual matching process. Non-ID Processing also includes an office-based address verification (OBAV) component. OBAV uses available geographic reference materials to verify the existence and location of an address. OBAV is performed in an effort to avoid the more costly fieldwork. However, any address that is worked in OBAV but cannot be verified in OBAV will be sent to Field Verification (discussed in more detail below as a suboperation of NRFU).
Additionally, with the Re-collect component, a sample of self-response cases are selected for re-contact, which may occur through centralized phone contract or in-field enumeration. Re-collect is intended to validate the information from a respondent, confirming the existence of the address and the people enumerated at that address. Re-collect is also one aspect of fraud detection.
Decades of research on different race/ethnicity question designs have shown that individual identities can be impacted by societal changes, attitudes, and perceptions. The 2018 End-to-End Census Test design can help us understand whether respondent reporting of racial/ethnic identities is impacted by the types of data that the Census Bureau is collecting (
It will be crucial for the Census Bureau to ensure that critical operations are fully prepared to go into production for the 2020 Census using the combined question, if it is determined that the combined race/ethnicity question format may be used for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau plans to deploy the combined race/ethnicity question version (that includes a Middle Eastern or North African category) during the 2018 End-to-End Census Test to further examine:
• Item nonresponse to the combined race and ethnicity question (with detailed checkboxes, with respect to the reporting of major race/ethnic categories (
Research has found that, over time, there have been a growing number of people who do not identify with any of the race categories, and this means that an increasing number of respondents have been classified as “Some Other Race.” The combined question format with detailed checkboxes attempts to help improve the accuracy of these data.
• Levels of overall race/ethnicity reporting (
• Levels of overall race/ethnicity reporting within the new category Middle Eastern or North African (MENA), as well as levels of detailed MENA reporting for respondents of Middle Eastern and North African heritage.
• Match rates between individual racial/ethnic responses in the 2018 End-to-End Census Test and responses in previous census records (
The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will be an important opportunity to experiment with different imputation procedures to ascertain which approach yields the best overall imputation results for missing data with a combined race/ethnicity question. The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will enable researchers to ascertain which records to utilize (
Additionally, data products and dissemination is a critical objective of the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. The question format used in data collection and processing is also the source of the redistricting tabulation, and the Census Bureau must be prepared to meet the needs of the states as well as 2020 Census data users, if it is determined that the combined race/ethnicity question format will be used for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau believes that the results of the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will help inform our growing body of knowledge regarding the combined race/ethnicity question and the collection of major group responses and detailed race/ethnicity responses.
As previously stated, the Census Bureau recognizes that OMB is continuing to lead the discussion among federal agencies and other stakeholders on race/ethnicity from the perspective of data collection and dissemination guidance and standards, and that the final determination has not been made on the format of the race/ethnicity question for the 2020 Census. In the event that the 2020 Census does not proceed with the combined race/ethnicity question, the Census Bureau is prepared to make necessary adjustments to deploy the separate Race and Hispanic Origin questions by consulting the various versions of the separate Race and Hispanic Origin questions that were tested during the 2015 National Content Test. The Census Bureau will properly configure all downstream operations—such as response processing and data tabulation, imputation, analysis, and data dissemination—to ensure a successful deployment of the race/ethnicity question(s) regardless of the question format.
Individuals of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) require language assistance in order to complete their census questionnaires. The Census Bureau has identified the largest LEP populations in the United States using American Community Survey data and has established a program for providing non-English materials for census tests and the decennial census. For the 2018 End-to-End Census Test, Internet self-response and telephone assistance will be available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, Arabic, and Tagalog. Paper questionnaires, mailing materials, field data collection instruments and field
For all housing unit addresses included in the test universe, if no response is received by a specified date, the address will be included in the universe for the NRFU portion of the test. In NRFU, enumerators will attempt to follow up at addresses for which no self-response was received to determine their status and to collect their data for addresses determined to be occupied.
To allow sufficient time for self-response, the NRFU operation begins in mid-May. However, some students who reside in off-campus housing units will have left the campus area by the time NRFU begins. Early NRFU is conducted starting in April in blocks near colleges and universities with a high percentage of off-campus housing to enumerate at these units while students are still in town.
The Census Bureau will conduct NRFU with mobile devices. The devices will utilize a secure Census Bureau-provided enumeration application solution for conducting the NRFU field data collection.
A sample of the cases enumerated via NRFU will be selected for reinterview (RI). This NRFU-RI operation is intended to help pinpoint possible cases of enumerator falsification. The Census Bureau will test centralized phone contacts of the NRFU-RI cases before sending them to an enumerator in the field, providing potential cost avoidance opportunities. Enumerators working NRFU-RI cases will use the same mobile devices and software as for the NRFU cases.
Households that self-respond to the Census without a User ID with addresses that cannot be either matched to our address frame or verified in Non-ID Processing may be sent to a Field Verification operation, performed by NRFU enumerators. This suboperation is designed for verification that the housing unit exists, confirmation of the census block location for the address, and if possible, collection of Global Positioning System coordinates to facilitate accurate determination of the census block.
Update Enumerate for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will test the four planned components of the operation: Update Enumerate Production, Update Enumerate Listing Quality Control (QC), Update Enumerate Followup, and Update Enumerate Reinterview. In addition to the field operation, the Census Bureau will test mailing out an invitation package to those housing units with a mailable address to generate self-response before the operation begins. Mailable addresses will constitute only a small percentage of the addresses in these areas. If a household self-responds, the UE fieldworker (enumerator) will not need to enumerate that house while listing the geographic area. This is a cost savings to Update Enumerate since the enumerator will not have to spend time collecting these data.
Enumerators will visit specific geographic areas to identify every place where people could live or stay, comparing what they see on the ground to the existing census address list. The enumerator will update the address list, either verify or correct the address and location information, and classify each living quarter (LQ) as a housing unit (HU) or group quarter (GQ). If the LQ is classified as a GQ, it will be designated for enumeration within the GQ operations.
Enumerators will attempt to conduct an interview for each housing unit that has not yet self-responded. If someone answers the door, the enumerator will provide a Confidentiality Notice and ask questions to verify or update the address. The enumerator will then ask if there are any additional LQs in the structure or on the property. If there are additional LQs, the enumerators will collect/update that information. The enumerator will then interview the respondent for the household using the questionnaire on the mobile device.
If no one is home at a housing unit that has not self-responded, the enumerator will leave a Notice of Visit inviting a respondent for each household to go online with a User ID to complete the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. The Notice of Visit will also include the phone number for Census Questionnaire Assistance (CQA) if the respondent has any questions or would prefer to respond to the survey on the telephone. In the 2018 End-to-End Census Test, a paper questionnaire rather than a Notice of Visit will be left with a random set of addresses in order to test the impact on self-response rates. This operation has never been tested for the census before, and this data will help determine the best strategies to use in the 2020 Census.
A sample of addresses listed via UE production will be selected for UE Listing QC. The intention of this operation is to help us pinpoint possible cases of enumerator falsification or error in address listing. UE Listing QC will use the Census Bureau's listing software on mobile devices to recollect listing data to be used for a comparison.
The UE operation will have a UE Followup component for those households that were not enumerated on the first visit and have not yet self-responded. UE enumerators will conduct the operation using the NRFU enumeration application on a Census Bureau provided mobile device.
A sample of cases enumerated via UE production or UE Followup will be selected for reinterview. The intention of this operation is to help us pinpoint possible cases of enumerator falsification of enumeration data. The Census Bureau will test centralized phone contacts of the UE RI cases before sending them to an enumerator in the field, providing potential cost avoidance opportunities. Enumerators working UE RI cases will use the same mobile devices and software as for the UE and NRFU cases.
The GQ Advance Contact operation will contact Group Quarters prior to enumeration. In an in-office Advance Contact, GQs will be contacted to verify information such as: Preferred modes of enumeration, expected population on Census Day, and whether there are available electronic response data records the Census Bureau could use for the enumeration. Census Bureau staff at local Census offices will follow-up with GQs by phone, email, and in-person to obtain the necessary pre-enumeration information.
Enumerators will conduct SBE at selected shelters, soup kitchens, and nonsheltered outdoor locations, providing an opportunity to test new response collection procedures on a larger scale than has been tested so far this decade.
GQE will involve multiple modes of enumeration. During the 2018 End-to-End Census Test, electronic response for GQs will be tested on a broad scale to determine if there are gains in efficiency
A sample of cases that have been enumerated via GQE will be selected for reinterview. This operation is intended to help us pinpoint possible cases of enumerator falsification.
Coverage Improvement is conducted to resolve potential erroneous enumerations and omissions from the initial self-response data collection and from all field enumeration data collections. Coverage questions are included in both the self-response and NRFU instruments to aid in the identification of coverage follow-up cases. In-office follow-up includes evaluating usual-home-elsewhere address data from GQ enumerations, and assessing the potential person duplication, as identified through person matching on collected data. For cases where in-office processes do not yield a resolution, field and/or telephone follow-up with the respondent will occur.
With the addition of expanded language options, response data from detailed write-in fields, such as those on the combined race/ethnicity question, will need to be translated, output, processed, coded, edited, and tabulated. In addition, a prototype of the Redistricting Data Program output will be delivered. Ensuring these interfaces meet the requirements for data tabulation will be a crucial step in preparing to tabulate the test data.
The design of this data product and its dissemination is a critical final objective of the 2018 End-to-End Census Test, as the Census Bureau must be prepared to meet the needs of various stakeholders for 2020 Census data.
Estimated Time per Response:
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended by Pub. L. 94-409, Pub. L. 96-523, Pub. L. 97-375 and Pub. L. 105-153), we are announcing a meeting of the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting will focus on the ongoing challenges of measuring prices in the 21st century and address upcoming plans for the national economic accounts.
Friday, May 12, 2017. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Suitland Federal Center, which is located at 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20746.
Dondi Staunton, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Suitland, MD 20746; telephone number: (301) 278-9798.
The Committee was established September 2, 1999. The Committee advises the Director of BEA on matters related to the development and improvement of BEA's national, regional, industry, and international economic accounts, especially in areas of new and rapidly growing economic activities arising from innovative and advancing technologies, and provides recommendations from the perspectives of the economics profession, business, and government. This will be the Committee's twenty-ninth meeting.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 16, 2017, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) issued its final judgment, affirming the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of redetermination concerning the less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV) of utility scale wind towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The Department is notifying the public that the Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final determination in the LTFV investigation on utility scale wind towers from Vietnam, and is amending the final determination with respect to CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. and CS Wind Corporation (collectively, CS Wind Group).
Effective March 26, 2017.
Trisha Tran, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4852.
On February 15, 2013, the Department published its amended final determination and antidumping duty order in this proceeding.
On November 3, 2014, the CIT affirmed, in part, and remanded in part, the Department's
The CS Wind Group challenged the CIT's affirmance of the Department's
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this litigation, the Department is amending the
Pursuant to sections 735(c)(2) of the Act, “the investigation shall be terminated upon publication of that negative determination” and the Department shall “terminate the suspension of liquidation” and “release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit.”
Accordingly, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to release any bonds or other security and refund cash deposits. This exclusion does not apply to merchandise produced by CS Wind Group and exported by any other company. Therefore, resellers of merchandise produced, or produced and exported by CS Wind Group, are not entitled to the exclusion. Similarly, the exclusion does not apply to merchandise produced by any other company and exported by CS Wind Group.
We note, however, that pursuant to Timken, the suspension of liquidation must continue during the pendency of the appeals process. Thus, at this time we will instruct CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation at a cash deposit rate of 0.00 percent for entries produced and exported by CS Wind Group until otherwise instructed and to release any bond or other security that CS Wind Group made pursuant to the
Finally, we note that, at this time, the Department remains enjoined by Court order from liquidating entries produced and/or exported by CS Wind Group during the period February 13, 2013, through January 31, 2014. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 3, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its Preliminary intent to rescind the new shipper review (NSR) of the countervailing duty order on calcium hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review is May 27, 2014, through December 31, 2015. As discussed below, we announced our preliminary intent to rescind this review because the Department requested but did not receive from Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd. (Jingmei) and its customers' information requested by the Department to determine whether, and conclude that, the sale under review is
Effective March 29, 2017.
Ryan Mullen or Elizabeth Lobaugh, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5260 or (202) 482-7425, respectively.
For a complete description of the events that followed the publication of the
The merchandise covered by the order is calcium hypochlorite, regardless of form (
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
In the
As the Department is rescinding this NSR, we have not calculated a company-specific subsidy rate for Jingmei.
Effective upon publication of this notice of the final rescission of the NSR of Jingmei, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from Jingmei. Because we did not calculate a subsidy rate for Jingmei, Jingmei continues to be subject to the all-others rate. The all-others rate is 65.85 percent.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 56 Assessment Webinars.
The SEDAR 56 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of black seabass will consist of a series webinars. See
SEDAR 56 Assessment webinars will be held on Wednesday, June 21, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.; Thursday, July 20, 2017, from 1 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Assessment webinars are as follows:
1. Participants will continue discussions to develop population models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks, and project future conditions, as specified in the Terms of Reference.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
3. Participants will prepare a workshop report and determine whether the assessment(s) are adequate for submission for review.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 56 Assessment Scoping webinar.
The SEDAR 56 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of black seabass will consist of a series webinars. See
A SEDAR 56 Assessment Scoping webinar will be held on Friday, May 12, 2017 from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Assessment Scoping webinar are as follows:
Participants will review data and discuss data issues, as necessary, and initial model issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Climate Program Office (CPO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Program will hold an organizational meeting of the NIDIS Executive Council on April 20, 2017.
The meeting will be held Thursday, April 20, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. EST to 4:30 p.m. EST. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change.
The meeting will be held at the Hall of States, Room 383/385, 444 North Capitol St. NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Veva Deheza, NIDIS Executive Director, David Skaggs Research Center, Room GD102, 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305. Email:
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) was established by Public Law 109-430 on December 20, 2006, and reauthorized by Public Law 113-86 on March 6, 2014, with a mandate to provide an effective drought early warning system for the United States; coordinate, and integrate as practicable, Federal research in support of a drought early warning system; and build upon existing forecasting and assessment programs and partnerships.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comment.
NMFS has received an application from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to Seattle Multimodal Construction Project in Washington State. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to the WSDOT to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 28, 2017.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be allowed if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking, as well as the other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat (
Where there is the potential for serious injury or death, the allowance of incidental taking requires promulgation of regulations under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A). Subsequently, a Letter (or Letters) of Authorization may be issued as governed by the prescriptions established in such regulations, provided that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize incidental taking by harassment only (
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5) authorization requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
NMFS preliminary determined the issuance of the proposed IHA is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical exclusion.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to making a final decision on the IHA request.
On July 28, 2016, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for the harassment of small numbers of 11 marine mammal species incidental to construction associated with the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock, Seattle, Washington, between August 1, 2017 and July 31, 2018. NMFS initially determined the IHA application was complete on September 1, 2016. However, WSDOT notified NMFS in November 2016 that the scope of its activities had changed. WSDOT stated that instead of using vibratory hammers for the majority of in-water pile driving and using impact hammer for proofing, it would be required to use impact hammers to drive a large number of piles completely due to sediment conditions at Colman Dock. On March 2, 2017, WSDOT submitted a revised IHA application with updated project description. NMFS determined that the revised IHA application was complete on March 3, 2017.
NMFS is proposing to authorize the Level A and Level B harassment of the following eight marine mammal species/stocks: Harbor seal (
WSDOT is proposing to preserve the Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock. The project will reconfigure the dock while maintaining approximately the same vehicle holding capacity as current conditions. The reconfiguration would increase total permanent overwater coverage (OWC) by about 5,400 square feet (f
The project will remove the northern timber trestle and replace a portion of it with a new concrete trestle. The area from Marion Street to the north edge of the property will not be rebuilt and will become, after demolition, a new area of open water. A section of fill contained behind a bulkhead underneath the northeast section of the dock will also be removed.
WSDOT will construct a new steel and concrete trestle from Columbia Street northward to Marion Street. Construction of the reconfigured dock will narrow (reduce) the OWC along the shoreline (at the landward edge) by 180 linear feet at the north end of the site, while 30 linear feet of new trestle would be constructed along the shoreline at the south end of the site. The net reduction of OWC in the nearshore zone is 150 linear feet.
The purpose of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock is to preserve the transportation function of an aging, deteriorating and seismically-deficient facility to continue providing safe and reliable service. The project will also address existing safety concerns related to conflicts between vehicles and pedestrian traffic and
• Replacing and re-configuring the timber trestle portion of the dock;
• Replacing the main terminal building;
• Reconfiguring the dock layout to provide safer and more efficient operations;
• Replacing the vehicle transfer span and the overhead loading structures of Slip 3;
• Replacing vessel landing aids;
• Maintaining a connection to the Marion Street pedestrian overpass;
• Moving the current POF slip temporarily to the north to make way for south trestle construction, and then constructing a new POF slip in the south trestle area;
• Mitigating for the additional 5,400 f
• Capping existing contaminated sediments.
The proposed Seattle Multimodal Project would involve in-water impact and vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile removal. Details of the proposed construction project that have the potential to affect marine mammals are provided below.
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water work timing restrictions to protect Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed salmonids, planned WSDOT in-water construction at this location is limited each year to July 16 through February 15. For this project, in-water construction is planned to take place between August 1, 2017 and February 15, 2018.
The total worst-case time for pile installation and removal is expected to be 83 working days (Table 1).
• Vibratory driving of each of the 101 24-inch steel pile will take approximately 20 minutes, with a maximum of 16 piles installed per day over 7 days.
• Vibratory removal of 103 temporary 24-inch diameter steel piles will take approximately 20 minutes per pile, with maximum 16 piles removed per day over 8 days.
• Impact driving (3000 strikes per pile) of 14 30-inch and 201 36-inch diameter steel piles will take approximately 45 minutes per pile, with maximum 8 piles per day for a total of 28 days.
• Vibratory driving of 17 30- and 205 36-inch diameter steel piles will take 20 minutes per pile, with maximum 8 piles per day over a total of 29 days.
• Vibratory removal of 215 14-inch timber piles will take approximately 15 minutes per pile, with approximately 20 piles removed per day for 11 days.
The proposed activities will occur at the Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock, located in the City of Seattle, Washington (see Figure 1-2 of the IHA application).
The proposed project has two elements involving noise production that may affect marine mammals: Vibratory hammer driving and removal, and impact hammer driving.
Details of pile driving activities are provided below:
• The 14-inch timber piles will be removed with a vibratory hammer (Table 1).
• The 24-inch temporary piles will be installed and removed with a vibratory hammer (no proofing) (Table 1).
• Some of the permanent 30- and 36-inch steel piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer, and some would be installed with impact hammer (Table 1).
Vibratory hammers are commonly used in steel pile driving where sediments allow and involve the same vibratory hammer used in pile removal. The pile is placed into position using a choker and crane, and then vibrated between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per minute. The anticipated time required (based on WSDOT prior experience) to install a 14″ timber pile is up to 900 seconds; for a 24″ steel pile 1200 seconds; and for a 30″ or 36″ steel pile 2700 seconds. The vibrations liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth, or to be removed. The type of vibratory hammer that will be used for the project will likely be an APE 400 King Kong (or equivalent) with a drive force of 361 tons.
Impact hammers are used to install plastic/steel core, wood, concrete, or steel piles. An impact hammer is a steel device that works like a piston. Impact hammers are usually large, though small impact hammers are used to install small diameter plastic/steel core piles.
Impact hammers have guides (called a lead) that hold the hammer in alignment with the pile while a heavy piston moves up and down, striking the top of the pile, and drives it into the substrate from the downward force of the hammer on the top of the pile.
To drive the pile, the pile is first moved into position and set in the proper location using a choker cable. Once the pile is set in place, pile installation with an impact hammer is expected to require approximately 45 minutes. It is expected that for each 30 inch and 36 inch steel pile, a maximum of 3,000 strikes would be needed to install a pile.
It is possible that more than 1 vibratory pile driving, up to 3 hammers, could be conducted concurrently for the 24-, 30-, and 36-inch piles.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in in detail later in the document (Mitigation
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that have the potential to occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal (
General information on the marine mammal species found in Washington coastal waters can be found in Caretta
There are three stocks in Washington's inland waters, the Hood Canal, Northern Inland Waters, and Southern Puget Sound stocks. Seals belonging to the Northern Inland Waters Stock are present at the project site. Pupping seasons vary by geographic region. For the northern Puget Sound region, pups are born from late June through August (WDFW 2012). After October 1, all pups in the inland waters of Washington are weaned. Of the pinniped species that commonly occur within the region of activity, harbor seals are the most common and the only pinniped that breeds and remains in the inland marine waters of Washington year-round (Calambokidis and Baird 1994).
In 1999, Jeffries
The nearest documented harbor seal haulout to the Seattle Ferry Terminal is 10.6 kilometers (km)/6.6 miles (mi) west on Blakely Rocks, though harbor seals also make use of docks, buoys and beaches in the area. The level of use of this haulout during the fall and winter is unknown, but is expected to be much less as air temperatures become colder than water temperatures resulting in seals in general hauling out less. None of the harbor seals have been spotted using Colman Dock as a haulout. Harbor seals are known to haulout opportunistically on docks and beaches throughout the project area.
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 6 harbor seals were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project zones of influence (ZOIs) where received sound levels are above 160 decibel (dB) re 1 micropascal (µPa) and Level B harassment is anticipated to occur (WSF 2012). During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 56 harbor seals were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs. The maximum number sighted during 1day was 13 (WSF 2016).
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of harbor seals in the Seattle area as a range of 0.550001 and 1.219000 animals per square kilometer.
