| Page Range | 16725-16890 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 16889 - National Crime Victims' Rights Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 16881 - Organization of the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and Subcommittees | |
| 82 FR 16808 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 16784 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16831 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16808 - Supervisory Highlights: Consumer Reporting Special Edition | |
| 82 FR 16741 - Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs; Organ Procurement Organization Reporting and Communication; Transplant Outcome Measures and Documentation Requirements; Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs; Payment to Nonexcepted Off-Campus Provider-Based Department of a Hospital; Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program; Establishment of Payment Rates Under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for Nonexcepted Items and Services Furnished by an Off-Campus Provider-Based Department of a Hospital; Correcting Amendment | |
| 82 FR 16869 - Rescission of Social Security Rulings 96-2p, 96-5p, and 06-3p; Correction | |
| 82 FR 16830 - National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: Assumable Waters Subcommittee; Notice of Public Meetings | |
| 82 FR 16770 - Montana Administrative Rule Revisions: 17.8.334 | |
| 82 FR 16818 - Defense Programs Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 16772 - Air Plan Approval; CT; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 82 FR 16740 - Reclassification of the Sheboygan, Wisconsin Area To Moderate Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Correction | |
| 82 FR 16736 - Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Electronic Reporting Requirements | |
| 82 FR 16836 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 16832 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 16858 - Division of Federal Employees' Compensation; Proposed Revision to Existing Approved Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 16860 - University of Florida, Training Reactor | |
| 82 FR 16856 - Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp.: Grant of Recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 16842 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 16835 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 16839 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 16833 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 16841 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 16837 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 16871 - Plenary Meeting of the Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group in Washington, DC | |
| 82 FR 16869 - Request for Statements of Interest | |
| 82 FR 16871 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16828 - Proposed Rate Adjustment, Public Forum, and Opportunities for Public Review and Comment for Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System of Projects | |
| 82 FR 16817 - Executive Summit on Hydropower Research and Development | |
| 82 FR 16799 - Science Advisory Board (SAB); Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16730 - Revisions to the Unverified List (UVL) | |
| 82 FR 16783 - Notice of Request for Comments on Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 16817 - Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; Amendment | |
| 82 FR 16733 - Waivers From Requirements of the Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food Rule | |
| 82 FR 16859 - Request for Recommendations for Membership on Directorate and Office Advisory Committees | |
| 82 FR 16784 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the South Dakota Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 16865 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 16831 - Wireline Competition Bureau Announces E-Rate Inflation-Based CAP for Funding Year 2017 | |
| 82 FR 16793 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Finding of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 16823 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725e); Comment Request; Revision | |
| 82 FR 16821 - Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (Pad), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests | |
| 82 FR 16824 - Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 16819 - Notice of Attendance at PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Meetings | |
| 82 FR 16827 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 82 FR 16826 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 16826 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 16818 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 16825 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 16822 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 82 FR 16820 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 82 FR 16821 - Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 82 FR 16819 - Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC; Equitrans LP; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Mountain Valley Project and the Equitrans Expansion Project | |
| 82 FR 16786 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 43-Battle Creek, Michigan Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, dba Mead Johnson Nutritional, Subzone 43B, (Infant Formula/Nutritional Products), Zeeland, Michigan | |
| 82 FR 16786 - Foreign-Trade Zone 37-Orange County, New York; Application for Subzone; Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.; Inwood, New York | |
| 82 FR 16790 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of Countervailing Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 16796 - Approval of Subzone Status; Orgill, Inc.; Post Falls, Idaho | |
| 82 FR 16843 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 16849 - Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects | |
| 82 FR 16795 - Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 16844 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 16796 - Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments | |
| 82 FR 16797 - Lafayette College; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments | |
| 82 FR 16795 - Rutgers University, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope | |
| 82 FR 16792 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 16744 - Freedom of Information Act Regulations | |
| 82 FR 16854 - Meeting of the Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact | |
| 82 FR 16787 - In the Matter of: Juan Jose Estrada, Inmate Number: 53358-379, Big Spring, Correctional Institution, 2001 Rickabaugh Drive, Big Spring, TX 79720; Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 82 FR 16735 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Yellow Mill Channel, Bridgeport, CT | |
| 82 FR 16735 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Beach Bridge, Reynolds Channel, Lawrence, NY | |
| 82 FR 16847 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Monthly Report on Naturalization Papers | |
| 82 FR 16785 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 16742 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 82 FR 16789 - In the Matter of: Song II Kim, a/k/a Kim Song Il, Inmate Number-07778-122, Moshannon Valley, Correctional Institution, 555 Geo Drive, Philipsburg, PA 16866; Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 82 FR 16786 - In the Matter of: Sihai Cheng, a/k/a Alex Cheng, a/k/a Chun Hai Cheng, Inmate Number: 96454-038, FCI Terminal Island, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3007, San Pedro, CA 90733; Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 82 FR 16788 - In the Matter of: Amin Al-Baroudi, a/k/a Abu al-Jud, Inmate Number: 87450-083, FCI Victorville Medium II, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3850, Adelanto, CA 92301; Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 82 FR 16873 - Post-Accident Reporting (PAR) Advisory Committee Meeting: Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16873 - RTCA Federal Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 16798 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16798 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16876 - Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; City of Bangor, Maine | |
| 82 FR 16874 - Pipeline Safety: Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility User Fee | |
| 82 FR 16863 - Proposed Submission of Information Collections for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiemployer Plan Regulations | |
| 82 FR 16848 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan, Lake County, FL | |
| 82 FR 16855 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 16859 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 16854 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for IDEIA Part B and C Child Count | |
| 82 FR 16853 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Financial Assistance and Social Services | |
| 82 FR 16872 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 16867 - Order Extending a Temporary Exemption From Compliance With Rules 13n-1 to 13n-12 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |
| 82 FR 16877 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act and Executive Order 12978 | |
| 82 FR 16800 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental To Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Tidal Marsh Restoration Project | |
| 82 FR 16872 - 60-Day Notice of Intent To Seek Extension of Approval: Demurrage Liability Disclosure Requirements | |
| 82 FR 16870 - Notice of Availability of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Foreign Missions Center at the Former Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC | |
| 82 FR 16779 - Revision of Land and Resource Management Plan for the Tonto National Forest; Counties of Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yavapai, Arizona | |
| 82 FR 16865 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Listing Standards for Acquisition Companies To Modify the Initial and Continued Distribution Requirements | |
| 82 FR 16855 - Proposed eCollection eComments Requested | |
| 82 FR 16862 - Information Collection: Safeguards on Nuclear Material-Implementation of United States/International Atomic Energy Agency Agreement | |
| 82 FR 16869 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 16784 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maine Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 16797 - Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board | |
| 82 FR 16846 - Office of the Director; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16846 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16847 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16847 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 16746 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District | |
| 82 FR 16728 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 16831 - First Meeting of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 16777 - Update Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service System and Related Matters | |
| 82 FR 16725 - Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes |
Forest Service
Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Southeastern Power Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-06-09, AD 2012-05-08, and AD 2012-07-08, for certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 11, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 11, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of May 29, 2012 (77 FR 24342, April 24, 2012).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-Putim-12227-901 São Jose dos Campos-SP-BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1622; fax 425-227-1320.
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-06-09, Amendment 39-14518 (71 FR 14365, March 22, 2006) (“AD 2006-06-06”); AD 2012-05-08, Amendment 39-16980 (77 FR 16155, March 20, 2012) (“AD 2012-05-08”); and AD 2012-07-08, Amendment 39-17014 (77 FR 24342, April 24, 2012) (“AD 2012-07-08”); which applied to all Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes.
The SNPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of various PSEs; such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. We are also issuing this AD to prevent safety-significant latent failures; such failures, in combination with one or more other specified failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems. We are also issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions; such failures, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2015-06-01, effective June 2, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The MCAI states:
This [Brazilian] AD was prompted by a new revision to the airworthiness limitations of the Maintenance Review Board Report. This [Brazilian] AD is being issued to ensure that fatigue cracking of various principal structural elements is detected and corrected; such fatigue cracking, could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes.
The required action is revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the airworthiness limitations in Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations to the EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.
SkyWest Airlines requested an allowance for future revisions of the EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1621, (“MRB-1621”), to be used as long as the tasks, intervals, and requirements haven't changed. The commenter stated that if the purpose of the SNPRM was to ensure that operators are using the new airworthiness limitations, it would seem that using later revisions of MRB-1621, as long as the tasks, intervals, and requirements haven't changed would make it easier to comply with the proposed requirements, and with the airworthiness limitation revisions that come with newly delivered airplanes. The commenter explained that operators might have to divide their maintenance and inspection program into groups of airplanes. For airplanes with the serial numbers identified in the SNPRM, operators would be required to use MRB-1621, Revision 10, and for newly delivered airplanes operators would be required to comply with the EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report revision released when the new airplanes were delivered.
We agree with the commenter's observation that operators might have to use two different revisions of MRB-1621, the revision required by this final rule and the revision that is released with newly delivered airplanes; however, in an AD we may not refer to any document that does not yet exist. Allowing the use of a “later revision” of a specific service document violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials “incorporated by reference,” as specified in 1 CFR 51.1(f).
Operators may request approval to use later revisions of a referenced document as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. The FAA routinely approves AMOCs that allow operators to incorporate later revisions of referenced ALI documents (issued after publication of the AD) into their maintenance or inspection programs instead of the revision required by an AD. This allows an operator to comply with both the AD, for affected airplanes, and the airplane's type design for later delivered airplanes. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, with minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
Embraer S.A. has issued Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations to the EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1621, Revision 10, dated February 23, 2015, which is divided into four parts. As noted in the titles of each of these parts, Appendix A addresses Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), airworthiness limitation inspections (ALIs) for structures, fuel system limitation items (FSLs), and life-limited items (LLI), and includes established tasks and intervals.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 286 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 11, 2017.
This AD replaces the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD:
(1) AD 2006-06-09, Amendment 39-14518 (71 FR 14365, March 22, 2006) (“AD 2006-06-09”).
(2) AD 2012-05-08, Amendment 39-16980 (77 FR 16155, March 20, 2012) (“AD 2012-05-08”).
(3) AD 2012-07-08, Amendment 39-17014 (77 FR 24342, April 24, 2012) (“AD 2012-07-08”).
This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, and -200 STD airplanes; certificated in any category; manufacturer serial numbers 17000002, 17000004 through 17000013 inclusive, and 17000015 through 17000453 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 27, Flight controls; 28, Fuel; 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 57, Wings; 71, Powerplant; and 78, Exhaust.
This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of various principal structural elements (PSEs); such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. We are also issuing this AD to prevent safety-significant latent failures; such failures, in combination with one or more other specified failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems. We are also issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions; such failures, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the action required by paragraph (i) of AD 2012-07-08, with no changes.
(1) Within 60 days after May 29, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-07-08): Revise the maintenance program to incorporate the new or revised tasks specified in Part 2—Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)—Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations, to the EMBRAER 170 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), MRB-1621, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010; and EMBRAER Temporary Revision 7-1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part 2—Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)—Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations, to the EMBRAER 170 MRBR, MRB-1621, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010; with the initial compliance times and intervals specified in these documents.
(2) The initial compliance times for the tasks start from the date of issuance of the original Brazilian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Brazilian export certificate of airworthiness of the applicable airplane at the applicable time specified in the tasks, or within 600 flight cycles after revising the maintenance program, whichever occurs later. For certain tasks, the compliance times depend on the pre-modification and post-modification status of the actions specified in the associated service bulletin, as specified in the “Applicability” column of Part 2—Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)—Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations, to the EMBRAER 170 MRBR, MRB-1621, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010; and EMBRAER Temporary Revision 7-1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part 2—Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)—Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations, to the EMBRAER 170 MRBR, MRB-1621, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010.
This paragraph restates the action required by paragraph (j) of AD 2012-07-08, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the airworthiness limitations specified in Part 1—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR); Part 2—Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)—Structures; Part 3—Fuel System Limitation Items (FSL); and Part 4—Life Limited Items (LLI); of Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations; of the EMBRAER 170/175 MRBR, MRB-1621, Revision 10, dated February 23, 2015. The initial compliance times and repetitive intervals are specified in the applicable part of the EMBRAER 170/175 MRBR, MRB-1621, Revision 10, dated February 23, 2015. Accomplishing the revision to the maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2015-06-01, effective June 2, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 11, 2017.
(i) Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations to the EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1621, Revision 10, dated February 23, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 24342, April 24, 2012).
(i) Part 2—Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)—Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations, of the EMBRAER 170 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1621, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010. Only the title page of this document specifies the revision level.
(ii) EMBRAER Temporary Revision 7-1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part 2—Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)—Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations, of the EMBRAER 170 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1621, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-Putim-12227-901 São Jose dos Campos-SP-BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425 227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-24-17 for General Electric Company (GE) GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B turbofan engines with certain high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor stage 2-5 spools installed. AD 2013-24-17 required removing these spools from service at times determined by a drawdown plan. This AD retains the same requirements as AD 2013-24-17. This AD also adds additional part number (P/N) HPC spools to the applicability. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking on these additional spools. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 21, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 21, 2017.
We must receive any comments on this AD by May 22, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, One Neumann Way, Room 285, Cincinnati, OH; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
On November 27, 2013, we issued AD 2013-24-17, Amendment 39-17694 (78 FR 76045, December 16, 2013), (“AD 2013-24-17”), for GE GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B turbofan engines with certain HPC rotor stage 2-5 spools installed. AD 2013-24-17 required removing these spools from service at times determined by a drawdown plan. AD 2013-24-17 resulted from reports of cracks in HPC rotor stage 2-5 spool aft
Since we issued AD 2013-24-17, GE found cracking on additional P/N HPC spools. These spools had not previously been thought to be affected by cracking because they had a revised coating applied in the seal teeth area. We also reviewed the risk assessment and determined that an installation prohibition was not needed, therefore, we eliminated that paragraph from this AD. In addition, GE revised its service material by issuing GE Service Bulletin (SB) GE90-100 SB 72-0659 R01, dated February 18, 2016, which we reference in the compliance section of this AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC rotor stage 2-5 spools, uncontained spool release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) GE90-100 SB 72-0659 R01, dated February 18, 2016. The SB describes procedures for identification and removal from service of the affected HPC 2-5 spools. The part numbers that are listed in Appendix A of GE SB GE90-100 SB 72-0659 R01 are the original P/Ns. Spools that have been reworked may have a P/N other than that listed in Appendix A. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires removing certain HPC rotor stage 2-5 spools from service at times determined by a drawdown plan specified in the compliance section.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because it requires compliance before further flight. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 22 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 21, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2013-24-17, Amendment 39-17694 (78 FR 76045, December 16, 2013) (“AD 2013-24-17”).
All GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B engines with high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 2-5 spools, with:
(1) a part number (P/N) 351-103-106-0, 351-103-107-0, 351-103-108-0, 351-103-141-0, 351-103-142-0, 351-103-143-0, 351-103-144-0, 351-103-145-0, 351-103-146-0, 351-103-148-0, 351-103-149-0, 351-103-150-0, or 351-103-151-0; and
(2) a serial number listed in paragraph 4, Appendix A, of GE Service Bulletin (SB) GE90-100 SB 72-0659 R01, dated February 18, 2016.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in HPC rotor stage 2-5 spool aft spacer arms since AD 2013-24-17.We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC rotor stage 2-5 spools, uncontained spool release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
(1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(2) Remove from service HPC rotor stage 2-5 spools listed in paragraph 4, Appendix A, of GE SB GE90-100 SB 72-0659 R01, dated February 18, 2016, as follows:
(i) For spools that have fewer than 4,500 flight cycles since new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD, remove before exceeding 5,000 CSN.
(ii) For spools that have 4,500 CSN or more but fewer than 5,200 CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove within 500 cycles in service (CIS) but not to exceed 5,500 CSN.
(iii) For spools that have 5,200 CSN or more but fewer than 5,600 CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove within 300 CIS but not to exceed 5,800 CSN.
(iv) For spools that have 5,600 CSN or more but fewer than 5,800 CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove within 200 CIS but not to exceed 5,850 CSN.
(v) For spools that have 5,800 CSN or more but fewer than 6,000 CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove within 50 CIS but not to exceed 6,000 CSN.
(vi) For spools that have 6,000 CSN or more on the effective date of this AD, remove before the next flight.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
For more information about this AD, contact John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) General Electric Company (GE) Service Bulletin GE90-100 SB 72-0659 R01, dated February 18, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding six (6) persons to the Unverified List (the “Unverified List” or UVL); revising two addresses and adding an alternate name, or a.k.a., for one (1) person currently listed on the UVL; and revising three addresses, adding three additional addresses, and adding an alternate name, or a.k.a, for one (1) person currently listed on the UVL. The six persons are being added to the UVL on the basis that BIS could not verify their
Kevin Kurland, Director, Office of Enforcement Analysis, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-4255 or by email at
The Unverified List, found in Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 to the EAR, contains the names and addresses of foreign persons who are or have been parties to a transaction, as that term is described in § 748.5 of the EAR, involving the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR, and whose
End-use checks cannot be completed for a number of reasons, including reasons unrelated to the cooperation of the foreign party subject to the end-use check. For example, BIS sometimes initiates end-use checks and cannot find a foreign party at the address indicated on export documents, and cannot locate the party by telephone or email. Additionally, BIS sometimes is unable to conduct end-use checks when host government agencies do not respond to requests to conduct end-use checks, are prevented from scheduling such checks by a party to the transaction other than the foreign party that is the proposed subject of the end-use check or refuse to schedule them in a timely manner. Under these circumstances, although BIS has an interest in informing the public of its inability to verify the foreign party's
Furthermore, BIS sometimes conducts end-use checks but cannot verify the
As provided in § 740.2(a)(17) of the EAR, the use of license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL is suspended. Additionally, under § 744.15(b) of the EAR, there is a requirement for exporters, reexporters, and transferors to obtain (and keep a record of) a UVL statement from a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL before proceeding with exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to such persons, when the exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) are not subject to a license requirement.