Washington California sea lions are part of the U.S. stock, which begins at the U.S./Mexico border and extends northward into Canada. The minimum population size of the U.S. stock was estimated at 296,750 in 2011. More recent pup counts made in 2011 totaled 61,943, the highest recorded to date. Estimates of total population size based on these counts are currently being developed (NMFS 2015d). Some 3,000 to 5,000 animals are estimated to move into northwest waters (both Washington and British Columbia) during the fall (September) and remain until the late spring (May) when most return to breeding rookeries in California and Mexico (Jeffries
The nearest documented California sea lion haulout sites are 3 km/2 mi southwest of the Seattle Ferry Terminal, although sea lions also make use of docks and other buoys in the area.
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 15 California sea lions were observed during this 1 day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). During the
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of California sea lions in the Seattle area as a range of 0.067601 and 0.12660 animals per square kilometer.
The Eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lion may be present near the project site. The eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions is estimated to be 71,562 based on pup and non-pup counts. In Washington waters, Steller sea lion abundances vary seasonally with a minimum estimate of 1,000 to 2,000 individuals present or passing through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in fall and winter months.
Steller sea lion numbers in Washington State decline during the summer months, which correspond to the breeding season at Oregon and British Columbia rookeries (approximately late May to early June) and peak during the fall and winter months (WDFW 2000). According to NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report, a new rookery has become established on the outer Washington coast with over 100 pups born there in 2015 (NMFS 2016). A few Steller sea lions can be observed year-round in Puget Sound although most of the breeding age animals return to rookeries in the spring and summer.
The nearest documented Steller sea lion haulout sites are 15 km/9 mi southwest of the Seattle Ferry Terminal (WSDOT 2016a).
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 Steller sea lions were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 Steller sea lions were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2016).
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of Steller sea lions in the Seattle area as a range of 0.025101 and 0.036800 animals per square kilometer.
The Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident (SRKW) and West Coast Transient (Transient) stocks of killer whale may be found near the project site. The Southern Resident killer whales live in three family groups known as the J, K and L pods. As of December 31, 2015, the stock collectively numbers 78 individuals (CWR 2016). Transient killer whales generally occur in smaller (less than 10 individuals), less structured pods (NMFS 2013c). According to the Center for Whale Research (CWR 2015), they tend to travel in small groups of one to five individuals, staying close to shorelines, often near seal rookeries when pups are being weaned. The West Coast Transient stock, which includes individuals from California to southeastern Alaska, is has a minimum population estimate of 243, which does not include an estimate of the number of whales in California (NMFS 2013b).
The SRKW and West Coast Transient stocks are both found within Washington inland waters. Individuals of both stocks have long-ranging movements and regularly leave the inland waters (Calambokidis and Baird 1994).
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 SRKW were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 SRKW were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2016).
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2014) estimates the density of Southern Resident killer whales in the Seattle area as a range of 0.001461 and 0.020240 animals per square kilometer.
According to the NMFS National Stranding Database, there were no killer whale strandings in the Seattle and Island County areas between 2010 and 2014 (NMFS 2016).
The West Coast Transient killer whale sightings have become more common since mid-2000. Unlike the SRKW pods, transients may be present in an area for hours or days as they hunt pinnipeds.
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 transients were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 transients were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2016). However, on February 5, 2016, a pod of up to 7 transients were reported in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (Orca Network Archive Report 2016).
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of west coast transient killer whales in the Seattle area as a range of 0.000575 and 0.002373 animals per square kilometer.
The Eastern North Pacific gray whale may be found near the project site. The most recent population estimate for the Eastern North Pacific stock is 20,990 individuals (NMFS 2015e). Within Washington waters, gray whale sightings reported to Cascadia Research and the Whale Museum between 1990 and 1993 totaled over 1,100 (Calambokidis
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 gray whales were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 gray whales were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2016).
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2014) estimates the density of gray whales in the Seattle area as a range of 0.000002 to 0.000510 animals per square kilometer.
The California-Oregon-Washington (CA-OR-WA) stock of humpback whale may be found near the project site. In 2016, NMFS has identified three Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of humpback whales off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California. These are: The Hawaii DPS (found predominately off Washington and southern British Columbia), which is not listed under the ESA; the Mexico DPS (found all along the coast), which is listed as threatened under the ESA; and the Central America DPS (found all along the coast), which is listed as endangered under the ESA.
From August to November 2015, WSDOT conducted marine mammal monitoring during tank farm pier removal at the Seattle Multimodal Project. During 51 days of monitoring, one humpback whale was observed within the ZOI on November 4, 2015.
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 humpback whales were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 humpback whales were
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of humpback whales in the Seattle area as a range between 0.000010 and 0.00070 animals per square kilometer.
The Washington Inland Waters Stock of harbor porpoise may be found near the project site. The Washington Inland Waters Stock occurs in waters east of Cape Flattery (Strait of Juan de Fuca, San Juan Island Region, and Puget Sound).
Aerial surveys of the Washington and southern British Columbia were conducted from 2013 to 2015 (Smultea
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 harbor porpoise were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 harbor porpoise were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2016).
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2014) estimates the density of harbor porpoise during the timeframe scheduled for this project in the Seattle area as a range between 0.061701 and 0.156000 animals/km
The California, Oregon, and Washington Stock of Dall's porpoise may be found near the project site. The most recent estimate of Dall's porpoise stock abundance is 25,750, based on 2005 and 2008 summer/autumn vessel-based line transect surveys of California, Oregon, and Washington waters (NMFS 2011d). Within the inland waters of Washington and British Columbia, this species is most abundant in the Strait of Juan de Fuca east to the San Juan Islands. The most recent Washington's inland waters estimate is 900 animals (Calambokidis
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 Dall's porpoise were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 Dall's porpoise were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2016).
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2014) estimates the density of Dall's porpoises in the Seattle area as a range between 0.018858 and 0.047976 animals per square kilometer.
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analyses and Determination” section will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, NMFS (2016) to designate “marine mammal hearing groups” for marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of hearing of the groups. The marine mammal groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range somewhere in the middle of their hearing range):
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 kilohertz (kHz);
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, seven species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, seven species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz;
• Phocid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz and 86 kHz; and
• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, eight marine mammal species (five cetacean and four pinniped species) are likely to occur in the vicinity of the Seattle pile driving/removal area. Of the five cetacean species, three belong to the low-frequency cetacean group (gray and humpback whales), one is a mid-frequency cetacean (killer whale), and two high-frequency cetacean (harbor and Dall's porpoises). One species of pinniped is phocid (harbor seal), and two species of pinniped are otariid (California and Steller sea lions). A species' functional hearing group is a consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
The WSDOT's Seattle Colman ferry terminal construction work using in-water pile driving and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran
Lucke
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving activity is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). For WSDOT's Seattle Colman Ferry Terminal construction activities, noises from vibratory pile driving and pile removal contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the project area, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking. Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high due to ongoing shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget Sound.
Finally, marine mammals' exposure to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be biologically
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by pile driving and removal associated with marine mammal prey species. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible. These potential effects are discussed below.
SPLs from impact pile driving has the potential to injure or kill fish in the immediate area. These few isolated fish mortality events are not anticipated to have a substantial effect on prey species population or their availability as a food resource for marine mammals.
Studies also suggest that larger fish are generally less susceptible to death or injury than small fish. Moreover, elongated forms that are round in cross section are less at risk than deep-bodied forms. Orientation of fish relative to the shock wave may also affect the extent of injury. Open water pelagic fish (
The huge variation in fish populations, including numbers, species, sizes, and orientation and range from the detonation point, makes it very difficult to accurately predict mortalities at any specific site of detonation. Most fish species experience a large number of natural mortalities, especially during early life-stages, and any small level of mortality caused by the WSDOT's impact pile driving will likely be insignificant to the population as a whole.
For non-impulsive sound such as that of vibratory pile driving, experiments have shown that fish can sense both the strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas
During construction activity at Colman Dock, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where construction work is planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species between March and July.
Short-term turbidity is a water quality effect of most in-water work, including pile driving.
Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the Colman terminal to experience turbidity, and any pinnipeds will be transiting the terminal area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals.
For these reasons, WSDOT's proposed Seattle Multimodal construction at Colman Dock is not expected to have adverse effects to marine mammal habitat in the area.
This section includes an estimate of the number of incidental “takes” likely to occur pursuant to this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only means of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
As described previously in the section Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat, no incidental take is anticipated to result from effects on prey species or as a result of turbidity. Level B Harassment is expected to occur as discussed below and is proposed to be authorized in the numbers identified below.
As described below, a small number of takes by Level A Harassment are being proposed to be authorized.
The death of a marine mammal is also a type of incidental take. However, as described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized to result from this activity.
Take estimates are based on average marine mammal density in the project area multiplied by the area size of ensonified zones within which received noise levels exceed certain thresholds (
As discussed above, in-water pile removal and pile driving (vibratory and impact) generate loud noises that could potentially harass marine mammals in the vicinity of WSDOT's proposed Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock.
Under the NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance), dual criteria are used to assess marine mammal auditory injury (Level A harassment) as a result of noise exposure (NMFS 2016). The dual criteria under the Guidance provide onset thresholds in instantaneous peak SPLs (L
The cumulative SEL is the total sound exposure over the entire duration of a given day's pile driving activity, specifically, pile driving occurring within a 24-hr period.
For onset of Level B harassment, NMFS continues to use the root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure level (SPL
Table 3 summarizes the current NMFS marine mammal take criteria.
The project includes vibratory removal of 14-inch (in) timber piles, vibratory driving and removal of 24-in steel piles, vibratory driving of 30- and 36-in steel piles, and impact pile driving of 30- and 36-in steel piles. In February of 2016, WSDOT conducted a test pile project at Colman Dock in order to gather data to select the appropriate piles for the project. The test pile project measured impact pile driving of 24- and 36-in steel piles. The measured results from the project are used here to provide source levels for the prediction of isopleths ensonified over thresholds for the Seattle project. The results show that the SPL
Source level of vibratory pile driving of 36-in steel piles is based on test pile driving at Port Townsend in 2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory pile driving were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile. The results show that the SPL
Up to three pile installation crews may be active during the day within the project footprint. Each crew will use one vibratory and one impact hammer, and it is possible that more than one vibratory or impact hammer may be active at the same time for pile driving and/or removal for the 24-, 30-, and 36-inch piles. Overlapping noise fields created by multiple hammer use are handled differently for impact and vibratory hammers. When more than one impact hammer is being used close enough to another impact hammer, the cumulative acoustic energy is accounted for by including all hammer strikes. When more than one vibratory hammer is being used close enough to another vibratory hammer to create overlapping noise fields, additional sound levels are added to account for the overlap, creating a larger ZOI. A simplified nomogram method (Kinsler
For vibratory pile removal, vibratory pile driving data were used as proxies because we conservatively consider noises from pile removal would be the same as those from pile driving.
The source level of vibratory removal of 14-in timber piles were based on measurements conducted at the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal during vibratory removal of a 12-inch timber pile by WSDOT (Laughlin 2011). The recorded source level is 152 dB re 1 μPa at 16 m from the pile. In the absence of
These source levels are used to compute the Level A ensonified zones and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A harassment zones, zones calculated using cumulative SEL are all larger than those calculated using SPL
Calculation and modeling of applicable ensonified zones are based on source measurements of comparable types and sizes of piles driven by different methods (impact vs. vibratory hammers) either during the Colman test pile driving or at a different location within the Puget Sound. As mentioned earlier, isopleths for injury zones are based on cumulative SEL (L
For peak SPL (L
For cumulative SEL (
For vibratory pile driving, cumulative exposures were computed by summing 1-second noise exposure by the duration needed to drive on pile (provided in Table 1), then by the number of piles to be driven in a given day, as shown in the equation below:
Frequency-specific transmission losses,
As mentioned earlier, isopleths to Level B behavioral zones are based on root-mean-square SPL (SPL
For Level B harassment zones from vibratory pile driving of 30 inch and 36 inch piles, the ensonified zones are calculated based on practical spreading of back-calculated source level of 36 inch pile driving adjusted for 3 hammers operating concurrently by adding 5 dB. The results show that the 120 dB re 1 μPa isopleth is at 13.6 km. For Level B harassment zone from vibratory pile driving of 24″ piles, WSDOT conducted site measurements during Seattle test pile driving project using 24″ steel piles. The results show that underwater noise cannot be detected at a distance of 5 km (3 mi). Since this measurement was based on pile driving using 1 hammer, the Level B harassment zone for 24 inch steel pile
The result show that when using 3 vibratory hammers concurrently, the distance from the pile to where pile noise is no longer audible is 11 km.
A summary of the measured and modeled harassment zones is provided in Table 5.
Incidental take is estimated for each species by estimating the likelihood of a marine mammal being present within a Level A or Level B harassment zone during active pile driving or removal. The Level A calculation includes a duration component, along with an assumption (which can lead to overestimates in some cases) that animals within the zone stay in that area for the whole duration of the pile driving activity within a day. For all marine mammal species except harbor seals and California sea lions, estimated takes are calculated based on ensonified area for a specific pile driving activity multiplied by the marine mammal density in the action area, multiplied by the number of pile driving (or removal) days. Marine mammal density data are from the U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database (Navy 2015). Harbor seal and California sea lion takes are based on observations near Seattle, since these data provide the best information on distribution and presence of these species that are often associated with nearby haulouts (see below). A summary of marine mammal density, days and Level A and Level B harassment areas from different pile driving and removal activities is provided in Table 6.
The Level A take total was further adjusted by subtracting animals expected to occur within the exclusion zone, where pile driving activities are suspended when an animal is observed in or approaching the zone (see Mitigation section). Further, the number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes.
The harbor seal take estimate is based on local seal abundance information off the Seattle area from WSDOT's Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project in 2012. Marine mammal visual monitoring during the Batter Pile Project indicates that a maximum of 6 harbor seals were observed in the general area of the Colman Dock project (WSDOT 2012). Based on a total of 83 pile driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock project, it is estimated that up to 498 harbor seals could be exposed to noise levels associated with “take”. Since 28 days would involve impact pile driving of 30 inch and 36 inch steel piles with Level A zones beyond shutdown zones (465 m vs 160 m shutdown zone), we consider that 168 harbor seals exposed during these 28 days would experience Level A harassment.
The California sea lion take estimate is based on local sea lion abundance information from the City of Seattle's Elliott Bay Sea Wall Project (City of Seattle, 2014). Marine mammal visual monitoring during the Sea Wall Project indicates that up to 15 sea lions were observed in the general area of the Colman Dock project at any given time (City of Seattle 2014). Based on a total of 83 pile driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock project, it is estimated that up to 1245 California sea lions could be exposed to noise levels associated with “take”. Since the Level A zones of otarrids are all very small (<35m, Table 5), we do not consider it likely that any sea lions would be taken by Level A harassment. Therefore, all California sea lion takes estimated here are expected to be taken by Level B harassment.
A summary of estimated marine mammal takes is listed in Table 7.
Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS shall prescribe the “permissible methods of taking by harassment pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.”
To ensure that the “least practicable adverse impact” will be achieved, NMFS evaluates mitigation measures in consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, their habitat, and their availability for subsistence uses (latter where relevant); the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation.
For WSDOT's proposed Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock, WSDOT worked with NMFS and proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence (ZOI) and exclusion zones corresponding to NMFS' current Level B and Level A harassment thresholds and, to implement shut-down measures for certain marine mammal species when they are detected approaching the exclusion zones or actual take numbers are approaching the authorized take numbers (if the IHA is issued).
Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. In addition, all in-water construction will be limited to the period between August 1, 2017, and February 15, 2018.
To reduce impact on marine mammals, WSDOT shall use a marine pile driving energy attenuator (
Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, which include impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile removal, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones where received underwater SPLs or SEL
WSDOT shall also establish Level B harassment zones where received underwater SPLs are higher than 160 dB
WSDOT shall establish a maximum 160-m Level A exclusion zone for all marine mammals. For Level A harassment zones that are smaller than 160 m from the source, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones that correspond to the estimated Level A harassment distances, but shall not be less than 10 m.
A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 8.
NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an initial survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zones before impact pile driving of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the exclusion zone, pile driving of the segment would be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor would wait 30 minutes. If no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it can be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the pile driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have elapsed since the last sighting.
A “soft-start” technique is intended to allow marine mammals to vacate the area before the impact pile driver reaches full power. Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up procedures described below.
Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile driving or removal, or if pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes.
WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected within an exclusion zone or is about to enter an exclusion zone listed in Table 7.
WSDOT shall also implement shutdown measures if southern resident killer whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (ZOI) during in-water construction activities.
If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or removal, and it is unknown whether it is a Southern Resident killer whale or a transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a Southern Resident killer whale and WSDOT shall implement the shutdown measure.
If a Southern Resident killer whale or an unidentified killer whale enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended until the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment.
Further, WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the IHA (if issued) and if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-water construction activities.
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale Research will be contacted by WSDOT to find out the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada. Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately distributed to other sighting networks including: The NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale Museum Hotline and the British Columbia Sightings Network.
Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal species.
With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSDOT will be able to get real-time information on the presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, all of which are described above, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Seattle Multimodal Project. The PSOs will observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following requirements:
1. Independent observers (
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer;
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree inbiological science or related field) or training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer; and
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.;
Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be conducted using high-quality binoculars (
• During 14 inch timber pile removal, two land-based PSOs will monitor the exclusion zones and Level B harassment zone.
• During vibratory pile driving of 24 inch, 30 inch, and 36 inch steel piles, 5 land-based PSOs and two vessel-based PSOs on ferries will monitor the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
• During impact pile driving of 30 inch and 36 inch steel piles, 4 land-based PSOs will monitor the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
Locations of the land-based PSOs and routes of monitoring vessels are shown in WSDOT's Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, which is available online at
To verify the required monitoring distance, the exclusion zones and ZOIs will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held global positioning system device.
WSDOT would be required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. This report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days.
In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within 48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if available).
In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the anticipated effects of WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock activities involving pile driving and pile removal on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis by species for this activity, or else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
Although a few marine mammal species (168 harbor seals, 1 gray whale, 1 humpback whale, 195 harbor porpoises, and 16 Dall's porpoise) are estimated to experience Level A harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level A harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day, the degree of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the reproduction or survival of the individual animals. It is expected that, if hearing impairments occurs, most
For the rest of the three marine mammal species, takes that are anticipated and proposed to be authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS). Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. A few marine mammals could experience TTS if they occur within the Level B TTS ZOI. However, as discussed earlier in this document, TTS is a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity when exposed to loud sound, and the hearing threshold is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours. Therefore, it is not considered an injury. In addition, take calculation of harbor porpoise is based on density provided U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database (Navy 2015), which is more relevant to open water area of the Puget Sound. Finally, harbor porpoise abundance in the Seattle area based on aerial survey showed that their abundance is lower (Jefferson
There is no ESA designated critical habitat in the vicinity of WSDOT's proposed Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock area.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals anticipated to be taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization would be limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
The takes represent less than 17 percent of all populations or stocks with known abundance potentially impacted (see Table 6 in this document). These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by both Level A and Level B harassments. In general, the numbers of marine mammals estimated to be taken are small proportions of the total populations of the affected species or stocks.
The most recent abundance estimate of Washington northern inland water stock of harbor seal was assessed at 11,036 (Carretta
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of each species or stock will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA for any species that are listed or proposed as threatened or endangered.
The California-Oregon-Washington stock of humpback whale and the Southern Resident stock of killer whale are the only marine mammal species listed under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of WSDOT's proposed construction projects. Two DPSs of the humpback whale stock, the Mexico DPS and the Central America DPS, are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, respectively. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation with NMFS' Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to WSDOT under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity.
NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D) authorization requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
NMFS preliminary determined the issuance of the proposed IHA is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical exclusion.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to making a final decision on the IHA request.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the Washington State Department of Transportation for conducting ferry terminal construction at Colman Dock in Seattle Washington, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
The proposed IHA language is provided next.
1. This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2018.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with in-water construction work at the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in the State of Washington.
3. (a) The species authorized taking by, Level A and Level B harassment and in the numbers shown in Table 7 are: Pacific harbor seal (
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
• Impact pile driving;
• Vibratory pile driving; and
• Vibratory pile removal.
4. Prohibitions.
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in Table 6 of this notice. The taking by death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or exempted under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this Authorization.
5. Mitigation.
(a) Time Restriction.
In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours.
(b) Establishment of Level A and Level B Harassment Zones.
(A) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones. The modeled Level A zones are summarized in Table 5.
(B) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish Level B harassment zones. The modeled Level B zones are summarized in Table 5.
(C) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones. The proposed exclusion zones are summarized in Table 8.
(c) Monitoring of marine mammals shall take place starting 30 minutes before pile driving begins until 30 minutes after pile driving ends.
(d) Soft Start.
(i) When there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up procedures described below.
(ii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile driving or removal, or if pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes.
(e) Shutdown Measures.
(i) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected within or to be approaching the exclusion zones provided in Table 7 of this notice.
(ii) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if southern resident killer whales (SRKWs) are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (zone of influence, or ZOI) during in-water construction activities.
(iii) If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the shutdown measure identified in 6(e)(ii).
(iv) If a SRKW enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended until the SRKW exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment.
(v) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA, if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during pile removal activities.
(f) Coordination with Local Marine Mammal Research Network.
Prior to the start of pile driving, WSDOT will contact the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale Research to get real-time information on the presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving.
6. Monitoring.
(a) Protected Species Observers.
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs will meet the following qualifications.
(i) Independent observers (
(ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(v) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all times during pile removal and driving.
(i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A 30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required after the last pile driving or pile removal of the day. If the constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving or pile removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the next start-up of pile driving or pile removal.
(iii) Marine mammal visual monitoring will be conducted for different ZOIs based on different sizes of piles being driven or removed, as shown
(A) During 14 inch timber pile removal, two land-based PSO will monitor the exclusion zones and Level B harassment zone.
(B) During vibratory pile driving of 24 inch, 30 inch, and 36 inch steel piles, 5 land-based PSOs and two vessel-based PSOs on ferries will monitor the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
(C) During impact pile driving of 30 inch and 36 inch steel piles, 5 land-based PSOs and one vessel-based PSO on a ferry will monitor the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
(iv) If marine mammals are observed, the following information will be documented:
(A) Species of observed marine mammals;
(B) Number of observed marine mammal individuals;
(C) Behavior of observed marine mammals;
(D) Location within the ZOI; and
7. Reporting:
(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work or within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.
(b) If comments are received from NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final report.
(c) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality, WSDOT shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) description of the incident;
(iii) status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(iv) environmental conditions (
(v) description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(vi) species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(vii) the fate of the animal(s); and
(viii) photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with WSDOT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSDOT may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(E) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(F) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
8. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the construction work at the Seattle Colman Dock.
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal project at Colman Dock. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee's (MAFAC's) Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force (CBP Task Force). The CBP Task Force will discuss the issues outlined in the
The meeting will be held April 18, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on April 19, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hotel Monaco, 506 SW Washington Street, Portland, OR 97204.
Katherine Cheney; NFMS West Coast Region (503) 231-6730; email:
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC's CBP Task Force. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The complete MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at
This meeting time and agenda are subject to change. Updated information will be available on the CBP Task Force Web page above.
The meeting is convened to conduct the work of the CBP Task Force. Meeting topics include a discussion of the final Operating Principles, discussion of a shared vision, and work plan for goal setting, including a proposed analytical framework. The meeting is open to the public as observers, and a public comment period will be provided on April 19, 2017, from 11:30-12:00 p.m. to accept public input, limited to the time available.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Katherine Cheney; 503-231-6730 by April 4, 2017.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 585 Prineville Street, Port Charlotte, FL 33954 [Responsible Party, Gregg Poulakis, Ph.D.], has applied in due form for a permit to take
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 28, 2017.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Malcolm Mohead or Erin Markin, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The objective of the permitted activity is to conduct research and monitoring of endangered smalltooth sawfish to develop conservation and protective measures ensuring the species' recovery. Other listed species potentially encountered and incidentally collected include green (
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed extension of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by “OMB Control Number 3038-0049,” by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Jocelyn Partridge, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, (202) 418-5926, email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires a Federal agency to provide a 60-day notice in the
The collection requirements described herein are voluntary. They apply to parties that choose to request a benefit from Commission staff in the form of the regulatory action described in section 140.99. Such benefits may include, for example, relief from some or all of the burdens associated with other collections of information, relief from regulatory obligations that do not constitute collections of information collections, interpretations, or extensions of time for compliance with certain Commission regulations. It is likely that persons who would opt to request action under section 140.99 will have determined that the information collection burdens that they would assume by doing so will be outweighed substantially by the relief that they seek to receive.
The information collection associated with section 140.99 of the Commission's regulations is necessary, and would be used, to assist Commission staff in understanding the type of relief that is being requested and the basis for the request. It is also necessary, and would be used, to provide staff with a sufficient basis for determining whether: (1) Granting the relief would be necessary or appropriate under the facts and circumstances presented by the requestor; (2) the relief provided should be conditional and/or time-limited; and (3) granting the relief would be consistent with staff responses to requests that have been presented under similar facts and circumstances. In some cases, the requested relief might be granted upon the condition that those who seek the benefits of that relief fulfill certain notice and other reporting obligations that serve as substituted compliance for regulatory requirements that would otherwise be imposed. In other cases, the conditions might include reporting or recordkeeping requirements that are necessary to ensure that the relief granted by Commission staff is appropriate. Once again, it is likely that those who would comply with these conditions will have determined that the burden of complying with the conditions is outweighed by the relief that they seek to receive. The information collection associated with section 140.98(b) of the Commission's regulations is necessary to provide a mechanism whereby persons requesting no-action, interpretative and exemption letters may seek temporary confidential treatment of their request and the Commission staff response thereto and the grounds upon which such confidential treatment is sought.
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; and
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in section 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The annual respondent burden for this collection during the renewal period is estimated to be as follows:
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
These estimates, as set forth in greater detail below, include the burden hours for complying with the information requirements for exemptive, no-action and interpretative letters contained in section 140.99(c) of the Commission's regulations; effecting the filing of such letters pursuant to section 140.99(d); providing notice to Commission staff of materially changed facts and circumstances pursuant to section 140.99(c)(3)(ii); complying with any conditions that may be contained in a grant of no-action or exemptive relief; complying with requirements to make disclosures to third parties; and preparing and submitting withdrawals of requests for exemptive, no-action and interpretative letters, as provided in section 140.99(f). The estimates also include burden hours related to a request for confidential treatment made pursuant to section 140.98(b) of the Commission's regulations.
The burden hours associated with requests for exemptive, no-action and interpretative letters include both the drafting and filing of the request itself as well as performing the underlying factual or legal analysis generally to comply with the information collection. The burden hours associated with individual requests will vary widely, depending upon the type and complexity of relief requested, whether the request presents novel or complex issues, the relevant facts and circumstances, and the number of requestors or other affected entities. The Commission provides estimates of the amount of time that any requestor spends on any particular request as each request is unique, based upon the preceding factors.
U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, Department of Defense.
Meeting withdrawal notice.
The Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy Notice of Meeting is withdrawing the notice, this meeting published on 23 March 2017 [FR 2017-05625].
This withdrawal is effective March 23, 2017.
The Department of the Air Force is withdrawing the meeting notice of the Board of Visitors that published on the 23rd since this meeting has been amended.
United States Air Force, DOD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) is issuing this notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to address changes made since the February 2016 completion of the
The project Web site (
Comments will be accepted at any time during the environmental impact analysis process. However, to ensure the USAF has sufficient time to consider public input in the preparation of the Draft SEIS, scoping comments should be submitted to the Web site or the address listed above by May 15, 2017.
The Air Force proposes to implement three actions at Eielson AFB. They are independent of each other and have standalone value for improving facility and infrastructure development in support of the F-35A beddown at Eielson AFB. The three are to provide additional stormwater runoff control; develop equipment and material laydown areas; and provide additional heat, water, and power to the South Loop. While full implementation of all of the proposed actions is desired, and results in the greatest benefit for the beddown, each of the proposals if implemented alone would have a positive effect on facility and infrastructure development on the base. The no-action alternatives will be addressed in the SEIS as well.
The additional stormwater runoff control measures would include up to 20 acres to accommodate additional conveyance and infiltration areas. The Air Force identified several areas, adjacent to F-35A facilities, to allow flexibility in conveyance and infiltration system designs. Stormwater control measures can include, but are not limited to, sloping paved areas so that water flows to adjacent vegetated areas and using rocks to fill in low areas so that ponds would not be created. Wildlife in an active airfield poses a real bird/wildlife aircraft strike hazard; therefore, minimizing standing water is a primary consideration when designing stormwater runoff control systems.
The equipment and material laydown areas would entail up to 60 acres, adjacent to F-35A facilities already identified in the original EIS. Because of the remote location, material would need to be stockpiled and stored for use when they are needed. Additionally, the areas would accommodate the construction contractors' equipment and construction worker vehicles involved in this large infrastructure development.
Because of the severe arctic environment and extreme temperature differences (exceeding 150 degrees Fahrenheit), Eielson AFB maintains an underground utility distribution system. Under this proposed action, a utility corridor, both underground for steam, water, and condensate, and above ground for power, would be established to connect from the existing Central Heat and Power Plant and to the South Loop where F-35A facilities identified in the original EIS are being constructed. Depending on the route, the utiliduct could extend up to 2 miles.
The proposed actions at Eielson AFB have the potential to be located in a floodplain and/or wetland. Consistent with the requirements and objectives of Executive Order (EO) 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” and EO 1988, “Floodplain Management,” as amended by EO 13690, “Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input,” state and federal regulatory agencies with special expertise in wetlands and floodplains will be contacted to request comment. Consistent with EO 11988, EO 13690, and EO 11990, this Notice of Intent initiates early public review of the proposed actions and alternatives, which have the potential to be located in a floodplain and/or wetland.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB, for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 28, 2017.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Information Collections Program, WHS/ESD Office of Information Management, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 3rd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 28, 2017.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) Facilities Services Directorate (FSD) Integrated Services Division (ISD), 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:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please contact Yolanda Creal, Transportation Program Manager, WHS/FSD/ISD at (703) 697-1850 and
The 2014 Pentagon/Mark Center Transportation/Commuter Surveys will be administered through the use of technological collection techniques, such as the proprietary DoD Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE) Survey Application.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires notice of the meeting be announced in the
Thursday, May 4, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:45 p.m.
Friday, May 5, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 901 D Street SW., Suite 930, Washington, DC 20024.
Email:
On March 10, 2017, Ryan Yoder filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Yoder Farm Water Supply System Project would have an installed capacity of 1.6 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an irrigation and domestic water supply pipeline the
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on March 10, 2017, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), having its principal place of business at 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221 filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct, replace, idle, and abandon four separate pipeline sections and appurtenant facilities located in Cameron, Elk and McKean Counties, Pennsylvania, referred to as the Line YM28 and Line FM120 Modernization Project (Project), 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 concerning this application may be directed to Randy C. Rucinski, Assistant General Counsel for National Fuel, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, by phone at (716) 857-7237, by fax (716) 857-7206 or by emailing
Specifically, the National Fuel proposes the following modifications: (i) Construct approximately 14.4 miles of new 12-inch diameter pipeline (new Line KL), (ii) replace via insertion approximately 5.8 miles of Line FM120, (iii) idle approximately 12.5 miles of Line FM120, and (iv) abandon in place approximately 7.7 miles of the existing Line YM28. The Project is designed to enhance service to National Fuel's existing customers and improve the reliability and flexibility of National Fuel's system for existing shippers. The total cost of the Project is approximately $39,500,000.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA was directed by Congress in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), to carry out and publish in the
This action applies to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to a wide range of stakeholders including members of the public interested in elemental mercury or mercury compounds generally or specifically in the supply, use, or trade of elemental mercury or mercury compounds, including mercury-added products and manufacturing processes, and interested in the assessment of chemical risks. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action.
As directed in TSCA section 8(b)(10)(B), EPA is publishing an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States (15 U.S.C. 2507(b)(10)(B)). The Lautenberg Act defines “mercury” as “elemental mercury” or “a mercury compound” (15 U.S.C. 2507(b)(10)(A)). The purpose of the mercury inventory is to “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury” (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(C)). This initial inventory report (Ref. 1) is a compilation of readily available, previously published data on the supply, use, and trade of elemental mercury and mercury compounds. Current, complete information is not available for some topics. EPA is not soliciting comments on this initial inventory report.
The Agency also is directed to carry out and publish such an inventory every three years after April 1, 2017, as supported by a rule authorized in the Lautenberg Act (15 U.S.C. 2507(b)(10)(B)). That rule must be promulgated by June 22, 2018. (15 U.S.C. 2507(b)(10)(B)). For inventories subsequent to the initial inventory report, EPA is authorized to promulgate a rule to “assist in the preparation of the inventory” so that “any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process shall make periodic reports to the Administrator, at such time and including such information as the Administrator shall determine” (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(D)). Future triennial inventories of mercury supply, use, and trade are expected to include data collected directly from persons who manufacture (including import) mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
• EPA. Mercury—U.S. Inventory Report: Supply, Use, and Trade. 2017.
15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(B).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 30, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
OMB Control No.: 3060-0795.
Licensees use FCC Form 606 to associate their FCC Registration Number (FRN) with their Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety Homeland Security Bureau call signs and antenna structure registration numbers. The form must be submitted before filing any subsequent applications associated with the existing license or antenna structure registration that is not associated with an FRN.
The information collected in the FCC Form 606 is used to populate the Universal Licensing System (ULS) with the FRNs of licensees and antenna structure registration owners who interact with ULS.
The following consent agenda items have been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, March 23, 2017, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of March 16, 2017. The Consent Agenda has been adopted by the Commission.
The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually:
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also
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.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 24, 2017.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, to
SF-428 Tangible Personal Property Report.
Reinstatement without change and 3 Year Extension and assignment as a Common Form.
Agencies are currently using a variety of forms to account for both Federally owned and grantee owned equipment and property. During the public consultation process mandated by Public Law 106-107, grant recipients requested a standard form to help them submit appropriate property information when required. The Public Law 106-107 Post Awards Subgroup developed a new standard form, the Tangible Personal Property Report, for submission of the required data. The form consists of the cover sheet (SF-428), three attachments to be used as required: Annual Report, SF-428-A; Final Report, SF-428-B; Disposition Request/Report, SF-428-C and a Supplemental Sheet, SF-428S to provide detailed individual item information when required. We are requesting a three-year clearance of this collection and that it be designated as a Common Form.
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.
Through this Request for Information (RFI), the Office of AIDS Research (OAR) in the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), invites feedback from investigators in academia, industry, health care professionals, patient advocates and health advocacy organizations, scientific or professional organizations, federal agencies, community, and other interested constituents on the development of the fiscal year (FY) 2019 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research (FY 2019 AIDS Research Plan). This plan is designed to identify and articulate future directions to maximize the NIH's investments in HIV/AIDS research.
The OAR's Request for Information is open for public comment for a period of 45 days. Comments must be received by May 15, 2017 to ensure consideration. After the public comment period has closed, the comments received by the OAR will be considered in a timely manner for the development of the FY2019 AIDS Research Plan.
Submissions may be electronically sent to
Questions about this request for information should be directed to Paul Gaist, Ph.D., M.P.H. Office of AIDS Research, National Institutes of Health Email:
To access and respond to the RFI, go to the following Web address:
OAR oversees and coordinates the conduct and support of all HIV/AIDS research activities across the NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs). The NIH-sponsored HIV/AIDS research program includes both extramural and intramural research, buildings and facilities, research training, program evaluation, and supports a comprehensive portfolio of research representing a broad range of basic, clinical, behavioral, social science, and translational research on HIV/AIDS and its associated coinfections and comorbidities.
OAR plans and coordinates research through the development of an annual Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research that articulates the overarching HIV/AIDS research priorities and serves as the framework for developing the trans-NIH HIV/AIDS research budget. This Plan provides information about the NIH's HIV/AIDS research priorities to the scientific community, Congress, community stakeholders, HIV-affected communities, and the broad public at large. The fiscal year 2018 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research was recently distributed on the OAR Web site: (
New overarching priorities for HIV/AIDS research were defined in the NIH Director's Statement of August 12, 2015 (
High Priority topics of research for support include:
(1) Reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS;
(2) Developing the next generation of HIV therapies;
(3) Identifying strategies towards a cure;
(4) Improving the prevention and treatment of HIV-associated comorbidities, coinfections, and complications; and
(5) Cross-cutting basic research, behavioral and social science research, health disparities, and training.
This RFI is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation for applications or proposals, or as an obligation in any way on the part of the United States federal government. The federal government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the government's use. Additionally, the government cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the information provided.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
The meetings 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 meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In 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. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on April 12, 2017, 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. (EDT) in a closed teleconference meeting.
The meeting will include discussions and evaluations of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d).
Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site at
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) intends to continue to conduct a multi-site assessment for the Mental Health Care Provider Education in HIV/AIDS Program. There are no changes to the forms or the burden hours.
The education programs are funded under a cooperative agreement that are designed to disseminate knowledge of the psychological and neuropsychiatric sequelae of HIV/AIDS to both traditional (
The multi-site assessment is designed to assess the effectiveness of particular training curricula, document the integrity of training delivery formats, and assess the effectiveness of the various training delivery formats. Analyses will assist CMHS in documenting the numbers and types of traditional and non-traditional mental health providers accessing training; the content, nature and types of training participants receive; and the extent to which trainees experience knowledge, skill and attitude gains/changes as a result of training attendance. The multi-site data collection design uses a two-tiered data collection and analytic strategy to collect information on (1) the organization and delivery of training, and (2) the impact of training on participants' knowledge, skills and abilities.
The annual burden estimates for this activity are shown in the table below.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, MD 20857
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0013 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0051 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0058 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0131 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information necessary to allow FEMA to support the needs of States during disaster situations through the use of other Federal agency resources.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 30, 2017.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Contact Patricia Pritchett, Program Specialist, Response Directorate, Operations Division, National Response Coordination Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency, (202) 646-3411
Under Section 653 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Ariel Pereira, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2016.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from October 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2016) before the next report is published (the first quarter of calendar year 2017), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the fourth quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
1. Occupancy is no less than 93% for previous 12 months;
2. No defaults in the last 12 months of the HFA loan to be refinanced;
3. A 20 year affordable housing deed restriction placed on title that conforms to the 542(c) statutory definition;
4. A Property Capital Needs Assessment (PCNA) must be performed and funds escrowed for all necessary repairs, and reserves funded for future capital needs; and
5. For projects subsidized by Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts:
a. Owner agrees to renew HAP contract(s) for 20-year term, (subject to appropriations and statutory authorization, etc.,), and
b. In accordance with regulations found in 24 CFR 883.306(e), and Housing Notice 2012-14—Use of “New Regulation” Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contracts Residual Receipts of Offset Project-Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments, if at any time NYSHFA determines that a project's excess funds (surplus cash) after project operations, reserve requirements and permitted distributions are met, NYSHFA must place the excess funds into a separate interest-bearing account. Upon renewal of a HAP Contract the excess funds can be used to reduce future HAP payments or other project operations/purposes. When the HAP Contract expires, is terminated, or any extensions are terminated, any unused funds remaining in the Residual Receipt Account at the time of the contract's termination must be returned to HUD.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pursuant to 24 CFR 5.110, the HA was granted a waiver for good cause of its 2016 physical inspection and its 2016 PHAS physical condition indicator score for the FYE March 31, 2016. The HA was advised that March 31, 2017, would be the baseline year to determine its eligibility for Small PHA Deregulation and that a new inspection would be required upon that date.
•
•
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential impacts of approving the proposed Deep South Expansion Project in Lander and Eureka Counties, Nevada. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues and alternatives; and serves to initiate public consultation, as required, under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until May 1, 2017. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
Comments received after the close of the 30-day scoping period will be considered as long as they are received or postmarked prior to 15 days after the last public meeting. The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation upon publication of the Draft EIS.
You may submit comments related to the proposed Deep South Expansion Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrea Dolbear, Project Manager, telephone: 775-635-4000; and at the addresses or fax number above.. Contact Mrs. Dolbear if you wish to add your name to our mailing list. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Barrick Cortez, Inc. is proposing modifications to the existing Deep South Project Plan of Operations (Project) which is located in Eureka and Lander Counties, south of Crescent Valley, Nevada. The proposed modifications include the following activities:
• Deepen the existing Crossroads Pit (Pipeline Complex) by 200 feet to 3,200 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and reconfigure the backfill. Three backfill scenarios are being evaluated at this time;
• Add Stage 11 to the existing Pipeline Pit;
• Expand the existing Gold Acres Pit Complex and expand the waste rock facility (WRF);
• Expand the existing Cortez Hills underground gold mine by increasing the depth of mining from the currently authorized floor of 3,800 feet amsl to 2,500 feet amsl;
• Expand the Pediment portion of the Cortez Hills Pit and shift the Plan of Operations boundary to the east by about 800 feet;
• Partially backfill the existing Cortez Hills Pit;
• Construct an additional water treatment plant in the Cortez Hills Complex;
• Expand the existing Cortez Pit and WRF;
• The maximum dewatering rate will remain below the authorized rate of 36,100 gpm;
• Add Rapid Infiltration Basins (RIBs), laydown areas and surface pipelines on fee land outside of the Plan of Operations boundary in Crescent Valley;
• Construct additional RIBs and surface pipelines, laydown areas and a booster station in Grass Valley and Pine Valley;
• Construct, if necessary, a water reservoir and pipelines for dewatering water management at Rocky Pass, construct a water line from the reservoir to the Dean Ranch, and construct a bypass road for public access; and
• Various additions/revisions to Facilities and Ancillary Disturbance:
○ Expand the plan boundary to capture proposed facilities;
○ Increase off site ore haulage from 1.2 to 2.5 million tons/year;
○ Modify the surface mining rate to allow up to 600,000 tons per day;
○ Expand the existing Pipeline oxide ore stockpile;
○ Add ore stockpiles;
○ Add ancillary disturbance around existing and proposed facilities;
○ Power lines, pipelines, buildings, communication sites, haul and access roads; and
○ Change the Grass Valley productions wells to injection wells and add monitor wells.
The BLM Mt. Lewis Field Office administers 54,825 acres of public lands within the plan boundary, and Cortez controls 3,268 acres of private lands. The BLM previously authorized Cortez to disturb 16,700 acres within the plan boundary. The Plan of Operations amendment (APO) would include increasing the existing approved plan boundary by 4,279 acres; from 58,093 acres to 62,372 acres. The proposed modifications will result in approximately 3,798 acres of new disturbance inside of the new proposed plan boundary. Barrick Cortez, Inc. would continue to employ the existing workforce of employees for the construction, operation, reclamation, and closure of the proposed project amendment, which is anticipated to extend the mine life by approximately another 12 years as a result of the proposed activities.