Requests for removal of a UVL entry must be made in accordance with § 744.15(d) of the EAR. Decisions regarding the removal or modification of UVL listings will be made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, based on a demonstration by the listed person of its
This rule adds six (6) persons to the UVL by amending Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 of the EAR to include their names and addresses. BIS adds these persons in accordance with the criteria for revising the UVL set forth in § 744.15(c) of the EAR. The new entries consist of three persons located in China and one person located in each of the following countries or territories: Azerbaijan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates. Each listing is grouped within the UVL by country with each party's name(s) listed in alphabetical order under the country; each entry includes available alias(es) and address(es), as well as the
This rule also revises two addresses for one person currently listed on the UVL, Brilliance Technology Ltd., to add the official Hong Kong district name. In addition, BIS is adding an alternate name for Brilliance Technology Ltd., as BIS has determined this person is doing business as Brilliance Technology Group. Additionally, this rule revises two addresses for Ling Ao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., which is currently listed on the UVL, to add the official Hong Kong district name. BIS is revising a third address for this person to correct a previous error in the street name and to add the name of the building in which this person is located. BIS is also adding three additional addresses for Ling Ao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., as BIS has determined this person is receiving U.S. exports at these addresses. Finally, BIS is adding Xuan Qi Technology Co., Ltd. as an alternate name for Ling Ao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.
Shipments (1) removed from license exception eligibility or that are now subject to requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR as a result of this regulatory action; (2) eligible for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license before this regulatory action; and (3) on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on April 6, 2017, pursuant to actual orders, may proceed to that UVL listed person under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as the items have been exported from the United States, reexported or transferred (in-country) before May 8, 2017. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight on May 8, 2017 are subject to the requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR in accordance with this regulation.
Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, 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 EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701
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 not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
2. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable to this rule, which is adding 6 persons, revising 2 addresses and adding an alternate name, or a.k.a. for 1 person currently listed on the UVL, and revising 3 addresses, adding 3 new addresses, and adding an alternate
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 to be given 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
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor is 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
This rule slightly increases public burden in a collection of information approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, which authorizes, among other things, export license applications. The removal of license exceptions for listed persons on the Unverified List will result in increased license applications being submitted to BIS by exporters. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB control number 0694-0088 are expected to increase minimally, as the suspension of license exceptions will only affect transactions involving persons listed on the Unverified List and not all export transactions. Because license exceptions are restricted from use, this rule decreases public burden in a collection of information approved by OMB under control number 0694-0137 minimally, as this will only affect specific individual listed persons. The increased burden under 0694-0088 is reciprocal to the decrease of burden under 0694-0137, and results in no change of burden to the public. This rule also increases public burden in a collection of information under OMB control number 0694-0122, as a result of the exchange of UVL statements between private parties, and under OMB control number 0694-0134, as a result of appeals from persons listed on the UVL for removal of their listing. The total increase in burden hours associated with both of these collections is expected to be minimal, as they involve a limited number of persons listed on the UVL.
4. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is publishing three waivers from the requirements of the Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food (the Sanitary Transportation rule). The Agency is taking this action in accord with the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
The waivers are effective as of April 6, 2017.
Michael Kashtock, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2022,
In a proposed rule published on February 5, 2014 (79 FR 7006), entitled “Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food,” the Agency announced that it had tentatively determined that, in accordance with the provisions of section 416 (21 U.S.C. 350e) of the FD&C Act,
• Shippers, carriers, and receivers who hold valid permits and are inspected under the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments Grade “A” Milk Safety Program, only when engaged in transportation operations involving Grade “A” milk and milk products and
• Food establishments holding valid permits, only when engaged in transportation operations as receivers, or as shippers and carriers in operations in which food is relinquished to consumers after transportation from the establishment.
We requested comment regarding whether these proposed waivers could result in the transportation of food under conditions that would be unsafe for human or animal health, or could be contrary to the public interest. We did not receive any comments with information indicating that these waivers would lead to these outcomes. We published the final rule on April 6, 2016 (81 FR 20091), and established an effective date of June 6, 2016, but did not finalize the proposed waivers at that time, stating that we intended to do so prior to the rule's initial compliance
In response to the proposed rule, we did receive comments requesting that we modify or expand the scope of these waivers beyond that which we discussed in the proposed rule. We received information from an organization representing institutional foodservice establishments that provided details about the operational practices of these establishments relevant to the scope of the proposed waiver.
We have evaluated the comments and information that we received to determine whether we should modify any of the waivers. We have modified the language of the waivers to clarify their applicability only to businesses subject to the requirements of 21 CFR part 1, subpart O. We have made a clarification to the Grade “A” milk waiver to specify that it applies to the transportation of bulk and finished Grade “A” milk products. We have also made clarifications to the food establishment waiver to better express the types of businesses within its scope, and to incorporate established definitions in 21 CFR 1.227 to describe the food establishments for which this waiver is available. We have also revised the language of this waiver to make clear that it applies to receiving and delivery operations of a food establishment that are part of the normal business operations of the establishment. In addition, we have modified the language of the food establishment waiver to recognize that State or local authorities may vary in the methods they use to authorize establishments to operate. We have included our analysis of these comments as a reference to this notice (Ref. 1). We also are making this document available at
In addition, we have evaluated comments we received asking us to consider publishing an additional waiver for certain transportation operations for molluscan shellfish performed by persons that hold valid State permits (meaning that they are appropriately certified) under the NSSP.
Participants in the NSSP include agencies from shellfish producing and non-producing States, FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the shellfish industry. Under international agreements with FDA, foreign governments also participate in the NSSP. The purpose of the program is to promote and improve the sanitation of shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops) moving in interstate commerce through Federal/State cooperation and uniformity of State shellfish programs. The NSSP uses as its basic standard the Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish (GCMS), which incorporates a Model Ordinance and related materials (Ref. 2). The Model Ordinance provides readily adoptable standards and administrative practices necessary for the sanitary control of molluscan shellfish. Provisions of the GCMS and the NSSP address several aspects of the transportation of molluscan shellfish in interstate commerce including requirements for conveyances, containers used for holding product during transportation, sanitation and temperature control. Through their participation in the NSSP and membership in the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, states have agreed to enforce the Model Ordinance as the requirements which are minimally necessary for the sanitary control of molluscan shellfish.
The GCMS, and the state regulations modeled after it, specify that every shellstock shipper,
We have determined that waiving the requirements of part 1, subpart O, with respect to shippers, loaders, carriers, and receivers who are appropriately certified and inspected under the NSSP, would not result in the transportation of food under conditions that would be unsafe for human or animal health and would not be contrary to the public interest. Specifically, we have determined that shippers, loaders, carriers, and receivers who are appropriately certified and are inspected under the NSSP, and transport molluscan shellfish in vehicles that are permitted, or otherwise appropriately licensed by the State NSSP certification authority, by complying with requirements that are based upon those set forth in the GCMS, are using sanitary transportation practices to ensure that molluscan shellfish are not transported under conditions that may render such products unsafe.
In accordance with the requirements of section 416 of the FD&C Act, by this notice we are waiving the following persons from the applicable requirements of the Sanitary Transportation rule:
• Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that hold valid permits and are inspected under the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments' Grade “A” Milk Safety Program, only when engaged in transportation operations involving bulk and finished Grade “A” milk and milk products.
• Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that are permitted or otherwise authorized by the regulatory authority to operate a food establishment that provides food directly to consumers (
○ Receivers, whether the food is received at the establishment itself or at a location where the authorized establishment receives and immediately transports the food to the food establishment;
○ shippers and carriers in operations in which food is transported from the establishment as part of the normal business operations of a retail establishment, such as:
• Delivery of the food directly to the consumer(s) by the authorized establishment or a third-party delivery service or;
• delivery of the food to another location operated by the authorized establishment or an affiliated establishment where the food is to be sold or served directly to the consumer(s).
• Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that are appropriately certified and are inspected under the requirements established by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference's NSSP, only when engaged in transportation operations involving molluscan shellfish in vehicles that are permitted by the State NSSP certification authority.