The BLM is seeking input regarding issues that may be analyzed in the EIS. The public scoping meeting provides the public and other interested agencies and organizations an opportunity to learn about the Project and to help identify issues, provide input, and propose alternatives to be addressed in the EIS before the BLM begins drafting it. Early public involvement is crucial to identify various issues that may be addressed through the process. Some of the potential anticipated issues and concerns may include:
Public involvement is an important part of the NEPA process. The level of public involvement varies with the different types of NEPA compliance and decision-making. Public involvement begins early in the NEPA process, with scoping, and continues throughout the preparation of the analysis and the decision. The CEQ Regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR 1506.6(a)). There are a wide variety of ways to engage the public in the NEPA process. The purpose of public scoping is to ensure that all interested and affected parties are aware of the proposed action.
The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the NHPA as provided in 42 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed project will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Native American tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration.
Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed project that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the EIS, will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Mount Lewis Field Office (see
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 may request in your comment that your personal identifying information be withheld from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1501.7
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before February 25, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by April 13, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before February 25, 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:
Winter Street School,
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-571-572 and 731-TA-1347-1348
Nathanael N. Comly ((202) 205-3174), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
The National Science Board's Executive Committee, 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 on short notice for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
March 30, 2017 from 3:00-4:00 p.m. EDT.
National Science Board Executive Committee members voted that it is necessary to agency business to hold this meeting on short notice.
(1) Committee Chair's opening remarks; (2) Discussion of future fiscal year planning.
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
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing Regulatory Guide (RG) 5.36, “Recommended Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations.” This RG is being withdrawn because guidance for licensees to develop written procedures describing statistical analyses of nuclear material accounting data, specifically when dealing with outlying observations in samples and for testing their statistical significance, is no longer needed.
The effective date of the withdrawal of RG 5.36 is March 29, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0077 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document, using the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Glenn Tuttle, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-7230; email:
The NRC staff issued RG 5.36 in June 1974 to provide guidance on meeting the requirements related to material control and accounting (MC&A) statistical control procedures in section 70.22(b) of title 10 of the
Regulatory guide 5.36 endorsed American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E178-74, “Recommended Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations,” with qualifications. ASTM E178-74 provided a common method used in testing for outlying observations. However, the NRC is not aware that any licensee ever used this particular RG or the ASTM standard it endorsed since it is not required by NRC regulations. Instructions on performing such an analysis, if a licensee chose to test their MC&A data for outliers, can be found in NUREG/CR-4604 (PNL-5849), “Statistical Methods for Nuclear Material Management” (ADAMS Accession No. ML103430339). NUREG/CR-4604 was developed to be a comprehensive guidance document on statistical methods that licensees may use in evaluating MC&A data.
Withdrawal of an RG means that the guide no longer provides useful information or has been superseded by other guidance, technological innovations, congressional actions, or other events. The NRC is withdrawing RG 5.36 because it is no longer needed. The withdrawal of RG 5.36 does not alter any prior or existing NRC licensing approvals or the acceptability of licensee commitments to RG 5.36. Although RG 5.36 is withdrawn, current licensees may continue to use it, and withdrawal does not affect any existing licenses or agreements.
However, by withdrawing RG 5.36, the NRC will no longer specifically approve its use in future requests or applications for NRC licensing actions.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; extension of comment period.
On February 13, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG) DG-4026, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,” for a 60-day public comment period. However, the NRC staff is extending the public comment period from April 14, 2017 to May 31, 2017, based upon a letter from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) that requested additional time in order to perform a comprehensive review of the DG and to consolidate industry comments. This DG provides guidance to applicants for format and content of environmental reports (ERs) that are submitted as part of an applicant for a permit, license, or other authorization to site, construct, and/or operate a new nuclear power plant.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on February 13, 2017 (82 FR 10502), is extended. Comments should be filed no later than May 31, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specified subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jennifer Davis, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-3835, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publically-available information related to this action, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 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.
On February 13, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on DG-4026. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on April 14, 2017; however, due to the NEI's request, the NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold a closed meeting on April 20, 2017, beginning at 9:00 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
The person to contact for more information is Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.
Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold a meeting on April 19, 2017, 10:00 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on the 8th
The person to contact for more information is Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Section 2 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), provides unemployment benefits for qualified railroad employees. These benefits are generally payable for each day of unemployment in excess of four during a registration period (normally a period of 14 days).
Section 12 of the RUIA provides that the RRB establish, maintain and operate free employment facilities directed toward the reemployment of railroad employees. The procedures for applying for the unemployment benefits and employment service and for registering and claiming the benefits are prescribed in 20 CFR 325. 20 CFR 321 provides for applying and filing claims for unemployment benefits electronically.
The RRB utilizes the following forms to collect the information necessary to pay unemployment benefits. Form UI-1 (or its Internet equivalent, Form UI-1 (Internet)),
The RRB also utilizes Form UI-3 (or its Internet equivalent Form UI-3 (Internet)),
Completion of Forms UI-1, UI-1 (Internet), UI-3, and UI-3 (Internet) is required to obtain or retain benefits. The number of responses required of each claimant varies, depending on their period of unemployment.
Public Law 95-216 amended the Social Security Act of 1977 by providing, in part, that spouse or survivor benefits may be reduced when the beneficiary is in receipt of a pension based on employment with a Federal, State, or local governmental unit. Initially, the reduction was equal to the full amount of the government pension. Public Law 98-21 changed the reduction to two-thirds of the amount of the government pension.
Public Law 108-203 amended the Social Security Act by changing the requirement for exemption to a public service offset, so that Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes are deducted from the public service wages for the last 60 months of public service employment, rather than just the last day of public service employment.
Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(f)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) provides that a spouse or survivor annuity should be equal in amount to what the annuitant would receive if entitled to a like benefit from the Social Security Administration. Therefore, the public service pension (PSP) provisions apply to RRA annuities. RRB regulations pertaining to the collection of evidence relating to public service pensions or worker's compensation paid to spouse
The RRB utilizes Form G-208, Public Service Pension Questionnaire, and Form G-212, Public Service Monitoring Questionnaire, to obtain information used to determine whether an annuity reduction is in order.
Completion of the forms is voluntary. However, failure to complete the forms could result in the nonpayment of benefits. One response is requested of each respondent.
Under Section 7(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act, the RRB administers the Medicare program for persons covered by the railroad retirement system. Under Section 1843 of the Social Security Act, states may enter into “buy-in agreements” with the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the purpose of enrolling certain groups of low-income individuals under the Medicare medical insurance (Part B) program and paying the premiums for their insurance coverage. Generally, these individuals are categorically needy under Medicaid and meet the eligibility requirements for Medicare Part B. States can also include in their buy-in agreements, individuals who are eligible for medical assistance only. The RRB utilizes Form RL-380-F,
Completion of Form RL-380-F is voluntary. One response is received from each respondent.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Brian Foster, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-1275 or
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 Kansas (FEMA-4304-DR), dated 02/24/2017.
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 Kansas, dated 02/24/2017, 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 Wyoming (FEMA-4306-DR), dated 03/21/2017.
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 03/21/2017, 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 15094B and for economic injury is 15095B.
Pursuant to Section 490(b)(l)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act or 1961, as amended. I hereby determine and certify that the top five exporting and importing countries and economies of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine (Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Republic of Korea, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) have cooperated fully with the United States, or have taken adequate steps on their own, to achieve full compliance with the goals and objectives established by the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
This determination and certification shall be published in the
Department of State.
Notice.
A determination has been made that a foreign person has engaged in activities that warrant the imposition of measures pursuant to Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act. The Act provides for penalties on foreign entities and individuals for the transfer to or acquisition from Iran since January 1, 1999; the transfer to or acquisition from Syria since January 1, 2005; or the transfer to or acquisition from North Korea since January 1, 2006, of goods, services, or technology controlled under multilateral control lists (Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, Chemical Weapons Convention, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar Arrangement) or otherwise having the potential to make a material contribution to the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or cruise or ballistic missile systems. The latter category includes (a) items of the same kind as those on multilateral lists but falling below the control list parameters when it is determined that such items have the potential of making a material contribution to WMD or cruise or ballistic missile systems, (b) items on U.S. national control lists for WMD/missile reasons that are not on multilateral lists, and (c) other items with the potential of making such a material contribution when added through case-by-case decisions.
On general issues: Pam Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and
On March 21, 2017 the U.S. Government applied the measures authorized in Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 109-353) against the following foreign person identified in the report submitted pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Act:
Rosoboronexport (ROE) (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 3 of the Act, the following measures are imposed on these persons:
1. No department or agency of the United States Government may procure or enter into any contract for the procurement of any goods, technology, or services from this foreign person, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine. This measure shall not apply to subcontracts at any tier with ROE and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof made on behalf of the United States Government for goods, technology, and services for the maintenance, repair, overhaul, or sustainment of Mi-17 helicopters for the purpose of providing assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan, as well as for the purpose of combating terrorism and violent extremism globally. Moreover, the ban on U.S. government procurement from the Russian entity Rosoboronexport (ROE) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof shall not apply to United States Government procurement of goods, technology, and services for the purchase, maintenance, or sustainment of the Digital Electro Optical Sensor OSDCAM4060 to improve the U.S. ability to monitor and verify Russia's Open Skies Treaty compliance. Such subcontracts include the purchase of spare parts, supplies, and related services for these purposes;
2. No department or agency of the United States Government may provide any assistance to this foreign person, and this person shall not be eligible to participate in any assistance program of the United States Government, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine;
3. No United States Government sales to this foreign person of any item on the United States Munitions List are permitted, and all sales to this person of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services under the Arms Export Control Act are terminated; and
4. No new individual licenses shall be granted for the transfer to this foreign person of items the export of which is controlled under the Export Administration Act of 1979 or the Export Administration Regulations, and any existing such licenses are suspended.
These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the United States Government and will remain in place for two years from the effective date, except to the extent that the Secretary of State may subsequently determine otherwise.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Alsayed Murtadha Majeed Ramadhan Alawi, aka Murtadha Majeed Ramadan Al Sindi, aka Murtadha Majeed Ramadhan al-Sindi, aka Mortada Majid Al-Sanadi, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Ahmad Hasan Yusuf, aka Abu-Maryam, aka Sajjad Hassan Nasir Al Zubaydi, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
The meeting will be hosted by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy, and led by Ambassador Deborah Birx, who leads implementation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the Board Chair, Dr. Carlos del Rio.
The Board serves the Global AIDS Coordinator in a solely advisory capacity concerning scientific, implementation, and policy issues related to the global response to HIV/AIDS. These issues will be of concern as they influence the priorities and direction of PEPFAR evaluation and research, the content of national and international strategies and implementation, and the role of PEPFAR in international discourse regarding an appropriate and resourced response. Topics for the meeting will include membership term and charter renewals; updates from standing Technical Working Groups; and the proposal for a prevention cascade project.
The public may join this teleconference meeting. Admittance to the meeting will be by means of a pre-arranged clearance list. In order to be placed on the list and, if applicable, to request reasonable accommodation, please register online via the following:
For further information about the meeting, please contact Dr. Ebony Coleman, Designated Federal Officer for the Board, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy at
The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department-Overseas Security Advisory Council on April 18 and 19, 2017. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of trade secrets and proprietary commercial information that is privileged and confidential, and will discuss law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas.
For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F-
UP has certified that: (1) No local or overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no need to reroute any traffic over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will become effective on April 28, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Mack H. Shumate, Jr., 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
UP has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by April 3, 2017. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or interim trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by March 29, 2018, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 125 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 16, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 125 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 91242). The public comment period ended on January 17, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 125 renewal exemption applications and that no comments were received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
As of August 6, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 36333; 77 FR 46791):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0162. Their exemptions are effective as of August 6, 2016, and will expire on August 6, 2018.
As of August 8, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 26 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (71 FR 32177; 71 FR 45097):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24210. Their
As of August 17, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 36775; 75 FR 50797):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0162. Their exemptions are effective as of August 17, 2016, and will expire on August 17, 2018.
As of August 19, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 67 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 41723; 79 FR 56105):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0018. Their exemptions are effective as of August 19, 2016, and will expire on August 19, 2018.
As of August 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 40941; 77 FR 51845):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0163. Their exemptions are effective as of August 27, 2016, and will expire on August 27, 2018.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice.
Congress mandated the establishment of the HHG Working Group in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The group is charged with providing recommendations on how to better educate and protect HHG moving customers (consumers) during interstate HHG moves.
The second HHG Working Group meeting will be held on May 2 and 3, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and May 4, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the USDOT Headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Members of the public planning to attend should email FMCSA at the contact information listed below by April 15, 2017. Members of the Working Group and the public should arrive at 8:30 a.m. to facilitate clearance through DOT security. Copies of the agenda will be made available at
Kenneth Rodgers, Chief, Commercial Enforcement and Investigations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Phone (202) 366-0073; Email
Section 5503 of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94) (December 4, 2015) requires the HHG Working Group to provide recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation, through the FMCSA Administrator. The Working Group will operate in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
As required by Section 5503 of the FAST Act, the Working Group will make recommendations in three areas relating to “how to best convey to consumers relevant information with respect to the Federal laws concerning the interstate transportation of household goods by motor carrier.” Those areas are:
1. How to condense the FMCSA “Ready to Move ?” tips published in April 2006 (FMCSA-ESA-03-005) into a more consumer friendly format;
2. How best to use state-of-the-art education techniques and technologies (including how to optimize use of the Internet as an educational tool); and
3. How to reduce and simplify the paperwork required of motor carriers and shippers in interstate transportation.
Section 5503 mandates that the Secretary of Transportation appoint a Working Group that is comprised of (i) individuals with expertise in consumer affairs; (ii) educators with expertise in how people learn most effectively; and (iii) representatives of the FMCSA regulated interstate HHG moving industry.
On April 20, 2016, FMCSA solicited applications and nominations of interested persons to serve on the HHG Working Group. Applications and nominations were due on or before May 20, 2016 [81 FR 23354]. The HHG Working Group met for the first time on January 4-5, 2017.
The Working Group will terminate one year after the date its recommendations are submitted to the Secretary of Transportation.
Meetings will be open to the general public, except as provided under FACA. Notice of each meeting will be published in the
For the May 2-4, 2017, meeting, oral comments from the public will be heard from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on May 4, 2017. Should all public comments be exhausted prior to the end of the specified oral comment period, the comment period will close.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 31 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The renewed exemptions were effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0124; FMCSA-2014-0103; FMCSA-2014-0106; FMCSA-2014-0102; FMCSA-2014-0105; FMCSA-2014-0107; FMCSA-2014-0104 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
The 31 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the twelve applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement (80 FR 57032; 80 FR 60747). In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
The 31 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. FMCSA has concluded that renewing the exemptions for each of these applicants is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to renew each exemption for a two-year period. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each driver has received a renewed exemption.
As of March 3, 2017, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 60747):
The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0106. The exemptions were effective on March 3, 2017, and will expire on March 3, 2019.
As of March 10, 2017, David Helgreson (WI) and Susan Helgreson (WI) have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 18924).
The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0124. The exemptions were effective on March 10, 2017, and will expire on March 10, 2019.
As of March 13, 2017, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 57029):
The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0107. The exemptions were effective on March 13, 2017, and will expire on March 13, 2019.
On March 19, 2017, Jesse Shelander (TX) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving in interstate commerce (80 FR 57032). The driver was included in FMCSA-2014-0103. The exemption was effective on March 19, 2017, and will expire on March 19, 2019.
As of March 29, 2017, the following 7 drivers have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving in interstate commerce (80 FR 18924):
The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0124. The exemptions were effective on March 29, 2017, and will expire on March 29, 2019.
As of March 29, 2017, Robert Parrish (NV) and Nathaniel Godfrey (KY) have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving in interstate commerce (80 FR 57032). The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0103. The exemptions were effective on March 29, 2017 and will expire on March 29, 2019.
As of March 29, 2017 Weston Arthurs (CA) and Floyd McClain (FL) have satisfied the hearing requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving in interstate commerce (80 FR 60741). The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0106. The exemptions were effective on March 29, 2017, and expire on March 29, 2019.
As of March 29, 2017, Timothy Laporte (NY) has satisfied renewal requirements for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving in interstate commerce (80 FR 22768). The driver was included in FMCSA-2014-0102. The exemption was effective on March 29, 2017, and will expire March 29, 2019.
As of March 29, 20017, Steven Levine (MN) and Bruce Walker (NY) have satisfied the renewal requirements for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving in interstate commerce (80 FR 60735). The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0105. The exemptions were effective on March 29, 2017, and expire on March 29, 2019.
As of March 29, 2017, Kirk Soneson (OH) has satisfied the renewal requirements for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving in interstate commerce (80 FR 57029). The driver was included in FMCSA-2014-0107. The exemption was effective on March 29, 2017, and will expire on March 29, 2019.
As of March 29, 2017, Brandon Lango (TX) has satisfied the renewal requirements for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving in interstate commerce (80 FR 60747). The driver was included in FMCSA-2014-0104. The exemption was effective on March 29, 2017, and will expire on March 29, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA. In addition, the driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Based upon its evaluation of the 32 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 47 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on February 15, 2017. The exemptions expire on February 15, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On January 12, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 47 individuals and requested comments from the public (82 FR 3845). The public comment period closed on February 13, 2017, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 47 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 47 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 41 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the January 12, 2017,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 47 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of random drug and alcohol testing rates for 2017.
This notice announces the random testing rates for employers subject to the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) drug and alcohol rules for 2017.
Iyon Rosario, Drug and Alcohol Program Manager for the Office of Safety and Oversight, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-2010 or email:
On January 1, 1995, FTA required large transit employers to begin drug and alcohol testing employees performing safety-sensitive functions and submit annual reports by March 15 of each year beginning in 1996. The annual report includes the number of employees who had a verified positive for the use of prohibited drugs, and the number of employees who tested positive for the misuse of alcohol during the reported year. Small employers commenced their FTA-required testing on January 1, 1996, and began reporting the same information as the large employers beginning March 15, 1997.
The testing rules were updated on August 1, 2001, and established a random testing rate for prohibited drugs and the misuse of alcohol. The rule initially required employers to conduct random drug tests for prohibited drug use at a rate equivalent to at least 50 percent of their total number of safety-sensitive employees and a rate of at least 25 percent for the misuse of alcohol. However, in accordance with 49 CFR 655.45 both random testing rates may be lowered based on industry reported violations over preceding consecutive calendar years. Accordingly, in 2005 the Administrator reduced the random alcohol testing rate from 25 percent to 10 percent and reduced the random drug testing rate from 50 percent to 25 percent in 2007 (
Once lowered, the random drug testing rate may be increased to 50 percent if the positive rate equals or exceeds one percent for any one year (“positive rate” means the number of verified positive results for random drug tests conducted under 49 CFR part 655.45 plus the number of refusals of random tests, divided by the total number of random drug test results (
Pursuant to 49 CFR 655.45(b), the Administrator's decision to increase or decrease the minimum annual percentage rate for random drug and alcohol testing is based, in part, on the reported positive drug and alcohol violation rates for the entire public transportation industry. The information used for this determination is drawn from the drug and alcohol Management Information System (MIS) reports required by 49 CFR 655.72. In determining the reliability of the data, the Administrator considers the quality and completeness of the reported data, or may obtain additional information or reports from employers, and make appropriate modifications in calculating the industry's verified positive results and violation rates.
For 2017, the Administrator has determined the random drug testing rate will remain at 25 percent based on a positive rate lower than 1.0 percent for random drug test data for calendar years 2014 and 2015. The random drug rates were .87 percent for 2014 and .90 percent for 2015. Further, the Administrator has determined that the random alcohol testing rate for 2017 will remain at 10 percent because the violation rate was again lower than 0.5 percent for calendar years 2014 and 2015. The random alcohol violation rates were 0.14 percent for 2014 and 0.14 percent for 2015.
Detailed reports on the FTA drug and alcohol testing data collected from transit employers may be obtained from the FTA, Office of Safety and Oversight, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2010 or at
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of intent to transfer Federally assisted land or facility.
Section 5334(h) of the Federal Transit Laws, as codified, 49 U.S.C. 5301,
Interested parties should notify the Regional Office by writing to Marisol R. Simón, Regional Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, 200 West Adams, Suite 320, Chicago, IL 60606.
Kathryn Loster, Regional Counsel, at 312-353-3869.
49 U.S.C. 5334(h) provides guidance on the transfer of assets no longer needed. Specifically, if a recipient of FTA assistance decides an asset acquired at least in part with federal assistance is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary of Transportation may authorize the recipient to transfer the asset to a local governmental authority to be used for a public purpose with no further obligation to the Government. 49 U.S.C. 5334(h)(l).
The Secretary may authorize a transfer for a public purpose other than public transportation only if the Secretary decides:
(A) The asset will remain in public use for at least 5 years after the date the asset is transferred;
(B) There is no purpose eligible for assistance under this chapter for which the asset should be used;
(C) The overall benefit of allowing the transfer is greater than the interest of the Government in liquidation and return of the financial interest of the Government in the asset, after considering fair market value and other factors; and
(D) Through an appropriate screening or survey process, that there is no interest in acquiring the asset for Government use if the asset is a facility or land.
This document implements the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5334(h)(l)(D). Accordingly, FTA hereby provides notice of the availability of the Facility further described below. Any Federal agency interested in acquiring the affected facility should promptly notify the FTA.
If no Federal agency is interested in acquiring the existing Facility, FTA will make certain that the other requirements specified in 49 U.S.C. 5334(h)(1)(A) through (C) are met before permitting the asset to be transferred.
The Building shares a 1.433-acre parcel zoned for general commercial use. It provides 159 feet of frontage along South Main Street, and has a depth of 459 feet along the south elevation. The site is bound on the south and west by Marketplace Foods, on the east by South Main Street, and on the north by an abandoned railroad line with a 9.5-foot wide right-of-way. Land along Main Street in close proximity to the Building is a mixture of single-tenant and multi-tenant commercial properties, primarily in the retail and food service sectors. The legal description is as follows: Outlots 149-1 and 149-6 being part of Outlot 149 as shown in Certified Survey Map Volume 6, Page 162 and part of railroad right-of-way as described in Deeds Volume 414, Page 736 of Outlots in the City of Rice Lake, Barron County, Wisconsin.
The Building has a total floor space of 27,130 square feet. It houses three spaces: (1) 4,839 Square feet of office space, including a meeting room break room, bathrooms and closets; (2) 4,808 square feet of shop space; and (3) 2,683 square feet of basement space, including storage and a bathroom. The Building is sited with minimal setback from the east and north property lines.
If no Federal agency is interested in acquiring the existing Facility, FTA will make certain that the other requirements
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 14134, Application for Certificate of Subordination of Federal Tax Lien, and Form 14135, Application for Certificate of Discharge of Property from Federal Tax Lien.
Written comments should be received on or before May 30, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5306-A, Application for Approval of Prototype Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) or Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees of Small Employers (SIMPLE IRA Plan).
Written comments should be received on or before May 30, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Ralph M. Terry at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6513, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5864, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. 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 shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Cognitive and Psychological Research Coordinated by Statistics of Income on Behalf of All IRS Operations Functions.
Written comments should be received on or before May 30, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the annual meeting of the Department of Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service (VAVS) National Advisory Committee (NAC) will be held April 19-21, 2017, at the Tampa Hilton Downtown, 211 North Tampa Street, Tampa Florida. On April 19, the meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 11:30 a.m. On April 20, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. On April 21, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 3:45 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The Committee, comprised of fifty-four national voluntary organizations, advises the Secretary, through the Under Secretary for Health, on the coordination and promotion of volunteer activities and strategic partnerships within VA facilities, in the
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans at-risk and experiencing homelessness will be held May 10 through May 12, 2017. On May 10 and May 11, the Committee will meet at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue Northwest, Room 530, Washington, DC, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On May 12, the Committee will meet at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue Northwest, Room 530, Washington, DC, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The meeting sessions are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with an on-going assessment of the effectiveness of the policies, organizational structures, and services of VA in assisting Veterans at-risk and experiencing homelessness. The Committee shall assemble and review information related to the needs of homeless Veterans and provide advice on the most appropriate means of providing assistance to that subset of the Veteran population. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
The agenda will include briefings from officials at VA and other agencies regarding services for homeless Veterans. The Committee will also receive a briefing on the annual report that was developed after the last meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans and will then discuss topics for its upcoming annual report and recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments on issues affecting Veterans at-risk and experiencing homelessness for review by the Committee to Anthony Love, Designated Federal Officer, VHA Homeless Programs Office (10NC1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 90 K Street Northeast, Washington, DC, or via email at
Members of the public who wish to attend in-person should contact both Charles Selby and Timothy Underwood of the VHA Homeless Program Office by April 25, 2017, at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans will be held in Albuquerque, New Mexico from April 11-13, 2017, at the below times and locations:
On April 11, from 8:45 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., at the New Mexico VA Health Care System (HCS), Building 41, Main Hospital, 4th Floor, Performance Improvement Conference Room 4A-160, 1501 San Pedro Dr. SE., Albuquerque, New Mexico; from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the Albuquerque Regional Benefit Office, Dennis Chavez Federal Building, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Albuquerque, New Mexico.
On April 12, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., at the Santa Fe National Cemetery, 501 North Guadalupe Street, Santa Fe, NM; from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., conducting a Town Hall Meeting at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 2401 12th St. NW., Albuquerque, NM.
On April 13, from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., at the New Mexico VA Health Care System (HCS), Building 41, Main Hospital, 4th Floor, Performance Improvement Conference Room 4A-160, 1501 San Pedro Dr. SE., Albuquerque, NM.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority Veterans, to assess the needs of minority Veterans and to evaluate whether VA compensation and pension, medical and rehabilitation services, memorial services outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities subsequent to the meeting.
On the morning of April 11 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., the Committee will meet in open session with key staff at the New Mexico Health Care System to discuss services, benefits, delivery challenges, and successes. From 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Committee will
On the morning of April 12 from 9:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., the Committee will convene in open session at the Santa Fe National Cemetery followed by a tour of the cemetery. The Committee will meet with key staff to discuss services, benefits, delivery challenges and successes. In the evening, the Committee will hold a Veterans Town Hall meeting beginning at 4:30 p.m., at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center.
On the morning of April 13 from 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Committee will convene in open session at the New Mexico Health Care System to conduct an exit briefing with leadership from the New Mexico Health Care System, Albuquerque Regional Benefit Office, and Santa Fe National Cemetery. In the afternoon from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., the Committee will work on drafting recommendations for the annual report to the Secretary.
Portions of these visits are closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Exemption 6 permits to Committee to close those portions of a meeting that is likely to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. During the closed sessions the Committee will discuss VA beneficiary and patient information in which there is a clear unwarranted invasion of the Veteran or beneficiary privacy.
Time will be allocated for receiving public comments on April 13, at 10 a.m. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come first serve basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official record. The Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues outlined in the meeting agenda, as well as other issues affecting minority Veterans. Such comments should be sent to Ms. Juanita Mullen, Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Center for Minority Veterans (00M), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or email at
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the increase in the Post-9/11 GI Bill maximum tuition and fee amounts payable and the increase in the amount used to determine an individual's entitlement charge for reimbursement of a licensing, certification, or national test for the 2017-2018 academic year (August 1, 2017-July 31, 2018).
Schnell Carraway, Management and Program Analyst, Education Service (225C), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Telephone: (202) 461-9800. (This is not a toll-free number).
For the 2016-2017 academic year (August 1, 2016-July 31, 2017), the Post-9/11 GI Bill allowed VA to pay the actual net cost of tuition and fees not to exceed the in-state amounts for students pursuing training at public schools: $21,970.46 for students training at private and foreign schools, $12,554.55 for students training at vocational flight schools, and $10,671.35 for students training at correspondence schools. Additionally, the entitlement charge for individuals receiving reimbursement of costs to take a licensing, certification, or national test was one month (rounded to the nearest whole month) for each $1,832.96 received.
Sections 3313, 3315, and 3315A of title 38, United States Code, direct VA to increase the maximum tuition and fee payments and entitlement-charge amounts each academic year (begins August 1st) based on the most recent percentage increase determined under 38 U.S.C. 3015(h). The percentage increase determined under 38 U.S.C. 3015(h) is effective October 1st of each year. The most recent percentage increase determined under 38 U.S.C. 3015(h) was a 3.8% increase, which was effective October 1, 2016.
The maximum tuition and fee payments and entitlement-charge amounts for training pursued under the Post-9/11 GI Bill beginning after July 31, 2017, and before August 1, 2018, are listed below. VA's calculations for the 2017-2018 academic year are based on the 3.8% increase.
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 17, 2017, for publication.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is adopting an amendment to the Settlement cycle Rule (Rule 15c6-1(a)) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to shorten the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer transactions from three business days after the trade date (“T+3”) to two business days after the trade date (“T+2”).
Jeffrey Mooney, Assistant Director; Elizabeth Fitzgerald, Branch Chief; Susan Petersen, Special Counsel; Andrew Shanbrom, Special Counsel; Jesse Capelle, Special Counsel, Office of Market Infrastructure, Office of Clearance and Settlement; and Justin Pica, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Market Supervision, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010, at 202-551-5550.
The Commission is amending Rule 15c6-1 of the Exchange Act under the Commission's rulemaking authority set forth in Sections 15(c)(6), 17A and 23(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(6), 78q-1, and 78w(a) respectively).
On September 28, 2016, the Commission proposed an amendment to Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1(a) to shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2.
Specifically, the Commission believes that the shortened standard settlement cycle will reduce certain risks inherent in the clearance and settlement process for all clearing agencies, such as a central counterparty's (“CCP's”)
The Commission has also considered the costs attendant to shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 and believes that the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) will yield benefits that justify the associated costs. The Commission also believes that shortening the standard settlement cycle is supported by significant changes in technology, operations, and infrastructure that have occurred in the financial markets since the Commission's adoption of Rule 15c6-1 in 1993, as well as the investments already undertaken by market participants in recent years to support a migration to a T+2 standard settlement cycle.
Congress amended the Exchange Act in 1975 to, among other things, (i) direct the Commission to facilitate the establishment of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions in securities, and (ii) provide the Commission with the authority to regulate those entities critical to the clearance and settlement process.
Congress reaffirmed its view of the importance of a strong clearance and settlement system in 2010 with the enactment of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act (“Clearing Supervision Act”).
The Commission adopted Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1 in 1993 to establish T+3 as the standard settlement cycle for broker-dealer transactions, and in so doing, effectively shortened the prevailing settlement cycle for most securities transactions (with certain exceptions), which was generally five business days after the trade date (“T+5”).
Since the adoption of Rule 15c6-1, the financial markets have expanded and evolved significantly.
The Commission's efforts to facilitate further shortening of the standard settlement cycle are consistent with its broader focus on enhancing the resilience and efficiency of the national clearance and settlement system and the role that certain FMUs, particularly CCPs and CSDs, play in concentrating and managing risk.
The clearance and settlement process for transactions involving securities that currently settle on a T+3 standard settlement cycle involves a number of market participants whose role and functions will be impacted significantly by a change in the standard settlement cycle.
In addition, Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), amended, among other things, the definition of “security” under the Exchange Act to encompass security-based swaps. The Commission granted temporary exemptive relief from compliance with certain provisions of the Exchange Act, including Rule 15c6-1, in connection with the revision of the Exchange Act definition of “security” to encompass security-based swaps in July 2011.
A CCP eliminates bilateral risk between individual counterparties by becoming the buyer to each seller and the seller to each buyer, thereby assuming a central role in ensuring the performance of open contracts and the facilitation of the clearance and settlement of the trade. In the U.S. financial system, NSCC is the only CCP for trades involving securities that currently settle on a T+3 standard settlement cycle.
In novation, when a CCP member presents a contract to the CCP for clearing, the original contract between the buyer and seller is discharged and two new contracts are created, one between the CCP and the buyer, and the other between the CCP and the seller. The CCP thereby assumes the original parties' contractual obligations to each other. Historically, NSCC has attached its trade guaranty to its novated transactions at midnight on T+1; however, the Commission recently approved a rule change proposed by NSCC that will accelerate the NSCC trade guaranty from midnight of T+1 to
Netting is the process of automatically offsetting a member's buy orders of an individual security against its corresponding sell orders for that security, thereby allowing NSCC to reduce the number and value of the transactions that must be cleared between members to settle their trades. Through the use of NSCC's netting and accounting system, the Continuous Net Settlement System (“CNS”), NSCC accepts trades into CNS for clearing from exchanges and other trading venues.
To mitigate default risk, NSCC collects clearing fund deposits from its members to maintain sufficient financial resources in the event a member or members default on their obligations to NSCC.
A CSD is an entity that holds securities for its participants either in certificated or uncertificated (dematerialized) form so that ownership can be easily transferred through a book entry (rather than the transfer of physical certificates), as well as providing central safekeeping and other asset services. DTC serves as the CSD and securities settlement system
DTC substantially reduces the number of physical securities certificates transferred in the U.S. markets by immobilizing securities, which generally means, holding and transferring ownership of securities positions in book-entry form, with DTC's nominee reflected as the registered owner on the issuer's records, and by centralizing and automating securities settlements. DTC thereby significantly improves operational efficiencies and reduces the risks and costs associated with the processing of physical securities certificates.
In addition to a securities account at DTC, each DTC participant has a settlement account at a clearing bank (
DTC also provides certain settlement services for trades by institutional investors (as discussed further in Part II.C.2 below) that are not otherwise cleared through NSCC. In such cases, institutional investors' transactions may be processed on a trade-for-trade basis through a prime broker
Matching/ETC Providers electronically facilitate communication among a broker-dealer, an institutional investor, and the institutional investor's custodian to reach agreement on the details of a securities trade.
As mentioned above, a variety of market participants that depend on the clearance and settlement functions provided by the FMUs and Matching/ETC Providers will be affected by a shortened standard settlement cycle. These market participants include, but are not limited to, institutional and retail investors, broker-dealers, and custodians (
Institutional investors are entities such as mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, bank trust departments, and insurance companies. Transactions involving institutional investors are often more complex than those for and with retail investors due to the volume and size of the transactions, the entities involved in facilitating the execution and settlement of the trade, including Matching/ETC Providers and custodians, and the need to manage certain regulatory or business obligations.
Trades involving retail investors are typically smaller in size than institutional trades, and the settlement of retail investor trades generally occurs directly with the investor's or their intermediary's broker-dealer and does not involve a separate custodian bank. Accordingly, retail investors do not rely upon the involvement of a Matching/ETC Provider to facilitate the settlement of their transactions.
To clear and settle securities transactions directly through a registered clearing agency, the rules of the clearing agencies provide that a broker-dealer or other type of market participant must become a direct member of that clearing agency; such broker-dealers are generally referred to as “clearing broker-dealers.”
Custodians handle the electronic payment or receipt of payment through the Federal Reserve's Bank's Fedwire system, which automates and streamlines the process by which broker-dealers make payments for securities transactions. Pursuant to DTC rules, DTC participants are required to select a custodial bank to facilitate payment of their transactions cleared and settled through NSCC and DTC, with a net cash payment facilitated between DTC and the DTC participant's custodial bank account. Since many broker-dealers use the same custodial bank to settle their trades, NSCC and DTC can net the total amount being handled by any one custodian for all DTC participants using that bank.
Often, due to regulatory or business obligations, an institutional investor will not use its executing broker-dealer to custody the institutional investor's securities at DTC, but rather will use a custodian bank for the safekeeping and administration of both their securities and cash.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission proposed to amend Rule 15c6-1(a) to shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2 and articulated several reasons supporting this proposal. The Commission received a number of comment letters in response.
The Commission is adopting as proposed the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) to shorten the standard settlement cycle. Specifically, paragraph (a) of Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1, as amended, will prohibit broker-dealers from effecting or entering into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security (other than certain exempted securities
Additionally, as discussed further in the T+3 Adopting Release, the Commission determined not to include transactions in municipal securities within the scope of Rule 15c6-1, with the expectation that the MSRB would take the lead in implementing three-day settlement of municipal securities by the implementation date of the new rule. The Commission requested a report from the MSRB within six months of the Commission's adoption of Rule 15c6-1 outlining the schedule in which the MSRB intended to implement T+3 in the municipal securities market. T+3 Adopting Release,
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission noted its preliminary belief that shortening the standard settlement cycle would (assuming current levels of trading activity remain constant), for a CCP, result in fewer unsettled trades at any given point in time and a reduced time period of exposure to such trades, which would, in turn, reduce the CCP's credit, market, and liquidity risk exposure to its members.
Several commenters noted that the reduced period of exposure for CCPs would result in a reduction of credit, market, and/or liquidity risk. For example, one commenter noted that shortening the settlement cycle would reduce the period during which CCPs are exposed to credit risk due to non-payment or non-delivery of a security (
The Commission believes that, in the case of a CCP, fewer unsettled trades and a reduced time period of exposure to such trades will reduce the CCP's credit, market, and liquidity risk exposure to its members.
The CCP also faces market risk if, during the settlement cycle, a member defaults and the CCP may be forced to liquidate open positions of the defaulting member and any financial resources of the member it may hold (
Finally, the CCP can face liquidity risks during the settlement cycle if a member defaults, resulting in the CCP deploying financial resources to meet the CCP's end-of-day settlement obligations.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission stated its preliminary belief that shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 would result in liquidity risk reductions for broker-dealers that are CCP members.
Many commenters agreed.
Another commenter stated that reduced collateral requirements would also help reduce liquidity risks, thereby improving capital utilization by market participants.
After considering the comments, the Commission continues to believe that the transition to a T+2 standard settlement cycle will have a positive impact on the liquidity risks and costs faced by CCP members. The Commission expects that the reduction in the amount of unsettled trades and the period of time during which the CCP is exposed to risk will reduce the amount of financial resources that CCP members may have to provide to support the CCP's risk management process, both on an ordinary-course basis as well as in less predictable or procyclical instances where adverse general market conditions or a CCP member default results in a sudden liquidity demand by the CCP for additional financial resources from market participants.
The Commission believes that shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 will result in reductions in liquidity risk for broker-dealers that are CCP members and additionally provide certain attendant benefits, including but not limited to, lower costs on a business and transactional basis, and improved use of financial resources.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission stated its preliminary belief that shortening the standard settlement cycle would also lead to benefits to other market participants, including introducing broker-dealers, institutional investors, and retail investors.
With respect to introducing broker-dealers, one commenter stated that introducing firms would benefit from shortening the settlement cycle to T+2, including through the reduction in liquidity risk and lowered costs related to margin and other charges and fees imposed by clearing brokers in association with managing credit risk. The commenter also stated that the underlying customer of an introducing firm would stand to realize significant benefits from the migration, including the more rapid returns of the proceeds of a sale of a security given the shortened settlement cycle.
The Commission agrees that introducing broker-dealers would benefit from a T+2 settlement cycle. Such entities would be able to access their own funds and securities from a transaction more quickly than under the current settlement cycle, which would reduce liquidity risk and free up capital. They would also face lower costs related to margin charges and other fees that clearing brokers may pass down as part of the costs related to the clearing brokers' risk management program. As noted above, several commenters noted that clearing broker-dealers would likely benefit from reduced clearing requirements.
Several commenters noted that a shortened settlement cycle would reduce funding gaps and potential additional financing costs for institutional investors resulting from mismatched settlement cycles that apply to mutual funds whose own securities settle on a different cycle than those in their portfolio.
These comments support the Commission's belief, as initially expressed in the T+2 Proposing Release,
Several commenters stated that a shortened standard settlement cycle would lead to benefits for retail investors, particularly through quicker access to funds and securities following trade execution. Specifically, these commenters noted that settlement of trades on a T+2 standard settlement cycle would improve investors' access to capital and reduce the need to borrow funds.
Several commenters noted that retail investors would benefit from a shorter standard settlement cycle because of reduced risk in the settlement process. One commenter stated that different settlement cycles have the potential to contribute towards failed trades for an investor who, for example, attempts to buy a mutual fund upon selling an exchange-traded fund. This can be especially true when an investor attempts to rebalance a portfolio of securities consisting of various securities with differing settlement cycles.
In addition, one commenter cited lower transaction costs for investors as a benefit of shortening the settlement cycle to T+2, although this commenter did not provide specific data or information to support this conclusion.
One commenter who focused on the concerns of retail investors stated that the Commission's proposal to transition to a T+2 settlement cycle would be “woefully insufficient” to address their needs in the current environment.
The Commission agrees that, all else being equal, moving to a T+1 standard settlement cycle would likely result in retail investors receiving transaction proceeds sooner than under a T+2 standard settlement cycle, and that a shorter standard settlement cycle could mitigate, or in some cases eliminate, the potential issues for retail investors identified by the commenter.
Several other commenters raised concerns regarding how a change in the current T+3 environment could result in challenges and costs for retail investors.
The other commenter who raised issues with respect to the use of paper checks expressed concern that the proposed amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) would shorten the timeframe within which a broker-dealer would be required to cancel or liquidate an unpaid cash account transaction under the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation T, from the current five business days after the transaction date, to four business days after the transaction date.
In response to these commenters, the Commission acknowledges that shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 may create additional costs for retail investors who choose to fund securities transactions by mailing a paper check to their broker-dealer. For example, retail investors who wish to continue using paper checks may need to deliver their checks to their broker-dealers more quickly and in a more costly manner (
While recognizing the concerns raised by these commenters, however, the Commission believes that the risk-reducing benefits discussed above that will be realized by market participants, including retail investors, as a result of a shortened standard settlement cycle justify the potential costs and risks identified by the commenters. As noted above, the Commission believes that retail investors will gain quicker access to funds and securities following trade execution, which in turn will allow retail investors to re-deploy their assets more quickly and efficiently for other purposes, including additional investment and risk management. On balance, the Commission believes that this benefit is more likely to decrease rather than increase barriers to participation by retail investors in the securities markets, including through stock ownership.
Separately, while discussing the potential negative impact of a shortened settlement cycle on retail investors, one commenter asserted that shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 could give rise to destabilizing effects on the financial markets. In making this observation, the commenter expressed a view that shortened settlement periods result in weaker liquidity requirements for broker-dealers and market makers, as well as an increased likelihood of computerized high-volume trading that could destabilize the market.
Further, with respect to the impact a shorter settlement cycle may have on the presence of computerized high-volume trading in the financial markets, the Commission notes that the commenter has not provided information or other evidence demonstrating how an increase in the pace of trade settlement will result in an increase in the presence of computerized high-volume trading that could destabilize the financial markets. The Commission believes that amending the length of the settlement cycle will affect the manner in which post-trade processes occur, but does not expect the proposed amendment to alter the incidence of computerized trading or how such activity influences market stability. The Commission further believes that, as discussed above, a shortened standard settlement cycle is appropriate given the reduction in credit, market, and liquidity risks associated with a shorter settlement cycle. Therefore, the Commission is not persuaded that a shortened standard settlement cycle will give rise to the liquidity risk and market stability concerns raised by the commenter.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission noted that the proposed amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) would harmonize the settlement cycle in the U.S. with non-U.S. markets that had already moved to a T+2 settlement cycle or were planning to do so.