These waivers are effective upon publication of this notification. The issuance of these waivers is deregulatory in nature because they lessen the burden imposed on shippers,
The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at
1. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Analysis of Comments Submitted to Docket FDA 2013-N-0013 Regarding Waivers from the Requirements of 21 CFR part 1, subpart O—Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food, March 2017. Available also at
2. “National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish 2015 Revision”, available at:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Stratford Avenue Bridge across Yellow Mill Channel, mile 0.3 at Bridgeport, Connecticut. This deviation is necessary to complete electrical repairs, install new rebar and concrete, repair/replace structural steel, and retrofit navigation lighting. This deviation allows the bridge to remain fully closed for two weeks followed by a two-week period during which the bridge will open for vessels upon 72 hours of advance notice.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on April 1, 2017 to 12:01 a.m. on May 1, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0147, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email
The Connecticut Department of Transportation, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate rehabilitation of the bridge and bascule leaves. The Stratford Avenue Bridge, across Yellow Mill Channel, mile 0.3 at Bridgeport, Connecticut is a double-leaf bascule bridge offering mariners a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water and 17 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.225.
The bulk of traffic utilizing the waterway is recreational in nature, requiring only occasional openings of the bridge in order to proceed.
Under this temporary deviation, the Stratford Avenue Bridge shall remain in the closed position from April 1, 2017 to April 15, 2017. Between April 15, 2017 and May 1, 2017, the span will open for the passage of vessels requiring an opening provided 72 hours of advance notice is furnished to the owner of the bridge.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Atlantic Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4 at Lawrence, New York. This action is necessary to recoat the superstructure and reconstruct the double-leaf bascule spans in three sequential two month stages within six months. The deviation will allow the bridge to open only one bascule span at a time in order to provide passage for vessels that require an opening.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on April 17, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on October 13, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0048 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email
The Nassau County Bridge Authority, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation in order to facilitate reconstruction of the bascule leaves. The Atlantic Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4 at
The bridge generally opens four times per week allowing for routine passage of towing vessels with tank barges or dry cargo barges. The bulk of other vessel traffic is predominately recreational not requiring an opening in order to proceed through the draw.
The temporary deviation will allow the Atlantic Beach Bridge to open only one of the two bascule spans for bridge openings from 12:01 a.m. on April 17, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on October 13, 2017.
Between April 17, 2017 and May 14, 2017 dual lift span operations will be permitted for commercial vessels and tug/barge units provided a 48 hour advance notice and 24 hour advance confirmation has been provided from 7 a.m. Monday through 6 p.m. Friday. Between April 17, 2017 and May 14, 2017, from 6 p.m. Friday through 7 a.m. Monday, dual bascule lift span operations will be offered for vessels requiring an opening every hour on the hour.
Between May 15, 2017 and October 13, 2017 single leaf bascule openings will be offered upon signal except that the draw need only be opened on the hour and half-hour between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday. Dual lift span operations will be permitted for commercial vessels and tug/barge units provided a 48 hour advance notice and 24 hour advance confirmation has been provided. Dual lift span operation will occur every hour on the hour and half-hour as needed on weekends from May 15, 2017 through October 13, 2017 from 7 p.m. Friday to 7 a.m. Monday in addition to Memorial Day, Independence Day (4th of July), and Labor Day.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the electronic reporting requirements for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (also known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)) to allow for the temporary submission, through June 30, 2018, of certain reports using the portable document file (PDF) format and to correct inadvertent errors. With this action owners or operators of Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs) will be able to continue to use temporarily a single electronic reporting system for MATS data submissions, to rely on correct language for mercury (Hg) relative accuracy test audit (RATA) requirements, and to rely on the correct acceptance criterion for ongoing quality assurance test requirements for Hg RATAs. This extension will allow the EPA the necessary time to develop, implement, and test the code necessary so that all MATS reports required to be submitted electronically can be submitted using the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client Tool.
This final rule is effective on April 6, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5635; email address:
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
As explained in the MATS Completion of Electronic Reporting Requirements proposal (see 81 FR 67062, September 29, 2016), the EPA proposed to amend the MATS electronic
Commenters generally supported the proposal. They also provided many ideas regarding merging the electronic submission systems. Many commenters suggested extending the interim regulatory deadline (April 16, 2017) that allows submission of non-ECMPS ready reports in PDF format. We originally established this deadline to allow temporary submission in PDF format while we make and implement the changes to the ECMPS Client Tool necessary for a single electronic reporting system. After considering the comments received and factoring in the time necessary to provide complete responses to all significant comments, we have decided to take final action on just a portion of the proposal. Specifically, we have decided to extend the interim submission regulatory deadline and make two corrections to appendix A. We may take final action on the other proposed changes in a separate rulemaking, which would be conducted later.
No comments were received in opposition to extending the interim submission regulatory deadline from April 16, 2017, to December 31, 2017. However, a few commenters suggested replacing a date certain deadline with a fixed time period after promulgation, in order to provide a smooth transition to the single electronic reporting system. We may choose to adapt such an approach at a future date, but for now, we believe a deadline of June 30, 2018, will provide certainty to industry stakeholders, third party programmers, regulatory authorities, the public, and the EPA. We believe that date will give us adequate time to complete our review, respond to comments, and promulgate a separate final rule addressing the remaining issues in the September 29, 2016 proposal. In addition, we believe other important items, such as guidance and programming, will be well on their way to completion by that date. Moreover, that date coincides with the end of a reporting period.
No comments were received in opposition to making the two corrections to appendix A. As many owners and operators of EGUs currently rely on Hg CEMS for compliance purposes, we believe it important to make these corrections at this time.
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether an entity is regulated by this action, please examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 63.9981 of the rule. For questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
This rule extends the interim PDF reporting process described in 40 CFR 63.10031(f) from April 16, 2017, to June 30, 2018. In addition, this rule amends the text in 40 CFR 63.10021(e)(9) and in 40 CFR 63.10031(f) related to this extension. Finally, this action clarifies instructions in section 4.1.1.5.2 of appendix A with regard to calculating Hg RATA results and conditions described in Table A-2 of appendix A for demonstrating compliance with ongoing Hg measurement instrument quality assurance requirements.
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of these amendments is to extend through June 30, 2018, the temporary submission of certain reports using the PDF format and to correct inadvertent errors in appendix A. Without this action, owners or operators of EGUs would have to use separate electronic reporting systems for MATS submissions, rely on incorrect language for Hg RATA requirements, or rely on an unclear acceptance criterion for ongoing quality assurance test requirements for Hg RATAs. This extension is intended to allow us the necessary time to develop, implement, and test the code necessary so that all MATS electronic reports can be submitted using the ECMPS Client Tool. The corrections to appendix A are intended to ensure that owners and operators of EGUs have clear and correct instructions with regard to calculating Hg RATA results and demonstrating compliance with ongoing Hg measurement instrument quality assurance requirements.
This action amends parts of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU. The amendments are discussed in the paragraphs below.
The tune-up reporting section of MATS,
The deadline for temporary submission of certain reports in PDF format using the ECMPS Client Tool, as described in 40 CFR 63.10031(f)(6), is amended to extend through June 30, 2018. On and after July 1, 2018, the performance test reports, CEMS performance evaluation test reports, quarterly reports for PM or hazardous air pollutant metals CEMS or PM CPMS, compliance reports, and notification of compliance status reports, as described in 40 CFR 63.10031(f), (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(4), must be submitted to the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface that is accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (
This rule makes two corrections to the Hg monitoring provisions of appendix A.
First, in the MATS Technical Corrections rule package, which was published on April 6, 2016 (see 81 FR 20172, April 6, 2016), there is language in section 4.1.1.5.2 of appendix A describing an alternate way to calculate and interpret RATA results when Hg emissions are less than 50 percent of the standard. This language was inadvertently carried over from the MATS Technical Corrections proposed rule and conflicts with the alternate relative accuracy (RA) specification in Table A-1 of the final rule. That language is deleted.
Second, the MATS Technical Corrections final rule contains an inconsistency of the Hg RATA acceptance criteria in Table A-2 versus that in Table A-1. This final rule amends Table A-2 to make it consistent with Table A-1 so that the 20-percent RA specification in Table A-1 may be applied at any reference method concentration level and the alternate specification applies only when the average reference method value (RM
This action extends the deadline for temporary submission of certain reports using the PDF format and corrects inadvertent errors in appendix A. It does not promulgate substantive changes to the February 2012 final MATS rule (77 FR 9304). Therefore, there are no incremental costs and benefits associated with this final action. The costs and benefits associated with MATS are discussed in detail in the February 16, 2012, final MATS rule.