A number of commenters cited increased global harmonization of settlement cycles as a prospective benefit of moving to a T+2 settlement cycle in the U.S.
Another commenter stated that the industry would benefit from the reduction of hedge risks stemming from mismatched settlement cycles (
Another commenter noted that consistency in the settlement cycle across the U.S. and non-U.S. markets could help funds better manage liquidity and cash flow, which could reduce and simplify financing needs.
These commenters generally supported the Commission's belief that aligning the settlement cycle in the U.S. with the settlement cycle in several major non-U.S. markets that have already moved to T+2 or are planning to do so will benefit market participants. The Commission agrees that harmonization of settlement cycles may reduce the need for some market participants engaging in cross-border transactions to hedge risks stemming from mismatched settlement cycles. In addition, the Commission agrees that harmonization of the U.S. settlement cycle with the T+2 settlement cycle in certain non-U.S. markets will reduce financing/borrowing costs for market participants who engage in cross-border transactions in both those markets and U.S. markets.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission noted its preliminary belief that the reductions in credit, market, and liquidity risks should reduce systemic risk, and that, as it stated in adopting Rule 15c6-1 in 1993, reducing the total volume and value of outstanding obligations in the settlement pipeline at any point in time will better insulate the financial sector from the potential systemic consequences of serious market disruptions. The Commission also noted that reducing the period of time during which a CCP is exposed to credit, market, and liquidity risk should enhance the CCP's overall ability to serve as a source of stability and efficiency in the national clearance and settlement system, thereby reducing the likelihood that disruptions in the clearance and settlement process will trigger consequential disruptions that extend beyond the cleared markets.
Several commenters generally agreed with this belief, noting that shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 would result in reduced systemic risk or enhanced financial stability.
The Commission agrees with commenters that the reduction in credit, market, and liquidity risks resulting from a shortened settlement cycle should reduce systemic risk. Because of the potential procyclical impact on financial resource and other liquidity demands by CCPs and other market participants during times of market volatility and stress, efforts to reduce these liquidity demands through a shorter settlement cycle are expected to reduce systemic risk.
The Commission noted in the T+2 Proposing Release that the reduction in exposure to credit, market, liquidity, and systemic risk arising from fewer unsettled transactions at any one time due to a shorter settlement cycle should improve the stability of the U.S.
The Commission agrees with these commenters that reducing the period of time during which a CCP is exposed to credit, market, and liquidity risk should enhance the overall ability of the CCP to serve as a source of stability and efficiency in the national clearance and settlement system, thereby reducing the likelihood that disruptions in the clearance and settlement process will trigger consequential disruptions that extend beyond the cleared markets.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission stated its preliminary belief that significant advancements in technology and the changes in market infrastructures and operations that have occurred since 1993, which are widely assimilated into market practices, provide a basis to accommodate shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2.
One commenter stated that, with current computer and software technology, a move to T+2 is feasible and sensible.
The Commission agrees with the comments that the current state of technology and market infrastructure and operations support amending Rule 15c6-1(a) to establish a T+2 settlement cycle. As noted by commenters, market participants are actively working to transition to a T+2 settlement cycle and have made investments in technology and operations to do so. The Commission believes that these advancements in technology and changes in market infrastructures and operations, which have occurred since 1993 generally and in conjunction with recent efforts to transition to a T+2 standard settlement cycle, support shortening the settlement cycle.
Several commenters also expressed support for shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 by noting that a shorter settlement cycle will promote operational efficiencies.
Consistent with this view, one commenter noted that a T+2 standard settlement cycle would motivate market participants to tighten their operational processes. This commenter stated that it expects institutional investors to improve the quality of settlement instructions and static settlement data maintenance, and increase automation and STP rates with their broker-dealers and custodian banks.
Another commenter noted that it believes that a shorter settlement cycle would lead to greater use of automation in the settlement process.
The Commission agrees with the comments that moving to a T+2 settlement cycle will lead market participants to develop and utilize more efficient operational processes. The Commission noted in the T+2 Proposing Release that technological and operational changes necessary to support a T+2 standard settlement cycle would in many cases require only incremental modifications to existing market infrastructures and systems and processes. Some comments anticipated that the changes necessary to support a T+2 standard settlement cycle may improve operational efficiency.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission requested comment as to whether the Commission should consider any amendments to paragraphs
One commenter requested clarification regarding the application of Rule 15c6-1(d) and the Commission's statement in the T+2 Proposing Release regarding what is sometimes referred to as the “override provision” of Rule 15c6-1(a) that permits broker-dealers to agree expressly at the time of the transaction to settlement beyond the standard settlement cycle.
In light of this belief regarding current market practices for many primary distributions, the commenter expressed concern over a statement made by the Commission in a footnote of the T+2 Proposing Release regarding the override provision in Rule 15c6-1(a). Specifically, in the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission noted that at the time Rule 15c6-1(a) was adopted, the Commission stated its belief that the usage of the override provision of Rule 15c6-1(a) was intended to apply only to unusual transactions, such as seller's option trades that typically settle as many as sixty days after execution as specified by the parties to the trade at execution. In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission stated its preliminary belief that the use of this provision should continue to be applied in limited cases to ensure that the settlement cycle set by Rule 15c6-1(a) remains a standard settlement cycle.
The commenter's concern applies to two distinct, but related, parts of Rule 15c6-1. One part is the general override provision for extended settlement set forth in Rule 15c6-1(a) and the other part is the extended settlement provision specific to firm commitment primary offerings in Rule 15c6-1(d). In response to the commenter, the Commission notes that its statement, as expressed in the footnote in the T+2 Proposing Release, is only with respect to the override provision in Rule 15c6-1(a) and does not relate to the application of Rule 15c6-1(d) in the specific context of firm commitment offerings.
The Commission stated in the T+2 Proposing Release that it reviewed its existing regulatory framework to consider the potential impact a T+2 standard settlement cycle may have on other Commission rules. Some Commission rules require market participants to perform certain regulatory obligations on settlement date or within a specified number of business days after the settlement date, or are otherwise keyed off of settlement date. Accordingly, shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 could have ancillary consequences for how market participants comply with these existing regulatory obligations. In response to the T+2 Proposing Release, several commenters identified specific rules, as well as related guidance and no-action and exemptive relief, on which a T+2 standard settlement cycle may have an impact.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission identified several provisions of Regulation SHO under the Exchange Act that may be impacted by the adoption of a T+2 settlement cycle. While not referencing specific settlement timeframes (
Shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 will also impact the application of Rule 200(g)(1) of Regulation SHO as it pertains to loaned but recalled securities.
Thus, broker-dealers that initiate bona fide recalls
The Commission sought comment generally on which, if any, Commission rules (including Regulation SHO) would need to be amended, and whether there is a need to provide interpretive guidance concerning any Commission rules, to accommodate a T+2 standard settlement cycle. In addition, the Commission sought comment on operational issues that might arise by the application of Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO relating to loaned but recalled securities being recalled on T+1 instead of T+2. The Commission received five comment letters relevant to the discussion of Regulation SHO in the T+2 Proposing Release.
Several commenters agreed with the Commission's preliminary views that shortening the settlement cycle to T+2 would impact other rules, and in particular, compliance with Regulation SHO.
Several commenters noted the potential consequences to the securities lending markets, particularly with respect to recalling loans to settle transactions.
The Commission acknowledges that the amendment to Rule 15c6-1, as adopted, will operate to reduce the timeframes to effect a close-out under Rule 204. For example, the existing close-out requirement for fail to deliver positions resulting from short sales would be reduced from T+4 to T+3 based on the existing definition of settlement date in Rule 204.
The Commission believes, however, that, to the extent that customers have not made timely deliveries and have caused a fail to deliver by a broker-dealer, any indirect impacts on such customers are warranted.
With regard to commenters' request to modify guidance regarding the recall of loaned securities to reflect the consequences of the move to T+2, the adoption of a T+2 settlement cycle means that bona fide recalls initiated on T+2 as described above would likely not be delivered before the close-out requirement for fails on sales marked “long” under Rule 204 (
As noted in the T+2 Proposing Release, certain provisions of the broker-dealer financial responsibility rules under the Exchange Act
The Commission requested comment regarding the potential impact that shortening the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2 may have on the ability of broker-dealers to comply with the financial responsibility rules. One commenter described certain requirements provided in Rule 15c3-3(m), and stated that it did not believe a change to that rule is required in order to support migration to T+2.
The Commission acknowledges that shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 will effectively reduce the number of days (from 13 business days to 12 business days) that a broker-dealer will have to obtain possession of customer securities before being required to close out a customer transaction under Rule 15c3-3(m). The Commission notes that the operations supporting the processing of customer orders by broker-dealers and the technology supporting those operations have developed substantially since 1972, when the Commission adopted paragraph (m) of Rule 15c3-3.
Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 requires a broker-dealer to give or send a customer a written confirmation disclosing information relevant to the transaction “at or before completion of [the] transaction.”
As the Commission noted in the T+2 Proposing Release, while a confirmation must be sent “at or before completion” of the transaction, Commission rules do not require that the customer receive a confirmation prior to settlement.
The Commission received one comment pertaining to certain no-action letters and exemptive relief that allow a broker-dealer providing a dividend reinvestment program (“DRIP”) to confirm automatic dividend reinvestments on monthly account statements in lieu of the trade-by-trade confirmations generally required by Rule 10b-10.
The Commission agrees with the commenter that a firm should not be deemed to have departed from the procedures described in the applicable no-action letter or exemptive relief regarding the application of Rule 10b-10 to DRIP transactions solely by reason of the firm's transitioning to a shorter settlement cycle and operating the program on a T+2 settlement cycle.
The Commission received two comment letters discussing a no-action letter issued by Commission staff known as the “Prime Broker No-Action Letter.”
Both commenters acknowledged that changes to the Prime Broker No-Action Letter were not necessarily a prerequisite to shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2. However, the commenters also noted that it would be helpful for the Commission to revisit this guidance to ensure that it reflects current market practices, including the shortened settlement cycle.
The Commission acknowledges the commenters' views that the move to a T+2 standard settlement cycle may, in the absence of additional changes to industry practices, result in an earlier cutoff time for prime brokers to disaffirm trades of customers reported by executing brokers. Additionally, the Commission notes that the comments also suggest that the industry is currently considering how best to operationalize the relevant prime brokerage processes in a T+2 standard settlement cycle, and that the comments do not recommend specific changes or modifications to the Prime Broker No-Action Letter. The Commission expects that its staff will consider whether modifications to the Prime Broker No-Action letter are appropriate in connection with industry implementation of the T+2 standard settlement cycle.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission requested comment on whether the adoption of a T+2 settlement cycle would create any legal or operational concerns for issuers or broker-dealers related to their ability to comply with the prospectus delivery obligations under the Securities Act.
Under Securities Act Rule 174(h), a dealer may satisfy any obligation to deliver a prospectus pursuant to Section 4(a)(3) of the Securities Act (other than for blank check companies) by complying with the provisions of Securities Act Rule 172. 17 CFR 230.174(h). (In 2012, Congress enacted the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which re-designated Section 4(3) of the Securities Act as Section 4(a)(3). Public Law 112-106, Sec. 201(b)(1), (c)(1), Apr. 5, 2012, 126 Stat 306.)
Two commenters submitted letters encouraging the Commission to permit expanded use of electronic delivery of prospectuses and other materials that broker-dealers are required to provide to investors at or prior to settlement in accordance with various provisions of the securities laws.
The second commenter focused more generally on the use of electronic delivery.
The Commission received comments, which suggested that operational difficulties may arise if the standard settlement cycle is shortened to T+2 in instances where a broker-dealer is required to deliver a physical prospectus. Such commenters, however, did not identify specific instances where such operational difficulties could occur. If, during implementation, specific issues arise, the Commission encourages industry participants to bring them to the attention of the staff. Accordingly, the Commission is not at this time providing guidance on these requirements.
To help facilitate the establishment of a T+3 settlement cycle, the Commission issued an exemptive order in 1995 granting a limited exemption for securities that do not generally trade in the U.S. by providing that all transactions in securities that do not have transfer or delivery facilities in the U.S. are exempt from the scope of Rule 15c6-1.
The Commission also granted an exemption from the T+3 settlement cycle for contracts for the purchase or sale of any security issued by an insurance company (as defined in Section 2(a)(17) of the Investment Company Act)
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission requested comment as to whether the conditions set forth in the existing exemption for registered insurance products continued to be appropriate, or whether the exemption should be modified.
The Commission has carefully considered the comments and is not rescinding or modifying the exemptive order for registered insurance products.
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission noted that in setting a compliance date it would need to provide sufficient time to allow for broker-dealers, clearing agencies, and other market participants to plan for, implement, and test changes to their systems, operations, policies, and procedures in a manner that would allow for an orderly transition to a T+2 standard settlement cycle. The Commission also noted that the Industry Steering Group (“ISC”)
In response to the T+2 Proposing Release, several commenters supported September 5, 2017 as the compliance date for the proposed changes to Rule 15c6-1(a), and no commenters suggested an alternative compliance date for the Commission's consideration or otherwise addressed the compliance date issue.
Several commenters noted work that already has been performed by market participants to implement a T+2 standard settlement cycle on a schedule consistent with the target implementation date set forth by the ISC.
One commenter specifically noted that the industry-wide testing approach developed by the ISC suggested that a six-month test period prior to the compliance date would be required to meet industry requirements.
In light of the scope of industry preparation highlighted by the commenters as necessary for a successful transition by all market participants to a T+2 standard settlement cycle, the Commission believes that September 5, 2017 is an appropriate compliance date, and an earlier date could result in disruptions to the securities markets if market participants are not able to complete the changes necessary to support a T+2 standard settlement cycle on a shorter timeline. Commenters supporting a September 5, 2017 compliance date indicated that industry preparations have continued to proceed since the March 2016 announcement by the ISC of the target implementation date and are anticipated to be completed in time for a transition to a shorter settlement cycle by September 5, 2017.
The Commission received two comment letters referencing certain regulations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) which use language similar to the language in Rule 15c6-1(a) being amended today.
Therefore, the Commission believes that September 5, 2017 is an appropriate compliance date by which the transition to a T+2 standard settlement cycle should be completed. The Commission believes that a compliance date of September 5, 2017 provides sufficient time for broker-dealers, clearing agencies, SROs and other market participants, including retail investors,
In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission requested comment on whether additional reductions in the settlement cycle could be achieved.
The Commission believes at this time that a successful transition to a settlement cycle shorter than T+2 would require comparatively larger investments by market participants to adopt new systems and processes.
(i) The impact of today's amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) to establish a T+2 standard settlement cycle on market participants, including investors;
(ii) the potential impacts associated with movement to a shorter settlement cycle beyond T+2;
(iii) the identification of technological and operational improvements that can be used to facilitate a movement to a shorter settlement cycle; and
(iv) cross-market impacts (including international developments) related to the shortening of the settlement cycle to T+2.
Given that the report will be based on data and information available to Commission staff, the Commission invites academics, market participants, fellow regulators and other interested parties to provide data and information that will be useful in informing the staff's study.
The Commission has prepared an economic analysis in connection with the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) that it is adopting today. The economic analysis begins with a discussion of the risks inherent in the standard settlement cycle for securities transactions and the impact that shortening the standard settlement cycle may have on the management and mitigation of these risks. Next, the economic analysis summarizes and considers comments that address the costs and benefits of a shorter settlement cycle, as well as comments about the economic analysis provided in the T+2 Proposing Release. Finally, the economic analysis discusses certain market frictions that potentially impair the ability of market participants to shorten the settlement cycle in the absence of a Commission rule. The discussion regarding settlement cycle risks and market frictions frames the Commission's analysis of the rule's benefits and costs in later sections. The Commission believes that the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) will ameliorate these market frictions and thus will reduce the risks inherent in settlement.
After discussing the aforementioned risks and market frictions, the economic analysis then provides a baseline of current practices. The economic analysis then discusses the likely economic effects of the amendment, such as the costs and benefits of the adopted amendment as well as its effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
Further, Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, when adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the impact that any new rule would have on competition, and provides that the Commission shall not adopt any rule that would impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
The amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) prohibits a broker-dealer from effecting or entering into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security (other than an exempted security, government security, municipal security, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or commercial bills) that provides for payment of funds and delivery of securities later than the second business day after the date of the contract unless otherwise expressly agreed to by both parties at the time of the transaction, subject to certain exceptions provided in the rule. Several commenters addressed the impact that the length of the settlement cycle would have on credit, market, liquidity, and counterparty risk in financial markets.
The settlement cycle spans the length of time between when a trade is executed and when cash and securities are delivered to the seller and buyer, respectively. During this period of time, each party to a trade faces the risk that its counterparty may fail to meet its obligations to deliver cash or securities. When a counterparty defaults or fails to meet its obligations to deliver cash or securities, the trade must be closed out. Regardless of whether the non-defaulting party chooses to enter into a new transaction as a result of the failed trade, it is likely to bear costs as a result of its counterparty's failure to deliver the cash or securities. For example, a party that chooses to enter into a new transaction must find a new counterparty to contract with and must trade at a price that may not be the same as the price of the original trade.
First, the duration of the settlement timeframe affects whether and how much asset prices can move further away from the price of the original trade. For example, if daily asset returns are statistically independent, then the variance of prices over
Second, the length of the settlement cycle directly influences the quantity of unsettled transactions between trade date and settlement date. For example, assuming no change in transaction volumes, the volume of unsettled trades under a T+2 standard settlement cycle is two-thirds the volume of unsettled trades under a T+3 standard settlement cycle. Thus, in the event of a counterparty default, counterparties would have to enter into a new transaction for, or otherwise close out, two-thirds of the number of trades in a
Market participants manage and mitigate the risks associated with settlement in a number of specific ways that are discussed in Part III.A of this release. Generally, these methods entail costs to market participants. In some cases, these costs may be explicit. For instance, broker-dealers may explicitly charge customers for providing them with the implicit option to default on payment or delivery obligations. Other costs are implicit, such as the opportunity cost of assets posted as collateral, or limitations on the amount of credit that broker-dealers are willing to provide their customers.
Shortening the standard settlement cycle will shorten the amount of time that market participants are exposed to credit and market risks. In addition, a shorter standard settlement cycle will reduce liquidity risks that could arise between derivative and cash markets by allowing investors to obtain the proceeds of securities transactions sooner. These are risks that affect all market participants, are difficult to diversify away, and require resources to manage and mitigate. CCPs and clearing members require participants to post financial resources in order to secure members' obligations to deliver cash and securities to the CCP. To the extent that collateral is posted to CCPs and clearing members for the purposes of mitigating the risks of the clearance and settlement process, that may represent an allocative inefficiency.
This allocative inefficiency could take on several forms. First, CCP financial resources that are used to mitigate the risks of the clearance and settlement process could have been put to alternative uses, such as investment in less liquid assets. Second, assets that are valuable because they are particularly suited to meeting financial resource obligations may have been better allocated to market participants that hold these assets for their fundamental risk and return characteristics. These allocative inefficiencies may reduce capital formation. Reducing the financial risks associated with the overall clearance and settlement process would thereby reduce the amount of collateral required to mitigate these risks, which would reduce the costs that market participants bear to manage and mitigate these risks and the allocative inefficiencies that may stem from risk management practices.
However, the Commission acknowledges that certain market frictions may prevent securities markets from shortening the settlement cycle in the absence of regulatory intervention. The Commission has considered two key market frictions related to investments required to implement a shorter settlement cycle. The first is a coordination problem that arises when some of the benefits of actions taken by market participants are only realized when other market participants take a similar action. For example, in the absence of the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a), if a particular institutional investor makes a technological investment necessary to reduce the time it requires to match and allocate trades while its clearing broker-dealers do not, the institutional investor cannot fully realize the benefits of its investment, as the settlement process is limited by the capabilities of the clearing agency for trade matching and allocation. More generally, when each market participant must bear the costs of an upgrade for the entire market to enjoy a benefit, the result is a coordination problem, where each market participant is reluctant to make the necessary investments until it can be sure that others will also do so. In general, these coordination problems may be resolved if all parties can credibly commit to the necessary infrastructure investments. Regulatory intervention is one possible way of coordinating market participants to undertake the investments necessary to support a shorter settlement cycle. Such intervention could come through Commission rulemaking and/or through a coordinated set of SRO rule changes. Two commenters made similar arguments, discussing the need for “regulatory certainty” (
In addition to coordination problems, a second market friction related to the settlement cycle involves situations where one market participant's investments result in benefits for other market participants. For example, if a market participant invests in a technology that reduces the error rate in its trade matching, not only does it benefit from fewer errors, but its counterparties and other market participants may also benefit from more robust trade matching. However, because market participants do not necessarily take into account the benefits that may accrue to other market participants (also known as “externalities”) when market participants choose the level of investment in their systems, the level of investment in technologies that reduce errors might be less than efficient for the entire market. More generally, underinvestment may result because each participant only takes into account its own costs and benefits when choosing which infrastructure improvements or investments to make, and does not take into account the costs and benefits that may accrue to its counterparties, other market participants, or other financial markets.
Moreover, because market participants that incur similar costs to enable a move to a shorter settlement cycle may nevertheless experience different levels of economic benefits, there is likely heterogeneity across market participants in the demand for a shorter settlement cycle. This heterogeneity may exacerbate coordination problems and underinvestment. Market participants that do not expect to receive direct benefits from settling transactions earlier may lack incentives to invest in infrastructure to support a shorter settlement cycle and thus could make it difficult for the market as a whole to realize the overall risk reduction that the Commission believes a shorter settlement cycle will bring.
For example, the level and nature of settlement risk exposures vary across different types of market participants. A market participant's characteristics and trading strategies can influence the level of settlement risk it faces. For example, large market participants will generally be exposed to more settlement risk than small market participants because they trade in larger volume. However, large market participants also trade across a larger variety of assets and may face less idiosyncratic risk in the event of
Further, the extent to which a market participant experiences any economic benefits that may stem from a shortened standard settlement cycle likely depends on the market participant's relative bargaining power. While large intermediaries, such as clearing broker-dealers, may experience direct benefits from a shorter settlement cycle as a result of being required to post less collateral with a CCP, they may not pass on the entirety of these cost savings to their customers. In addition, to the extent that broker-dealers do not effectively compete for customers through fees and services as a result of market power, they may limit the portion of these cost savings passed through to their customers.
In light of the above, the Commission believes that the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a), which will shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2, will mitigate the market frictions of coordination and underinvestment described above. The Commission also believes that mitigating these market frictions and moving to a shorter standard settlement cycle will reduce the risks inherent in the clearance and settlement process.
The shorter standard settlement cycle will also have an impact on the level of operational risk that exists in the U.S. clearance and settlement system as a result of existing clearance and settlement processes. By shortening the settlement cycle by one day, market participants involved in a securities transaction will have one less day to resolve any errors that might occur in the clearance and settlement process. As a result, tighter operational timeframes and linkages required under a shorter standard settlement cycle might introduce new fragility that could impact financial market participants, specifically an increased risk that operational issues could impact transaction processing and related securities settlement.
One commenter noted its view more generally that shortened settlement periods will result in an increased likelihood of computerized trading that could destabilize the market.
Market participants may incur initial costs for the investments necessary to comply with a shorter standard settlement cycle.
In addition, the Commission acknowledges that the upgrades necessary to implement a shorter standard settlement cycle may produce indirect economic effects. We analyze some of these indirect effects, such as the impact on competition and third-party service providers, in the following section. However, other indirect effects, such as the ancillary benefits and costs mentioned in the October 2012 Boston Consulting Group study (“BCG Study”),
As noted in the T+2 Proposing Release, DTCC commissioned in May 2012 a study to examine and evaluate the necessary investments and resulting benefits associated with a shortened settlement cycle for U.S. equities and corporate and municipal bonds. The resulting BCG Study analyzed the costs, benefits, opportunities and challenges associated with shortening the settlement cycle in the U.S. securities markets to either T+1 or T+2, respectively.
In order to perform its analysis of the likely economic effects of the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a), as well as the amendment's effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, the Commission uses as its baseline the clearance and settlement process as it exists today. In addition to the current process that was described in the T+2 Proposing Release, the baseline includes rules adopted by the Commission, including rules governing the clearance and settlement system, SRO rules,
One way NSCC mitigates the credit, market, and liquidity risk it assumes through its novation and guaranty of trades is via multilateral netting of the delivery and payment obligations across clearing members. By offsetting these obligations, NSCC reduces the aggregate market value of securities and cash it must deliver to clearing members after the trade is novated and the trade guaranty attaches. While netting reduces NSCC's settlement obligations by an average of 97% on each day, it does not fully eliminate the risk posed by unsettled trades because NSCC is still responsible for payments or deliveries on trades it cannot fully net. NSCC reported clearing an average of approximately $805 billion each day during the third quarter of 2016,
The aggregate settlement risk faced by NSCC is also a function of the probability of clearing member default. NSCC manages the risk of clearing member default by imposing certain financial requirements on its members. For example, as of 2016, broker-dealer members of NSCC that are not municipal securities brokers and do not intend to clear and settle transactions for other broker-dealers must have excess net capital over the minimum net capital requirement imposed by the Commission in the amount of $500,000.
In addition to managing the risk of member default, CCPs also take steps to mitigate the risks and adverse indirect effects generated by member default. For example, in the normal course of business, a CCP's exposure to market or liquidity risk is hedged because it expects to receive every security from a seller it is obligated to deliver to a buyer and it expects to receive every payment from a buyer that it is obligated to deliver to a seller. However, when a clearing member defaults, the CCP can no longer expect the defaulting member to deliver securities or make payments. CCPs mitigate this risk by requiring clearing members to make contributions of financial resources to the CCP. As of Q3 2016, NSCC's clearing fund deposits totaled approximately $5.4 billion, of which $5.2 billion was cash deposits.
As discussed in Part II.C.2 above, broker-dealers serve both retail and institutional customers. Aggregate statistics from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System suggest that at the end of the third quarter of 2016, U.S. households held approximately 40% of the value of corporate equity outstanding, and 50% of the value of mutual fund shares outstanding, which provide a general picture of the share of holdings by retail investors.
In the 2015 annual FOCUS reports, approximately 4,100 broker-dealers filed reports
Clearing broker-dealers face liquidity risks as they are obligated to make payments to clearing agencies on behalf of customers who purchase securities. As discussed in more detail below, from the perspective of clearing broker-dealers, customers have an option to default on their payment obligations, particularly when the price of a purchased security declines during the settlement cycle.
Another way the settlement cycle may affect transaction prices is related to the use of funds during the settlement cycle. To the extent that buyers may use the cash to purchase securities during the settlement cycle for other purposes, they may derive value from the length of time it takes to settle a transaction. Two studies have tested this hypothesis, and found that sellers demand compensation for the benefit that buyers receive from deferring payment during the settlement cycle and that this compensation is incorporated in equity returns.
The settlement process also exposes investors to certain risks. The length of the settlement cycle sets the minimum amount of time between when an investor places an order to sell securities and when the customer can expect to have access to the proceeds of that sale. Investors take this into account when they plan transactions to meet liquidity needs. For example, under T+3 settlement, investors who experience liquidity shocks, such as unexpected expenses that must be met within two business days, could not rely on obtaining funding solely through a sale of securities because the proceeds of the sale would be available in three business days, at the earliest, and not two. One possible strategy to deal with such a shock under T+3 settlement would be to borrow cash on day two to meet payment obligations on day two and repay the loan on day three with the proceeds from a sale of securities, incurring the cost of one day of interest on the short-term loan. Another strategy that investors may use is to hold financial resources to insure themselves from liquidity shocks.
As noted above,
Under Section 22(e) of the Investment Company Act, an open-end fund is required to pay shareholders who tender shares for redemption within seven days of their tender.
As described in Part II.C.1 above, two affiliated entities, NSCC and DTC, facilitate clearance and settlement for transactions that currently settle on a T+3 settlement cycle. There is limited competition in the provision of the services that these entities provide. NSCC is the CCP for trades between broker-dealers involving equity securities, corporate and municipal debt, and UITs for the U.S. market. DTC is the CSD that provides custody and book-entry transfer services for the vast majority of securities transactions in the U.S. market that are cleared through NSCC. There is also limited competition in the provision of Matching/ETC services—three entities that have obtained exemptions from registration as a clearing agency from the Commission to operate as Matching/ETC Providers.
Broker-dealers compete to provide services to retail and institutional customers. Based on the large number of broker-dealers, there is likely a high degree of competition among broker-dealers. However, the markets that broker-dealers serve may be segmented along lines relevant for the analysis of competitive impacts of the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a). As noted above, the set of broker-dealers that indicate they clear public customer accounts by self-clearing tends to be smaller than the set of broker-dealers that indicate they do so by introducing and not self-clearing. This could mean that introducing broker-dealers compete more intensively for customers than clearing broker-dealers. Further, clearing broker-dealers must meet requirements set by NSCC and DTC, such as financial obligations, including clearing fund requirements. These requirements may represent barriers to entry for clearing broker-dealers, limiting competition among these entities.
Competition for customers impacts how the costs associated with the clearance and settlement process are allocated among market participants. In managing the expected costs of risks from their customers and the costs of compliance with SRO and Commission rules, clearing broker-dealers decide what fraction of these costs to pass
In addition, several factors related to clearance and settlement impact the current levels of efficiency and capital formation in the securities market. First, at a general level, market participants occupying various positions in the clearance and settlement system must post or hold liquid financial resources, and the level of these financial resources is a function of the length of the settlement cycle. For example, NSCC collects clearing fund contributions from members to ensure that it has sufficient financial resources in the event that one of its members defaults on its obligations to NSCC. As discussed above, the length of the settlement cycle is one determinant of the size of NSCC's exposure to clearing members. As another example, mutual funds may manage liquidity needs by, among other methods, using cash reserves, back-up lines of credit, or interfund lending facilities to provide cash. These liquidity needs, in turn, are related to the mismatch between the timing of mutual fund transaction settlements and the timing of fund portfolio security transaction settlements.
Holding assets solely for the purpose of mitigating counterparty risk or liquidity needs that arise as part of the settlement process could represent an allocative inefficiency, as discussed above, both because firms that are required to hold these assets might prefer to put them to alternative uses and because these assets may be more efficiently allocated to other market participants who value them for their fundamental risk and return characteristics rather than for their collateral value. To the extent that intermediaries bear costs as a result of inefficient allocation of collateral assets, these may be reflected in transaction costs.
The settlement cycle may also have more direct impacts on transaction costs. As noted above, clearing broker-dealers may charge higher transaction fees to reflect the value of the customer's option to default, and these fees may cause customers to internalize the cost of the default options inherent in the settlement process. However, these fees also make transactions costly and may, at the margin, influence the willingness of market participants to efficiently share risks or to supply liquidity to securities markets. Taken together, inefficiencies in the allocation of resources and risks across market participants may serve to impair capital formation.
Finally, market participants may make processing errors in the clearance and settlement process.
Several commenters noted that the amendment would reduce the risks associated with the settlement cycle.
A portion of the savings by intermediaries from less costly risk
Industry participants might also individually benefit through reduced clearing fund deposit requirements. In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission cited industry estimates of cost savings associated with reduced clearing fund contributions. In response to the T+2 Proposing Release, one commenter cited an industry impact analysis estimating that projected reduction in average daily clearing fund requirements associated with two-day settlement cycle under NSCC's accelerated trade guaranty would be $533 million, or about 9% of average clearing fund requirements.
In addition, the harmonization of the standard settlement cycle in the U.S. with settlement cycles in foreign markets that settle transactions on a T+2 settlement cycle may reduce the need for some market participants engaging in cross-border and cross-asset transactions to hedge risks stemming from mismatched settlement cycles and hence reduce related financing and borrowing costs, resulting in additional benefits. For example, under the current T+3 settlement cycle, a market participant selling a security in U.S. equity markets to fund a purchase of securities in European markets would face a one day lag between settlement in Europe and settlement in the U.S. The participant could choose between bearing an additional day of market risk in the European trading markets by delaying the purchase by a day, or funding the purchase of European shares with short-term borrowing. Additionally, because FX transactions generally settle on a T+2 settlement cycle,
The benefits of harmonized settlement cycles may also accrue to mutual funds. As described above,
The Commission believes that exceptions to Rule 15c6-1(a) set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 15c6-1 are unlikely to substantially reduce the benefits of a shorter settlement cycle for most securities transactions. Market participants that rely on Rule 15c6-1(b) to transact in limited partnership interests that are not listed on an exchange or for which quotations are not disseminated through an automated quotation system of a registered securities association are likely to continue to make use of that exception under the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a). Similarly, market participants involved in offerings that currently
In addition, the Commission notes that market participants involved in certain transactions will not experience substantial benefits related to reducing the maximum number of days required to settle most securities transactions. Specifically, market participants involved in transactions which now voluntarily settle in two days or less may experience fewer risk reduction benefits as a result of the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) than market participants that currently settle in the standard three business days.
Finally, the extent to which different types of market participants experience any benefits that stem from the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) may depend on their market power. Market participants that have a greater ability to negotiate with customers or service providers may be able to retain a larger portion of the operational cost savings from a shorter settlement cycle than others, as they may be able to use their market power to avoid passing along the cost savings to their clients.
The Commission believes that compliance with a T+2 standard settlement cycle will involve initial fixed costs to update systems and processes.
The operational costs associated with the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) for different market participants might vary depending on each participant's degree of direct or indirect inter-connectivity to the clearance and settlement process, regardless of size.
Further, changes to initial and ongoing operational costs may make some self-clearing market participants alter their decision to continue internally managing the clearance and settlement of their transactions. Entities that currently internally manage their clearance and settlement activity may prefer to restructure their businesses to rely instead on third-party providers of clearance and settlement services that may be able to amortize the initial fixed cost of upgrade across a much larger volume of transaction activity.
The way that different market participants are likely to bear costs as a result of the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) may also vary based on their business structure. For example, a shorter standard settlement cycle will require payment for securities that settle regular-way by T+2 rather than T+3 (subject to the exceptions in the rule). Generally, regardless of current funding arrangements between investors and broker-dealers, removing a day between execution and settlement would mean that broker-dealers could choose between requiring investors to fund the purchase of securities one day earlier while extending the same level of credit they do under T+3 settlement, or providing an additional day of funding to investors. In other words, broker-dealers could pass through some of the costs of a shorter standard settlement cycle by imposing the same shorter cycle on investors, or they could pass these costs on to investors by raising transactions fees to compensate for the additional day of funding the broker-dealer may choose to provide. The extent to which these costs get passed through to customers may depend on, among other things, the market power of the broker-dealer. At most, the broker-dealer might pass through the entire initial investment cost to its customers, while if the broker-dealer faces perfect competition for its customers, the broker-dealer may not pass along any of these costs to its customers.
Retail investors and the broker-dealers that serve them may experience the burden of an earlier payment requirement differently from broker-dealers with more institutional clients or large custodian banks because of the way retail investors fund their accounts. One commenter stated the concern that a shortened settlement cycle would impose hardships on retail investors who transfer funds between financial institutions by paper check.
Several commenters noted that broker-dealers engaging in securities lending may incur additional implementation costs relative to other broker-dealers.
At the same time, some market participants may face lower implementation costs as a result of their current business structure and practices. As mentioned earlier, 2011 DTCC affirmation data indicate that, on average, 45% of trades were affirmed on trade date, while 90% were affirmed on T+1.
Finally, a shorter settlement cycle may result in higher costs associated with liquidating a defaulting member's position, as a shorter horizon for default management may result in larger price impacts, particularly for less liquid assets. For example, when a clearing member defaults, NSCC is obligated to fulfill its trade guaranty with the defaulting member's counterparty. One way it accomplishes this is by liquidating assets from clearing fund contributions from clearing members. However, depending on the composition of clearing fund deposits, the liquidation of clearing fund assets in a short period of time may have an adverse impact on the price of these assets. Shortening the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2 would reduce the amount of time that NSCC would have to liquidate clearing fund deposits, which may exacerbate the price impact of liquidation. One commenter noted a similar negative impact in a different setting, stating that broker-dealers required by Federal Reserve Board's Regulation T to liquidate a customer's unpaid transaction would have one less day to do so.
As discussed in Part III.B, shortening the standard settlement cycle could have an ancillary impact on how market participants comply with existing regulatory obligations that relate to the settlement timeframe. The Commission provided examples of specific Commission rules that include such requirements or are otherwise are keyed-off of settlement date, including Regulation SHO,
Financial markets and regulatory requirements have evolved significantly since the Commission adopted Rule 15c6-1 in 1993. Market participants have responded to these developments in diverse ways, including implementing a variety of systems and processes, some of which may be unique to the market participant and its business, and some of which may be integrated throughout the market participant's operations. Because of the broad variety of ways in which market participants currently satisfy regulatory obligations pursuant to Commission rules, in most circumstances it is difficult to identify with precision those practices that market participants will need to change in order to meet these other obligations. Under these circumstances, and without additional information, the Commission is unable to provide an estimate of the ancillary economic impact that the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) would have on how market participants comply with other Commission rules.
In certain cases, based on information about current market practices, the Commission believes that the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) is unlikely to change the means by which market participants comply with existing regulatory requirements. For example, under the amendment, broker-dealers will have a shorter timeframe to comply with the customer confirmation requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10. However, the Commission understands that broker-dealers typically send physical customer confirmations on the day after trade date, and many broker-dealers send electronic confirmations to customers on trade date. The Commission believes that because of the lack of ancillary consequences in these cases, market participants are unlikely to bear additional costs to comply with these requirements under a shorter standard settlement cycle.
In certain cases, however, the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) may incrementally increase the costs associated with complying with other Commission rules where those rules potentially require broker-dealers to engage in purchases of securities within a specific period of time. Two examples of these types of rules are Regulation SHO and the Commission's financial responsibility rules. In most instances, Regulation SHO governs the timeframe in which a “participant” of a registered clearing agency must close out a fail to
Similarly, some of the Commission's financial responsibility rules relate to actions or notifications that reference the settlement date of a transaction. For example, Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3(m)
The Commission believes that shortening these timeframes will not materially affect the costs that broker-dealers are likely to incur to meet their Regulation SHO obligations and obligations under the Commission's financial responsibility rules after the settlement date. Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledges that a shorter settlement cycle could affect the processes by which broker-dealers manage the likelihood of incurring these obligations. For example, broker-dealers may currently have in place inventory management systems that help them avoid failing to deliver securities by T+3. Broker-dealers may incur incremental costs in order to update these systems to support a shorter settlement cycle.
In cases where market participants will need to adjust the way in which they comply with other Commission rules, the magnitude of the costs associated with these adjustments is difficult to quantify. As noted above, market participants employ a wide variety of strategies to meet regulatory obligations. For example, broker-dealers may ensure that they have securities available to meet their obligations by using inventory management systems or they may choose instead to borrow securities. An estimate of costs is further complicated by the possibility that market participants could change their compliance strategies in response to the shortened standard settlement cycle. However, the Commission notes that some of the adjustment costs for compliance with other Commission rules, such as the stock loan recall requirements of Regulation SHO, and the prospectus delivery requirements of Securities Act Rule 172 are included in the cost estimates we provide in Part VI.C.5.
A shorter standard settlement cycle will improve the efficiency of the clearance and settlement process through several channels. The Commission believes that the primary effect that a shorter settlement cycle would have on the efficiency of the settlement process would be a reduction in the credit, market, and liquidity risks that broker-dealers, CCPs, and other market participants are subject to during the standard settlement cycle. A shorter standard settlement cycle will generally reduce the volume of unsettled transactions that could potentially pose settlement risk to counterparties. By shortening the period between trade execution and settlement, trades can be settled with less aggregate risk to counterparties or the CCP. A shorter standard settlement cycle may also decrease liquidity risk by enabling market participants to access the proceeds of their transactions sooner, which may reduce the cost market participants incur to handle idiosyncratic liquidity shocks (
In addition, a shorter standard settlement cycle may increase price efficiency through its effect on credit risk exposures between financial intermediaries and their customers. In particular, a prior study noted that certain intermediaries that transact on behalf of investors, such as broker-dealers, may be exposed to the risk that their customers default on payment obligations when the price of purchased securities declines during the settlement cycle.
The Commission believes that the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) will likely require market participants to incur costs related to infrastructure upgrades and will likely yield benefits to market participants, largely in the form of reduced financial risks related to settlement. As a result, the Commission believes that the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) could affect competition in a number of different, and potentially offsetting, ways.
The prospective reduction in financial risks related to shortening the standard settlement cycle may represent a reduction in barriers to entry for certain market participants. Reductions in the financial resources required to cover an NSCC member's clearing fund requirements that result from a shorter standard settlement cycle could encourage financial firms that currently clear transactions through NSCC clearing members to become clearing members themselves. Their entry into the market could promote competition among clearing members at NSCC. Furthermore, if a reduction in settlement risks results in lower transaction costs for the reasons discussed above, market participants that were, on the margin, discouraged from supplying liquidity to securities markets due to these costs could choose to enter the market for liquidity suppliers, increasing competition.
At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that the technological and operational changes required to enable a shorter standard settlement cycle could adversely affect competition. Among clearing members, where such process improvements might be necessary to comply with the shorter standard settlement cycle required under the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a), the cost associated with compliance might create barriers to entry, because new firms will incur higher fixed costs associated with a shorter standard settlement cycle if they wish to enter the market. Clearing members might choose to comply by upgrading their systems and processes or may choose instead to exit the market for clearing services. The exit of clearing members could have negative consequences for competition between clearing members. Clearing activity tends to be concentrated among larger broker-dealers, and the exit of clearing members could result in further concentration and additional market power for those clearing members that remain.
Alternatively, some current clearing members may choose to comply by ceasing to be clearing members and instead outsourcing their operational needs to third-party service providers. Use of third-party service providers may represent a reasonable response to the operational costs associated with the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a). While the costs associated with the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) may have adverse effects on competition between clearing members, including by increasing barriers to entry for broker-dealers who wish to become clearing member, the Commission believes that the use of third-party service providers may mitigate them. This is because, to the extent that third-party service providers are able to spread the fixed costs of compliance across a larger volume of transactions than their clients, the Commission believes that the use of third-party service providers might impose a smaller compliance cost on clearing members, including smaller broker-dealers, than if these firms directly bore the costs of compliance.
Existing market power may also affect the distribution of competitive impacts stemming from the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) across different types of market participants. While, as noted above, reductions in risk could promote competition among clearing members and liquidity suppliers, these groups may benefit to differing degrees, depending on the extent to which they are able to capture the benefits of a shortened standard settlement cycle. For example, clearing brokers tend to be larger than other broker-dealers,
Finally, a shorter standard settlement cycle could improve the capital efficiency of the clearance and settlement process, which would promote capital formation in U.S. securities markets and in the financial system generally.