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 5, 2017. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
We are making these amendments effective upon publication of this action. This timeframe for the effective date is appropriate because the EPA is issuing this final rule under section 307(d) of the CAA. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0567. The agency believes this action does not impose an information collection burden because it does not change the information collection requirements.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final amendments would impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The final amendments are either alternate, temporary reporting instructions or corrections which will neither increase nor decrease environmental protection.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(9) Report the dates of the initial and subsequent tune-ups in hard copy, as specified in § 63.10031(f)(5), through June 30, 2018. On or after July 1, 2018, report the date of all tune-ups electronically, in accordance with § 63.10031(f). * * *
The revised text reads as follows:
(f) On or after July 1, 2018, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test, you must submit the performance test reports required by this subpart to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(1) On or after July 1, 2018, within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS (SO
(2) On or after July 1, 2018, for a PM CEMS, PM CPMS, or approved alternative monitoring using a HAP metals CEMS, within 60 days after the reporting periods ending on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st, you must submit quarterly reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(4) On or after July 1, 2018, submit the compliance reports required under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and the notification of compliance status required under § 63.10030(e) to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(6) Prior to July 1, 2018, all reports subject to electronic submittal in paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1),
The revised text reads as follows:
4. Certification and Recertification Requirements
4.1.1.5.2
5. Ongoing Quality Assurance (QA) and Data Validation
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the
This final rule is effective on April 6, 2017.
Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767,
EPA published a final rule document on December 19, 2016, (81 FR 91841) updating 40 CFR part 81, “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes” for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. This final rule included a revision to 40 CFR 81.350 reclassifying the Sheboygan, Wisconsin area (Sheboygan County) as “moderate” nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The entry for the Sheboygan County designated area in the Wisconsin-2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary) table erroneously indicated that the effective date of the classification is January 18, 2017 when, in fact, the effective date should have been December 19, 2016. 81 FR 91846. Therefore, the entry for the Sheboygan County area is being corrected to reflect the correct classification date.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
40 CFR part 81 is amended by the following correcting amendment:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Correcting amendment.
In the November 14, 2016 issue of the
This correcting amendment is effective on April 6, 2017.
Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs, contact Kathleen Johnson (410) 786-3295 or Steven Johnson (410) 786-3332.
In FR Doc. 2016-26515 of November 14, 2016 (81 FR 79562), “Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs; Organ Procurement Organization Reporting and Communication; Transplant Outcome Measures and Documentation Requirements; Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs; Payment to Certain Off-Campus Outpatient Departments of a Provider; Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program; Establishment of Payment Rates Under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for Nonexcepted Items and Services Furnished by an Off-Campus Provider-Based Department of a Hospital” (hereinafter referred to as the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period), there was a technical error in the regulations text that is identified and corrected in this correcting amendment. The provisions of this correcting amendment are treated as if they had been included in the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period.
On page 79892 of the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period, we made a technical error in an amendatory instruction. Accordingly, we are revising § 495.40(b)(2)(i)(G) to accurately reflect the language we previously included in the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period (81 FR 79892), but which was not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, paragraph (b)(2)(i)(G) specifies that for CY 2018, an eligible hospital or critical access hospital (CAH) must satisfy certain required objectives and associated measures if an eligible hospital or CAH attests to CMS or to a State for the Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the
We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This correcting document corrects a technical error in the regulations text included in the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period but does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted in the final rule with comment period. As a result, the corrections made through this correcting document are intended to ensure that the information in the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period accurately reflects the policies adopted.
In addition, even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule with comment period or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest to ensure that the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect and are applicable.
Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our policies, but rather, we are simply correctly implementing the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period accurately reflects these policies. For these reasons, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Health maintenance organizations (HMO), Health professions, Health records, Medicaid, Medicare, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 42 CFR part 495 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) For CY 2018:
(
(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to fully use the B season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 4, 2017, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., May 31, 2017.
Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., April 18, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2016-0127 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The B season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 2,232 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017).
NMFS closed directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on March 27, 2017 (82 FR 15164, March 27, 2017).
As of March 31, 2017, NMFS has determined that approximately 900 metric tons of pollock remain in the B season directed fishing allowance for
The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 31, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until April 18, 2017.
This action is required by § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Board) is proposing to amend its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to implement recommendations made by the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) and reflect the amendments required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.
Comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
You may submit comments using one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dharmesh Vashee, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Office of General Counsel, 77 K Street NE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002, 202-639-4424. You may also contact Amanda Haas, FOIA Officer, Office of General Counsel, at the above address and by phone at 202-942-1660.
The Board administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal employees and members of the uniformed services who participate in the TSP.
I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, and 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532 is not required.
Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees, Records.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend 5 CFR part 1631 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552.
(j)
(k)
(1) Commercial use requestors;
(2) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters; and
(3) All other requestors.
(l)
(a) Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection and copying may be accessed through the Board's Web site at
Requests for records that originated in another agency and that are in the custody of the Board may, in appropriate circumstances, be referred to that agency for consultation or processing, and the requestor shall be notified of the part or parts of the request that have been referred and provided with a point of contact within the receiving agency.
(e) * * * Any Board employee or official who receives an oral request for records shall inform the requestor that FOIA requires requests to be in writing according to the procedures set out herein.
(b) The FOIA Officer will either approve or deny a reasonably descriptive request for records within 20 workdays after receipt of the request. Whenever the Board cannot meet the statutory time limit for processing a request because of “unusual circumstances,” as defined in the FOIA, and the Board extends the time limit on that basis, the Board must, before expiration of the 20-day period to respond, notify the requester in writing of the unusual circumstances involved and of the date by which the Board estimates processing of the request will be completed. Where the extension exceeds 10 working days, the Board must, as described by the FOIA, provide the requester with an opportunity to modify the request or arrange an alternative time period for processing the original or modified request through the Board's FOIA Public Liaison or FOIA Officer.
(a) * * * The notification shall also provide the requestor with an estimated amount of fees assessed under § 1631.13 of this part, including a breakdown of the fees for search, review, and/or duplication.
(b) * * *
(5) A statement that the denial may be appealed to the Executive Director within 90 calendar days of receipt of the denial or partial denial, that the requestor has the option to contact the Agency's FOIA Liaison at
(a) A requestor may appeal any adverse determinations to the Executive Director. The appeal must be made in writing and for it to be considered timely it must be postmarked, or in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted, within 90 calendar days of receipt of the denial or partial denial. The appeal should be addressed to the Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 77 K Street NE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002, and should be clearly labeled as a “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
(e) * * * The denial will also inform the requester of the mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) of the National Archives and Records Administration as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If the FOIA Officer's decision is remanded or modified on appeal, the requestor will be notified of that determination in writing.
(h) Seeking mediation and dispute resolution services through OGIS is a voluntary process. If the requestor chooses to use these services, the Board will work with OGIS to resolve disputes between requestors and the Board as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.
(i) Before seeking review by a court of the FOIA Officer's adverse determination, a requestor generally must first submit a timely administrative appeal to the Executive Director.
(a) In general, the Board will charge for processing requests under the FOIA in accordance with the provisions of this section and with the OMB Guidelines. For purposes of assessing fees there are three categories of FOIA requestors—commercial use requestors, non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters, and all other requestors.
(1) Fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search, duplication, and review, when records are requested for commercial use. Commercial users are not entitled to two hours of free search time or 100 free pages of reproduction of documents. The full allowable direct cost of searching for, and reviewing records will be charged even if there is ultimately no disclosure of records. A commercial use request is a request that asks for information for a use or a purpose that furthers a commercial, trade, or profit interest, which can include furthering those interests through litigation. The Board's decision to place a requester in the commercial use category will be made on a case-by-case basis based on the requester's intended use of the information. The Board will notify requesters of their placement in this category.
(2) Fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by a representative of the news media. A representative of the news media is any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. The Board will advise requesters of their placement in this category.
(3) Fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research. A noncommercial scientific institution is an institution that is not operated on a “commercial” basis, as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and that is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry. A requester in this category must show that the request is authorized by and is made under the auspices of a qualifying institution and that the records are sought to further scientific research and are not for a commercial use. The Board will advise requesters of their placement in this category.
(4) For any request which does not meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search and duplication, except that the first 100 pages of reproduction and the first two hours of
(d) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section, the Board will not assess any search fees (or duplication fees for requesters under (a)(2) or (3) of this section) if the Board fails to comply with the time limits set forth in § 1631.8.
(1) If the Board determines that “unusual circumstances,” as defined in the FOIA, apply and the Board provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with § 1631.8, the Board is excused for an additional 10 days from the restrictions of this section.
(2) If the Board has determined that unusual circumstances apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, the Board may charge search fees (or duplication fees for requesters under (a)(2) or (3) of this section) if the Board provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with § 1631.8 and the Board has discussed with the requester, or made not less than 3 good-faith attempts to do so, how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request.
(3) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined in the FOIA, the Agency's delay shall be excused in accordance with the court order.
(c) * * *
(3) For copies prepared by computer, such as tapes, printouts, or CD's the Board shall charge the actual cost, including operator time, of producing the tapes, printouts, or CD's. * * *
(a) * * * Nevertheless, the Board will consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever full disclosure of the record is not and take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information.
(b)
(1) (ii) Exemption 4 permits withholding of “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person as privileged or confidential.” The term “person” refers to individuals as well as to a wide range of entities, including corporations, banks, state governments, agencies of foreign governments, and Native American tribes or nations, who provide information to the government. Exemption 6 permits withholding certain information, the disclosure of which ”would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Where requested records contain matters which are exempted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b) but which matters are reasonably segregable from the remainder of the records, they shall be disclosed by the Board with deletions. To each such record, the Board shall indicate, if technically feasible, the precise amount of information deleted and the exemption under which the deletion is made, at the place in the records where the deletion is made, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption.
(a) The Board must preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized by the Board's General Records Schedule of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other NARA-approved records retention schedule.
(b) Materials that are identified as responsive to a FOIA request will not be disposed of or destroyed while the request or a related appeal of lawsuit is pending. This is true even if they would otherwise be authorized for disposition under the Board's General Records Schedule of NARA or other NARA-approved records schedule.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations established for recurring marine events and fireworks displays that take place within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility. This proposed rule would revise the listing of events that informs the public of regularly scheduled marine parades, regattas, other organized water events, and fireworks displays that require additional safety measures provided by regulations. Through this rulemaking, the list of recurring marine events requiring special local regulations or safety zones would be updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in the Fifth Coast Guard District. When these regulations are enforced, certain restrictions are placed on marine traffic in specified areas. This rulemaking project promotes efficiency by eliminating the need to produce a separate rule for each individual recurring event, and serves to provide notice of the known recurring events requiring a special local regulation or safety zone throughout the year. This proposed rule would also remove regulations that are no longer effective or required. We invite your comments on this rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 8, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0064 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Dennis Sens, Fifth Coast Guard District Office of
The Coast Guard regularly updates Special local regulations and Safety Zones established for recurring marine events and fireworks displays that take place either on or over the navigable waters of the United States. Under that rule, the list of recurring marine events requiring special local regulations or safety zones is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place within the Fifth Coast Guard District. The Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility is defined in 33 CFR 3.25. This rule would remove regulations no longer effective or required that continue to be listed in the CFR.
The Tables in the CFR that list annual and recurring special local regulations and safety zones for marine events and fireworks displays within Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility (AOR) are published under 33 CFR 100.501 and 165.506, respectively. These Tables were last amended September 14, 2016 through a previous rulemaking (81 FR 63075), and generated no adverse comments. Like this NPRM, the September 2016 rule added, removed, and revised the Tables to 33 CFR 100.501 and 33 CFR 165.506 for recurring marine events and fireworks displays requiring special local regulations and safety zones.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons, vessels and the navigable waters within close proximity to marine events and or fireworks displays before, during, and after the scheduled event. Publishing these regulatory updates in a single rulemaking promotes administrative efficiency and reduces costs involved in producing a separate rule for each individual recurring event. This proposed action also provides the public with notice through publication in the
This proposed rule adds 3 new special local regulations for marine events, removes 1 regulation and revises 6 previously established regulations for marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain events, the other provisions in 33 CFR 100.501 remain unchanged.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by adding 3 new special local regulations. The special local regulations are listed in Table 1, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by disestablishing the special local regulation previously listed in section (b.) of Table to 100.501; marine event—Maryland Swim for Life, Chester River, MD. The basis for removal of this marine event from regulatory enforcement includes limited vessel traffic in the area of the event, close proximity to shore, and shallow water depths.
This rule proposes to revise 6 preexisting special local regulations that involve change to marine event date(s) and/or coordinates. These events are listed in Table 2, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.
Based on the nature of marine events, large numbers of participants and spectators, and event locations, the Coast Guard has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death resulting from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectator vessels or mariners traversing through the regulated area. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this
This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), or designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The designated “Patrol Commander” includes a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on their behalf. On-scene patrol commanders may be augmented by local, State or Federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.
This rulemaking proposes to add 8 new safety zones, revise 15 previously established safety zones and remove 6 safety zones listed in the Table to § 165.506. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain safety zones, the other provisions in 33 CFR 165.506 remain unchanged.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise the regulations at 33 CFR 165.506 by adding 8 new safety zone locations to the permanent regulations listed in this section. The new safety zones are listed in Table 3, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.
The rule proposes to revise 15 preexisting safety zones that involves changes to event date(s) and coordinates. These revised safety zones are shown in Table 4, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend regulations at 33 CFR 165.506 by disestablishing the following 6 safety zones listed in Table 5.
Each year, organizations in the Fifth Coast Guard District sponsor fireworks displays in the same general location and time period. Each event uses a barge or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the safety of persons and property. Coast Guard personnel on scene may allow boaters within the safety zone if conditions permit.
The enforcement period for these safety zones is from 5:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. local time. However, vessels may enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones during this time frame if authorized by the COTP or designated Coast Guard patrol commander on scene, as provided for in 33 CFR 165.23. This rule provides for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 and 33 CFR 165.506 by removing the following 5 temporary sections listed in Table 6. These temporary sections are no longer effective but continue to appear in the CFR.
The Coast Guard is removing 33 CFR 165.540 that was previously established to facilitate a large multi-year dredging project in the coastal Cape Fear River area. This project was completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors and accordingly a safety zone is no longer required for this purpose.
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 regulatory action determination is based on the short amount of time that vessels will be restricted from regulated areas, and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Generally vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the regulated areas. Advance notifications would also be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine information and facsimile broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications to the public for most events will typically be made by local newspapers, radio and TV stations. The Coast Guard anticipates that these special local regulated areas and safety zones will only be enforced one to three times per year.
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 through a special local regulated area or safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
These special local regulated areas and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Coast Guard will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring to the extent possible while ensuring the safety of event participants and spectators. The enforcement period will be short in duration and, in many of the areas, vessels can transit safely around the regulated area. Generally, permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these regulated areas during the enforcement may be given, when deemed safe to do so by the Coast Guard patrol commander on scene. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories widely.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States. Some marine events by their nature may introduce potential for adverse impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users or waterfront infrastructure within or close proximity to the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail board racing. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required for this section of the rule.
This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations at 33 CFR part 165 that establish safety zones on navigable waters of the United States for fireworks events. These safety zones are enforced for the duration of fireworks display events. The fireworks are generally launched from either a floating barge platform or immediately adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. The category of activities includes fireworks launched from barges or at the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer. Fireworks displays may introduce potential hazards such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
The following regulations apply to the marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. These regulations will be effective annually, for the duration of each event listed in the Table to § 100.501. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the effective period of the regulation with respect to each event, the geographical area, and details concerning the nature of the event and the number of participants and type(s) of vessels involved will be published in Local Notices to Mariners and via Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii) Vessel operators may request permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by contacting the PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. When authorized to transit through the regulated area, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course or marine event area.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) Spectators are only allowed inside the regulated area if they remain within a designated spectator area. Spectators shall contact the PATCOM to request permission to either enter the Spectator Area or pass through the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators may enter the Spectator Area or must pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by PATCOM at safe speed and without loitering.
(d)
(1) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—Captain of the Port Zone, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: (215) 271-4940.
(2) Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region—Captain of the Port Zone, Baltimore, Maryland: (410) 576-2525.
(3) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—Captain of the Port Zone, Norfolk, Virginia: (757) 483-8567.
(4) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—Captain of the Port Zone North Carolina: (877) 229-0770 or (910) 362-4015.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) Marine event: (b.) 23, Baltimore Air Show. Patapsco River spectator area; except for a vessel in an emergency situation, a vessel may not anchor or hold station within the spectator area described in Table to 100.501 (b.) 23 without the permission of the Captain of the Port or designated PATCOM. The Captain of the Port has designated this spectator area for commercial small passenger vessel use. This area is closed except for commercial small passenger vessels holding a valid Certificate of Inspection regulated under 46 CFR subchapters K and T (46 CFR 114.110, and 175.110). Vessels that meet the requirements of this section may request access to the Patapsco River spectator area by contacting the Sail Baltimore at (410) 522-7300 or email
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2) The following regulations apply to the fireworks safety zones listed in the Table to § 165.506. These regulations will be enforced annually, for the duration of each fireworks event listed in the Table to § 165.506. In the case of inclement weather, the event may be conducted on the day following the date listed in the Table to § 165.506. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the enforcement period of the regulation with respect to each safety zone, the geographical area, and other details concerning the nature of the fireworks event will be published in Local Notices to Mariners and via Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Coast Guard Patrol Commander or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. Those personnel are comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Other Federal, State and local agencies may assist these personnel in the enforcement of the safety zone. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(b)
(2) Coast Guard Captains of the Port in the Fifth Coast Guard District will notify the public of the enforcement of these safety zones by all appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among the affected segments of the public. Publication in the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and facsimile broadcasts may be made for these events, beginning 24 to 48 hours before the event is scheduled to begin, to notify the public.
(c)
(1) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—Captain of the Port Zone, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: (215) 271-4940.
(2) Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region—Captain of the Port Zone, Baltimore, Maryland: (410) 576-2525.
(3) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—Captain of the Port Zone, Norfolk, Virginia: (757) 483-8567.
(4) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—Captain of the Port Zone, Wilmington, North Carolina: (877) 229-0770 or (910) 362-4015.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to fully approve a revision to Montana's State Implementation Plan (SIP). On July 6, 2016, the Governor of Montana submitted to the EPA a revision to the Montana SIP that removed one section of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) pertaining to aluminum plants. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the removal of this section from the SIP because the provision is inconsistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, as explained in the EPA's June 12, 2015 startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) SIP call for Montana. Removal of this provision will correct certain deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions from aluminum plants.
Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0477 at
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. (303) 312-7104,
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions and organize your comments;
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
• Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and,
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On June 30, 2011, the Sierra Club (the Petitioner) filed a petition for rulemaking with the EPA Administrator, asking the EPA to take action on specific provisions in the SIPs of 39 states. The petition included interrelated requests concerning state rule treatment of excess emissions by sources during periods of SSM. Exemptions from emission limitations during periods of SSM exist in a number of state rules, some of which were adopted and approved into SIPs by the EPA many years ago. The petition alleged that SSM exemptions undermine the emission limitations in SIPs and threaten states' abilities to achieve and maintain compliance with national ambient air quality standards, thereby threatening public health and public welfare. The Petitioner requested that the EPA either (i) notify the states of the substantial inadequacies in their SIPs and finalize a rule requiring them to revise their plans pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5) (referred to as a “SIP call”), or (ii) determine that the EPA's action approving the implementation plan provisions was in error and revise those approvals so that the SIPs are brought into compliance with the requirements of the CAA pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6). On February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12459), the EPA proposed an action that would either grant or deny the Sierra Club petition with respect to each of the SIP provisions alleged to be inconsistent with the CAA. That proposal summarizes the EPA's review of all of the provisions that were identified in the petition, providing a detailed analysis of each provision and explaining how each one either does or does not comply with the CAA with regard to excess emission events. For each SIP provision that appeared to be inconsistent with the CAA, the EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5) of the CAA.
On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator signed the final SSM SIP action. That action responds to the Sierra Club petition by granting it with respect to the provisions determined to be deficient and denying it with respect to the others. The final action responds to all public comments received on the proposed action and calls for 36 states to submit corrective SIP revisions by November 22, 2016, to bring specified provisions into compliance with the CAA. In addition, the final action reiterates the EPA's interpretation of the CAA regarding excess emissions during SSM periods and clarifies the EPA's longstanding SSM Policy as it applies to SIPs.
With regard to the Montana SIP, the Petitioner objected to ARM 17.8.334.
In accordance with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must contain enforceable emission limitations that, in accordance with the definition of “emission limitation” in CAA section 302(k), limit emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis. CAA section 304 generally provides that any person may bring a civil action against any person who is alleged to have violated or to be in violation of an “emission standard or limitation” under the CAA, including SIP emission limitations. The EPA can similarly enforce against violations of SIP emission limitations under CAA section 113. Thus, SIP emission limitations can be enforced in a section 304 action or under section 113 and so must be enforceable. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that excess emissions during SSM and other conditions are not violations of the applicable emission limitations are inconsistent with these fundamental requirements of the CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs.
Under CAA section 110(k)(5), Montana is required to revise the SIP as necessary to correct the inadequacies identified by the SSM SIP action within a period specified by the Administrator (not to exceed eighteen months); the SSM SIP action set a deadline of November 22, 2016 for the corrective SIP revision. On July 6, 2016, the Governor of Montana submitted to the EPA for approval a SIP revision that would remove ARM 17.8.334 from the SIP.
Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA has the authority and responsibility to review SIP submissions to assure that they meet all applicable requirements. CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA.
In this instance, the State has elected to bring its existing SIP into compliance with CAA requirements by removing a previously approved provision that created unlawful exemptions from otherwise applicable emission limitations in the SIP during periods of startup and shutdown. As noted, the State proposed removing this provision, ARM 17.8.334, from the Montana SIP in its July 6, 2016 submission.
We consider the removal of this provision sufficient to correct the inadequacies that the EPA's SSM SIP action identified in the Montana SIP.
We are proposing to fully approve Montana's July 6, 2016 SIP submission, which removes ARM 17.8.334 from the Montana SIP. If finalized, our approval of this submission will fully correct the inadequacies in Montana's SIP that were identified in the EPA's SSM SIP action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut for purposes of implementing the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SIP revisions consist of a demonstration that Connecticut meets the requirements of reasonably available control technology for the two precursors for ground-level ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NO
Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0611, at
Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1046, fax number (617) 918-0046, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On July 18, 2014, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan. The SIP revision consists of information documenting how Connecticut complied with the reasonably available control technology (RACT)
Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher) non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires RACT in states located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major VOC and NO
In 2008, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS, or standards) for ozone, setting it at 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA determined that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such as asthma.
On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA published a final rule in the
On July 18, 2014, Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its regulatory framework for stationary sources meets the criteria for RACT as defined in EPA's 2008 ozone implementation rule. The State conducted a public comment process on its demonstration which concluded on July 11, 2014. Connecticut's RACT submittal notes that its prior designation as a nonattainment area for the 1979 and 1997 ozone standards resulted in the adoption of stringent controls for major sources of VOC and NO
The State's July 18, 2014 submittal identifies the specific control measures that had been previously adopted to control emissions from major sources of VOC emissions, reaffirms negative declarations for some CTG categories, and describes updates Connecticut intended at that time to make to existing rules to strengthen them so that they would continue to represent RACT. Table 4 of Connecticut's submittal contains a summary of the previously-adopted measures for each of the CTG categories that EPA issued prior to 2006. The table identifies the specific state rule, where relevant, that is in place, the date of state adoption, and the date that EPA approved the rule into the Connecticut SIP. Connecticut notes that RCSA sections 22a-174-20 and 22a-174-32, which are the principal regulations in Connecticut that apply to stationary sources of VOC emissions, generally cover sources emitting 25 or more tons of VOC per year in the area that was classified as a severe nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard (portions of Fairfield and Litchfield counties; see 56 FR 56694; November 6, 1991) and those emitting 50 or more tons of VOC per year in the rest of the State. However, for some CTG categories such as surface coating sources, Connecticut's rules include lower applicability thresholds consistent with the relevant CTGs. Additionally, section IV. A. of Connecticut's submittal describes the State's response to EPA's issuance of new VOC RACT CTGs in 2006, 2007, and 2008, which included adoption of a number of new regulations, negative declarations, and for miscellaneous industrial adhesives, submittal of a demonstration of an equivalence level of control from an existing regulation. EPA approved the State's SIP revisions addressing the 2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32873).
As required, Connecticut's submittal addresses NO
Connecticut's review of its control program for major sources of VOC and NO
EPA has reviewed Connecticut's determination that it has adopted VOC and NO
Connecticut's RACT certification submittal documents the State's VOC and NO
The State's submittal documents a substantial downward trend in ozone exceedance days between 1975 and 2013, much of which is attributable to the control measures put in place by Connecticut, upwind states, and federal control measures adopted in the early and mid-1990s pursuant to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Connecticut's submittal also notes that VOC and NO
We have reviewed Connecticut's RACT certification demonstration, and determined that the State's regulatory requirements and the resulting reduction in VOC and NO
Our most recent approval of a RACT certification SIP for Connecticut is fairly recent, occurring on June 27, 2013 (78 FR 38587), with respect to the 1997 ozone standard. Since then, in 2014, Connecticut re-evaluated its RACT regulations and determined that a number of NO
On December 6, 2001 (66 FR 63311), EPA approved portions of Connecticut's regulation limiting emissions from MWCs. More recently, on September 16, 2016, Connecticut submitted portions of an amended version of the MWC regulation, which is found at RCSA section 22a-174-38, to EPA, and requested it be incorporated into the SIP. The portions submitted for inclusion into the SIP pertain to NO
EPA's most recent approval of Connecticut's regulation limiting NO
After examining the NO
Regarding the strengthened NO
Regarding newly adopted RCSA section 22a-174-22f, High daily NO
We have reviewed Connecticut's RACT certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and revised NO
First, we note that the majority of sources continue to be controlled under NO
With regard to the new RACT requirements, given that January 1, 2017 has already passed, it is not possible to retroactively meet that date for compliance obligations. Connecticut completed its stakeholder process for 22a-174-22e with business, industry, and environmental advocates in 2016, and although its new NO
Additionally, Connecticut's adoption of RCSA sections 22a-174-22e and f contain a number of provisions that accomplish more NO
Another example of the stringency of Connecticut's recently adopted NO
Additionally, in its January 24, 2017 SIP revision, Connecticut requested that a number of citations within other sections of its air pollution control regulations previously approved into the SIP be updated to reflect citations to the two new NO
EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's July 18, 2014 SIP submittal that demonstrates, along with the other regulations proposed for approval in today's action, that the State has adopted air pollution control strategies that represent RACT for purposes of compliance with the 2008 ozone standard. In this notice, we are proposing approval of an update to an existing regulation limiting emissions from MWCs, and a new regulation limiting emissions from major sources of NO
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies: Section 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxide emissions from fuel-burning equipment at major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides, effective December 22, 2016; Section 22a-174-22f, High daily NO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Federal Communications Commission finds that a limited extension in this proceeding would be beneficial to the development of a complete record on the issues, and it grants a fourteen-day extension for filing reply comments in response to the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) concerning non-geostationary, fixed-satellite service systems and related matters.
The comment period for the proposed rule published January 11, 2017 (82 FR 3258) is extended. Reply comments may be filed on or before April 10, 2017.
You may submit reply comments, identified by IB Docket No. 16-408; FCC 16-170, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Stephen Duall, Satellite Division, International Bureau, at 202-418-1103 or via email at
This is a summary of the Commission's document in IB Docket No. 16-408, DA 17-263, released on March 17, 2017. The full text of the document is available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Commission's Web site at
In the document, the International Bureau, pursuant to delegated authority, extends the deadline for reply comments to be filed in response to a NPRM concerning potential changes to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations contained in part 2 of the Commission's rules and to part 25 of the Commission's rules governing satellite communications. Interested parties will now have until April 10, 2017 to file reply comments.
On March 13, 2017, Inmarsat, Inc., Intelsat Corporation, Iridium Satellite LLC, WorldVu Satellites Ltd. d/b/a OneWeb, SES Americom, Inc. and its subsidiary O3b Limited, Telesat Canada, and The Boeing Company (collectively, “Satellite Companies”) filed a joint motion to extend the deadline for filing reply comments in IB Docket No. 16-408 by 14 days. Reply comments were originally due to be filed no later than March 27, 2017.
As set forth in section 1.46(a) of the Commission's rules, “it is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.” However, in this case, we agree with the Satellite Companies that it is in the public interest to grant an extension to permit the parties to properly analyze the complex technical propositions raised by initial comments in the proceeding and to consider compromise approaches put forth on certain issues. It will also allow all interested to include their comments on the record at the reply comment deadline, as the Satellite Companies represents a large portion of part 25 entities affected by the proposed rules. This will ensure that Commission has a complete record and all parties can fully address the complicated issues raised in the public notice. A limited extension will not negatively affect existing operators or significantly delay Commission action on the proceeding.
This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to that data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where the data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations and all attachments to those documents must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file reply comments on the NPRM on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to the NPRM should refer to IB Docket No. 16-408. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to revise the Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and prepare an associated Environmental Impact Statement.
As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the USDA Forest Service is revising the existing Tonto National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan) through development of an associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This notice describes the documents available for review and how to obtain them; summarizes the needs to change to the existing Forest Plan; provides information concerning public participation and collaboration, including the process for submitting comments; provides an estimated schedule for the planning process, including the time available for comments; and includes the names and addresses of agency contacts who can provide additional information.
Comments concerning the Need to Change and Proposed Action provided in this notice will be most useful in the development of the revised plan and draft EIS if received by May 22, 2017. The agency expects to release a draft revised plan and draft EIS, developed through a collaborative public engagement process by late Spring 2018 and a final revised plan and final EIS by Summer/Fall 2019.
Send written comments to: Tonto National Forest, Attn: Plan Revision, 2324 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85006. Comments may also be sent via email to
Kenna Belsky, Forest Planner, Tonto National Forest, 602-225-5378. More information on our forest plan revision process can be found on our Web site 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 a.m. and 8p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop a forest plan. On April 9, 2012, the Forest Service finalized its land management planning rule (2012 Planning Rule, 36 CFR part 219), which describes requirements for the planning process and the content of the forest plans. Forest plans describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources for ten to fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the assessment of ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions and trends is the first stage of the planning process (36 CFR 219.6). The second stage, formal plan revision, involves the development of our forest plan in conjunction with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The third stage of the process is monitoring and feedback, which is ongoing over the life of the revised forest plans.
The Tonto National Forest has completed its assessment pursuant to 2012 Forest Planning Rule. The assessment was developed with public participation and includes an evaluation of existing information about relevant ecological, economic, cultural and social conditions, trends, and sustainability and their relationship to forest plans within the context of the broader landscape. The intent of the Tonto National Forest is that this information builds a common understanding prior to entering formal plan revision. With this notice, the Tonto National Forest is initiating formal plan revision and invites other governments, non-governmental parties, and the public to contribute. The intent of public engagement is to inform development of the plan revision. We encourage contributors to share material that may be relevant to the planning process, including desired conditions for the Tonto National Forest. As we develop public engagement opportunities to assist with the plan revision phase, public announcements will be made and information will be posted on the Forest's Web site:
Neil Bosworth, Forest Supervisor, Tonto National Forest, 2324 E McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85006.
The Tonto National Forest is preparing an EIS to revise the existing forest plan. The EIS process is meant to inform the Forest Supervisor so he can decide which alternative best maintains and restores National Forest System terrestrial and aquatic resources while providing ecosystem services and multiple uses, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.
The revised forest plan will describe the strategic intent of managing the Forest for the next 10 to 15 years and will address the identified needs for change to the existing land management plans. The revised forest plan will provide management direction in the form of desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of lands. It will identify delineation of new management areas and possibly geographic areas across the Forest; identify the timber sale program quantity; make recommendations to Congress for Wilderness designation; and list rivers and streams eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The revised forest plan will also provide a description of the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape, identify watersheds that are a priority for maintenance or restoration, include a monitoring program, and contain information reflecting expected possible actions over the life of the plan.
It is also important to identify the types of decisions that will not be made within the revised forest plan. The revised forest plan will represent decisions that are strategic in nature, but will not make site-specific project decisions and will not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on the Forest Service's internal operations. The authorization of project level activities will be based on the guidance/direction contained in the revised plan, but will occur through subsequent project specific NEPA analysis and decision-making.
The revised forest plan will provide broad, strategic guidance that is consistent with other laws and regulations. Though strategic guidance will be provided, no decisions will be made regarding the management of individual roads or trails, such as those might be associated with a Travel Management plan under 36 CFR part 212. Some issues (
According to the National Forest Management Act, forest plans are to be revised at least every 15 years. The purpose and need for revising the current forest plan are to: (1) Update the Forest Plan which was approved in 1985 and is over 30 years old, (2) reflect changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions, new policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and scientific research, and (3) address the preliminary identified needs for change to the existing plan, which are summarized below. Extensive public and employee involvement, along with science-based evaluations, have helped to identify theses preliminary needs for change to the existing forest plan.
The proposed action is to revise the Forest Plan to address the identified needs for change to the existing Forest Plan. Alternatives to the Proposed Action will be developed to address significant issues that will be identified through scoping.
What follows is a summary of the preliminary identified needs for change. A more fully developed description of the preliminary needs for change, which has been organized into several resource and management topic sections, is available for review on the plan revision Web site at:
1. There is a need for plan components that incorporate best available scientific information (BASI).
2. There is a need to reduce the complexity of plan components related to management areas that fragment the landscape by their arrangement, boundaries, and differing management direction.
3. There is a need to remove plan components that require developing additional planning documents, many of which require updates on a regular cycle.
4. There is a need for plan components that are adaptable to changes in technology, tools, and communication style demands.
5. There is a need for management approaches that emphasize public education about the Tonto National Forest's diverse ecological, social, and economic resources, the multiple-use philosophy, public laws and regulations, and management strategies.
6. There is a need for a monitoring program that tracks progress toward desired conditions and allows for a responsive adaptive management program with available resources.
7. There is a need to include management approaches that strengthen existing relationships, promote new relationships, and incorporate strategies that prioritize partnerships (
8. There is a need for management approaches that promote seeking outside assistance in addition to working with partners and volunteers to manage resources and monitor activities.
9. There is a need for management approaches that emphasize better coordination and collaboration with other forests, local governments, and tribes to minimize conflict between local planning and zoning direction as a result of our decisions, while at the same time becoming more aware of how local regulation might enhance our own management goals, or alternatively, interfere with our own desired outcomes.
10. There is a need for management approaches that integrate forest restoration and tribal needs, for working across boundaries in partnership with tribes to manage landscapes, and to address threats to tribal resources to meet common objectives.
11. There is a need to develop desired conditions and other plan components that support heterogeneity and habitat diversity at multiple spatial scales.
12. There is a need to include plan components that focus on addressing the impacts of exotic and invasive species on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
13. There is a need to develop desired conditions, standards, and guidelines that address terrestrial and aquatic habitat linkages and connectivity for species migration and