Prior to the T+2 Proposing Release, industry groups released cost estimates for compliance with a shorter standard settlement cycle, including the SIA, the ISC, and BCG. In response to the T+2 Proposing Release, SIFMA and ICI
The SIFMA survey cost estimates have several advantages over the BCG Study cost estimates published in 2012. First, because the SIFMA survey cost estimates are more recent, they may take into account technological innovations that have occurred since 2012 that may have changed the cost of upgrades that a shorter standard settlement cycle could necessitate. In addition, the SIFMA survey cost estimates may also incorporate information about more recent investments many market participants have already made to support transition to a T+2 settlement cycle which may reduce the necessity of certain upgrades.
The Commission notes that some of the weaknesses of the BCG Study also apply to the SIFMA survey. As both studies rely on respondents to voluntarily provide information about their own cost estimates, the cost estimates may not be representative of the costs of all market participants. Given that the cost estimates in some industry categories had significant variation, it is not clear to what extent the costs of those industry participants who did not respond to the survey would differ from those that did. However, the response rates in different categories of industry participants varied significantly, which suggests that the potential for selection bias for the cost estimates may vary by participant category.
The SIFMA survey concluded that the transition to a T+2 standard settlement cycle would cost approximately $687 million in incremental initial investments across industry constituent groups.
The investment costs for asset managers were estimated to be $74,000 per asset manager, and the total cost for all asset managers would be $71,410,000.
The survey noted that introducing firms reported
The amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) will generate direct and indirect costs for market participants, who may need to change multiple systems and processes to comply with a T+2 standard settlement cycle. As noted in Part IV above, the T+2 Playbook included a timeline with milestones and dependencies necessary for a transition to a T+2 settlement cycle, as well as activities that market participants should consider in preparation for the transition. The Commission believes that the majority of the activities of migration to a T+2 standard settlement cycle will stem from behavior modification of market participants and systems testing, and thus the majority of the costs of migration will be from labor. These modifications may include a compression of the settlement timeline, as well as an increase in the fees that brokers may impose on their customers for trade failures.
As noted by several commenters, many market participants work with
In the following section, the Commission examines several categories of market participants and estimates the compliance costs for each category. The Commission acknowledges that many entities are already undertaking activities to support a migration to a T+2 settlement cycle in anticipation of the amendment. However, to the extent that the costs of these activities have already been incurred, the Commission considers these as sunk costs and therefore does not include them in the analysis below.
NSCC and DTC systems and operations will require adjustment to support a T+2 standard settlement cycle. According to the T+2 Playbook and the ISC White Paper, regulation-dependent planning, implementation, testing, and migration activities associated with the transition to a T+2 settlement cycle could last up to five quarters.
Matching/ETC Providers may need to adapt their trade processing systems to comply with a T+2 settlement cycle. This may include actions such as updating reference data, configuring trade match systems, and configuring trade affirmation systems to affirm trades by 12:00 p.m. on T+1. Matching/ETC Providers will also need to conduct testing and assess post-migration activities. In response to the SIFMA survey, Matching/ETC providers indicated an average cost of $315,000 each. Given that two out of the three Matching/ETC providers responded to the survey, the Commission believes that the survey responses support a lower bound of the per-entity cost estimate to $315,000. However, the Commission acknowledges that some Matching/ETC providers may have a higher or lower costs than others based on the volume of transactions that they process as well as the extent to which the ETC provider has already made the necessary investments for a T+2 settlement cycle. Thus, the Commission continues to believe that the $10.9 million per entity estimate cost is a reasonable upper bound on the per-entity cost estimate for Matching/ETC Providers. The Commission expects that Matching/ETC providers will incur minimal ongoing costs after the initial transition to a T+2 settlement cycle because the Commission believes that the majority of the costs of migration to a T+2 settlement cycle entail behavioral changes of market participants and pre-migration testing.
The overall compliance costs that a market participant incurs in connection with the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) will depend on the extent to which it is directly involved in functions related to clearance and settlement, asset servicing, and other activities. For example, retail investors may bear few (if any) direct costs in a transition to a T+2 standard settlement cycle, because their respective broker-dealer handles the back-office functions of each transaction. However, as is discussed below, this does not imply that retail investors will not face indirect costs from the transition, such as those passed through from broker-dealers or banks.
Institutional investors may need to configure systems and update reference data, which may also include updates to trade funding and processing mechanisms, to operate in a T+2 environment. In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission preliminarily estimated that these would require an initial expenditure of $2.32 million per entity.
The SIFMA survey estimated that asset managers would have an average cost of $74,000. The survey received 26 responses from asset managers, which represented $7.8 trillion in assets under management (“AUM”), approximately 48% of total ICI fund members' assets in open ended mutual funds. The average cost varied depending on the asset manager's size, with those with $20 billion to $250 billion in AUM with an approximate average cost estimate of $151,000, while the largest asset managers with over $200 billion in AUM had lower average costs of approximately $58,000. The SIFMA survey argued that this difference in cost may reflect the fact that larger asset managers may have already made system changes to support their activity in non-U.S. markets that have already moved to a T+2 settlement cycle.
Broker-dealers that serve institutional investors will not only need to configure their trading systems and update reference data, but may also need to update trade confirmation/affirmation systems, documentation, cashiering and asset servicing functions, depending on the roles they assume with respect to their clients. In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission preliminarily
Broker-dealers that serve retail investors may also need to spend significant resources to educate their clients about the shorter settlement cycle. In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission preliminarily estimated that these broker-dealers would incur an initial compliance cost of up to $8.6 million each.
The SIFMA survey reported that introducing firms reported a
Assuming all clearing and introducing broker-dealers must educate retail customers, the total costs of retail investor education would be approximately $50.5 million for all broker-dealers.
Custodian banks will need to update their asset servicing functions to comply with a shorter settlement cycle. In the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission preliminarily estimated that custodian banks would incur an initial compliance cost of $1.16 million per custodian bank.
In estimating these implementation costs, we note that market participants who bear the direct costs of the actions they undertake to comply with Rule 15c6-1 may pass these costs on to their customers. For example, retail and institutional investors might not directly bear the cost of all of the necessary upgrades for a T+2 settlement cycle, but might indirectly bear these costs as their broker-dealers might increase their fees to amortize the costs of updates among their customers. The Commission is unable to quantify the overall magnitude of the indirect costs that retail and institutional investors may bear, because it will depend on the market power of each broker-dealer, and its willingness to pass on the costs of migration to a T+2 standard settlement cycle to their customers. However, the Commission believes that in situations where broker-dealers have little or no competition, broker-dealers may at most pass on the entire cost of the initial investment to their customers. As discussed above, this could be as high as $4.72 million for broker-dealers that serve institutional investors, and $8.6 million for broker-dealers that serve retail investors. However, in situations where broker-dealers face heavy competition for customers, broker-dealers may bear the costs of the initial investment entirely, and avoid passing on these costs to their customers.
As noted in Part VI.A above, the ability of market participants to pass implementation costs on to customers likely depends on their relative bargaining power. For example, CCPs, like many other utilities, exhibit many of the characteristics of natural monopolies and, as a result, may have market power, particularly relative to broker-dealers who submit trades for clearing. This means that they may be able to share implementation costs they directly face related to shortening the settlement cycle with broker-dealers through higher clearing fees. Conversely, if institutional investors have market power relative to broker-dealers, broker-dealers may not be in a position to impose indirect costs on them.
To estimate the aggregate, industry-wide cost of a transition to a T+2 standard settlement cycle, the Commission takes its per-entity estimates and multiplies them by its estimate of the respective number of entities. The Commission estimates that there are 965 buy-side firms, 186 broker-dealers, and 53 custodian banks.
Second, the Commission's estimate assumes that broker-dealers will not repurpose existing systems that allow them to participate in foreign markets that require settlement by T+2. For example, approximately 99 of the
Third, investments by third-party service providers may mean that many of the estimated compliance costs for market participants are duplicated. The SIFMA survey and BCG Study suggests that the use of service providers may yield a savings of $194 million, reducing aggregate costs by approximately 29%.
Taking into account potential cost reductions due to repurposing existing systems and using service providers as described above, the Commission initially estimated that $2.1 billion to $4.2 billion represented a reasonable range for the total industry initial compliance costs.
In addition to these initial costs, a transition to a T+2 standard settlement cycle may also result in certain ongoing industry-wide costs. Though the Commission believes that a move to a T+2 standard settlement cycle will generally bring with it a reduced reliance on manual processing, a shorter settlement cycle may also exacerbate remaining operational risk. This is because a shorter settlement cycle would provide market participants with less time to resolve errors. For example, if there is an entry error in the trade match details sent by either counterparty for a trade, both counterparties would have one extra business day to resolve the error under the baseline than in a T+2 environment. For these errors, a shorter settlement cycle may increase the probability that the error ultimately results in a settlement fail. However, given the variety of operational errors that are possible in the clearance and settlement process and the low probability of some of these errors, the Commission is unable to quantify the impact that shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 may have on the ongoing industry-wide costs stemming from a potential increase in operational risk.
Another industry-wide potential cost of shortening the standard settlement cycle is related to CCP member default. A shorter settlement cycle may provide CCPs with a shorter time horizon in which to manage a defaulting member's outstanding settlement obligations. Besides potentially increasing the operational risks associated with default management, a shorter standard settlement cycle may also have implications for CCPs that must liquidate a defaulting member's securities and, if circumstances require, the securities of non-defaulting members, in order to meet payment obligations for unsettled trades. A shorter standard settlement cycle leaves a CCP with less time in which to liquidate the securities and may increase the price impact associated with liquidation.
Current margin models at CCPs may account for the price impact associated with liquidating collateral. Although a CCP's margining algorithm may account for the additional impact generated by a shorter liquidation horizon for the defaulting member's clearing fund deposits, margin requirements may not reflect the costs that a liquidation over a shorter horizon may impose on other market participants. For example, a CCP may impose haircuts on collateral to account for the costs of liquidating collateral in the event of a clearing member default, causing clearing members to internalize a portion of the cost of liquidating illiquid assets. While the haircut may mitigate the risk that the price impact associated with liquidation of collateral assets over a shorter period of time causes the CCP to fail to meet its settlement obligations, the reduction in the price of collateral assets may affect other market participants who may be sensitive to the value of these assets.
Although the Commission proposed a two day standard settlement cycle, the Commission acknowledged that amending Rule 15c6-1(a) to further shorten the standard settlement cycle (
The Commission has considered standard settlement cycles shorter than T+2, along with the related comments, and does not believe that a shorter settlement cycle is appropriate at this time.
As stated earlier, a T+1 standard settlement cycle might result in a larger reduction in certain settlement risks than would result from a T+2 standard settlement cycle because, as explained above, the risks associated with counterparty default tend to increase with the passage of time. Price volatility, as measured by the standard deviation of a price, is concave in time, which means that as a period of time increases, volatility will increase, but at a decreasing rate. This suggests that the reduction in price volatility from moving from T+2 settlement to T+1 settlement is larger than the reduction in price volatility from moving from T+3 settlement to T+2 settlement. Similarly, assuming constant trading volume, the volume of unsettled trades for a T+1 standard settlement cycle would be reduced again by one-third, and, as a result, for any given adverse movement in prices, the financial losses resulting from counterparty default will be two-thirds less than those under a T+3 standard settlement cycle.
A few commenters urged the Commission to adopt a T+1 or shorter standard settlement cycle citing benefits similar to those of a T+2 standard settlement cycle, but greater in magnitude.
In addition, the commenter opposed what it characterized as the industry coalescing around the idea that the Commission should adopt at a `T+2' standard and then pause for further assessment of industry readiness and appetite for a future move to T+1. The commenter further argued that the industry has already proven it is unwilling or unable to move collectively and in a timely manner toward a shorter and more automated settlement cycle, even one that is based on T+2 timeframe.
An additional commenter stated that the proposal did not go far enough to treat all investors equally and the settlement cycle should be “24 hours maximum and 1 hour at a minimum.”
Another commenter stated that cash account customers' transactions handled as principal by the executing broker should be settled on a next day (T+1) basis and that same day settlement of principal trades may be possible. In support of these statements, the commenter observed that it is common for execution, clearance, settlement, and custody to be provided by a single entity or interrelated entities, and that when this occurs, all aspects of the trade have occurred the instant that execution has been recorded on the customer account. The commenter further stated that these are effectively cash on delivery (“COD”) transactions and require only the sweep of funds to/from an individual's sweep account for their settlement. Finally, the commenter noted that funds available for trading by individual accounts are adjusted instantly following a trade, but when an outside sweep account is used, the sweep account may adjust only at day's end.
The Commission believes that the initial costs of complying with a T+1 standard settlement cycle will be greater than with a T+2 standard settlement cycle. Successful transition to a settlement cycle that is shorter than T+2 could require larger investments by market participants to adopt new systems and processes. The upgrades necessary for a T+1 standard settlement cycle might include changes such as a transformation of lending and foreign buyer processes, real-time or near real-time trade processing capabilities, as well as a further acceleration of the retail funding timeline, which would require larger structural changes to the settlement process and more cross-industry coordination than the upgrades for a T+2 standard settlement cycle would. Because these upgrades could require more changes across multiple markets and settlement systems, they may be more expensive to implement than the upgrades necessary for T+2 settlement. Additionally, the lead time and level of coordination by market participants required to implement such changes to transition to a T+1 standard settlement cycle would be longer and greater than the time and coordination required to move to a T+2 standard settlement cycle, which could delay the realization of the risk-reducing benefits of shortening the settlement cycle and increase the risk that market
Several commenters argued against a move to a T+1 standard settlement cycle at this time for similar reasons, citing the industry coordination challenges, higher investment costs, and the longer time needed to recoup the investment.
Another commenter expressed support for the Commission's proposal and stated that the commenter does not believe consideration of alternative settlement options is appropriate at this time.
Two studies have examined the costs and benefits of a transition to a T+1 settlement cycle. The BCG Study examined the costs and benefits of a T+1 settlement cycle as an alternative to a T+2 settlement cycle, while the SIA T+1 Business Case, published in 2000, examined only a T+1 settlement cycle.
The BCG Study estimated that the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle would cost the industry $1.77 billion in incremental investments (compared to $550 million for a T+2 settlement cycle), with an annual operational cost savings of $175 million per year and $35 million from clearing fund reductions (compared to $170 million and $25 million per year in a T+2 settlement cycle, respectively). Risk reduction benefits were estimated to be $410 million for a T+1 settlement cycle (compared to $200 million per year in a T+2 settlement cycle).
In addition, the SIA Business Case Report estimated the initial investment cost of a shortened standard settlement cycle to T+1 to be $8 billion, with net annual benefits of $2.7 billion per year. The report estimated that broker-dealers would have an initial investment of $5.4 billion, with net annual benefits of $2.1 billion per year; asset managers would have an initial investment of $1.7 billion, with net annual benefits of $403 million per year; custodians would have an initial investment of $600 million, with net annual benefits of $307 million per year; and infrastructure service providers would have an initial investment of $237 million, with net annual loss of $81 million per year.
Further, the Commission believes that a move to a T+1 standard settlement cycle could introduce certain financial risks and costs as a result of its impact on transactions in certain foreign markets. As discussed in the T+2 Proposing Release, the Commission believes that shortening the settlement cycle further than T+2 at this time may increase funding costs for market participants who rely on the settlement of foreign currency exchange (“FX”) transactions to fund securities transactions that settle regular way. As noted in the T+2 Proposing Release, because the settlement of FX transactions occurs on T+2, market participants who seek to fund a cross-border securities transaction with the proceeds of an FX transaction would, in a T+1 or T+0 environment, be required to settle the securities transaction before the proceeds of the FX transaction become available and would be required to pre-fund securities transactions in foreign currencies. Under these circumstances, a market participant would either incur opportunity costs and currency risk associated with holding FX reserves or be exposed to price volatility by delaying securities transactions by one business day to coordinate settlement of the securities and FX legs. In addition, shortening the settlement cycle to T+1 at this time may make it more difficult for market participants to timely settle cross-border transactions because the U.S. settlement cycle would not be harmonized with non-U.S. markets that have already transitioned to a T+2 settlement cycle.
The Commission agrees that a successful transition to a settlement cycle shorter than T+2 would require comparatively larger investments by market participants to adopt new systems and processes, and the additional lead time necessary to implement such an approach would delay the realization of the expected benefits from a reduction of credit, market, liquidity, and systemic risk that are expected to result from shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2.
The Commission has also considered the consequences of mandating specific clearance and settlement practices, such as STP, in lieu of the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a). STP involves the electronic entry of trade details during the settlement process, which avoids the manual entry and re-entry of trade details. By avoiding the manual entry of trade details, STP can speed up the settlement process as well as reduce error rates. However, the Commission believes that although many of the costs and benefits of a T+2 standard settlement cycle could be achieved by mandating specific clearance and settlement practices, there are several reasons why mandating a shorter standard settlement cycle may substantively differ from a specific practice requirement.
First, the Commission believes that many of the amended rule's benefits stem directly from the fact that the length of the settlement cycle has been shortened, and not from the particular practices used to comply with the amendment. As discussed above in Part III.A, the Commission believes that shortening the standard settlement cycle is likely to reduce a number of risks associated with securities settlement, including credit and market risks that stem from counterparty exposures. Moreover, the Commission believes that intermediaries that manage these types of risk as a result of their role in the clearance and settlement system may share a portion of potential cost savings associated with reduced risks with market participants. While the Commission acknowledges that an alternative approach that primarily focuses on mandating STP may achieve some of the operational benefits associated with a shortened standard settlement cycle, such an approach may not reduce counterparty exposures and attendant risks.
Three of the commenters that have expressed support for a T+2 or shorter settlement cycle have identified STP as an important practice that would facilitate a shortened standard settlement cycle.
Additionally, mandating specific clearance and settlement practices instead of mandating a shortened standard settlement cycle may have adverse effects on competition in the market for back-office services. Back-office service providers may have a variety of methods to help their clients comply with a shorter settlement cycle, and mandating specific clearance and settlement practices may adversely affect the number of providers that market participants might use, and a reduction in competition among back-office service providers that can comply with required practices may result in higher compliance costs for market participants. One commenter specifically argued against a mandate on specific practices, citing to the potential for an adverse effect on competition and innovation for back-office services.
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”).
The Commission is adopting the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Exchange Act to achieve the benefits of shortening the standard settlement cycle to T+2 discussed above, such as the further reduction of credit, market, and liquidity risk, and as a result a reduction in systemic risk, for U.S. market participants.
As noted above, the T+2 Proposing Release solicited comment on the IRFA. Although the Commission received no comments specifically concerning the IRFA, one commenter discussed the one-time costs introducing broker-dealers, a subset of which are small entities, may face to support the initial transition to a shorter settlement cycle.
Paragraph (c) of Rule 0-10 under the Exchange Act provides that, for purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance with the provisions of the RFA, when used with reference to a broker or dealer, the Commission has defined the term “small entity” to mean a broker or dealer: (1) With total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the Exchange Act,
The amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) prohibits broker-dealers, including those that are small entities, from effecting or entering into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security (other than an exempted security, government security, municipal security, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or commercial bills) that provides for payment of funds and delivery of securities no later than the second business day after the date of the contract unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties at the time of the transaction. Currently, based on
The amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) will not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements on broker-dealers that are small entities. However, the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) may impact certain broker-dealers, including those that are small entities, to the extent that broker-dealers may need to make changes to their business operations and incur certain costs in order to operate in a T+2 environment.
For example, conversion to a T+2 standard settlement cycle may require broker-dealers, including those that are small entities, to make changes to their business practices, as well as to their computer systems, and/or to deploy new technology solutions. Implementation of these changes may require broker-dealers to incur new or increased costs, which may vary based on the business model of individual broker-dealers as well as other factors. Additionally, conversion to a T+2 standard settlement cycle may also result in an increase in costs to certain broker-dealers who finance the purchase of customer securities until the broker-dealer receives payment from its customers. To pay for securities purchases, many customers liquidate other securities or money fund balances held for them by their broker-dealers in consolidated accounts such as cash management accounts. However, some broker-dealers may elect to finance the purchase of customer securities until the broker-dealer receives payment from its customers for those customers that do not choose to liquidate other securities or have a sufficient money fund balance prior to trade execution to pay for securities purchases. Broker-dealers that elect to finance the purchase of customer securities may incur an increase in costs in a T+2 environment resulting from settlement occurring one day earlier unless the broker-dealer can expedite customer payments.
As discussed above, one commenter stated that introducing broker-dealers, including 1,235 firms that are small entities, may face a one-time cost to support the transition to a shorter settlement cycle.
The Commission considered alternatives to the amendment that would accomplish the stated objectives of the amendment without disproportionately burdening broker-dealers that are small entities, including: Differing compliance requirements or timetables; clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying the compliance requirements; using performance rather than design standards; or providing an exemption for certain or all broker-dealers that are small entities. The purpose of Rule 15c6-1(a) is to establish a standard settlement cycle for broker-dealer transactions. Alternatives, such as different compliance requirements or timetables, or exemptions, for Rule 15c6-1(a), or any part thereof, for small entities would undermine the purpose of establishing a standard settlement cycle. For example, allowing small entities to settle at a time later than T+2 could create a two-tiered market that could work to the detriment of small entities whose order flow would not coincide with that of other firms operating on a T+2 settlement cycle. Additionally, the Commission believes that establishing a single timetable (
The Commission is adopting an amendment to Rule 15c6-1 pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority set forth in Sections 15(c)(6), 17A and 23(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(6), 78q-1, and 78w(a) respectively].
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is to be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a broker or dealer shall not effect or enter into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security (other than an exempted security, government security, municipal security, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or commercial bills) that provides for payment of funds and delivery of securities later than the second business day after the date of the contract unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties at the time of the transaction.
By the Commission.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |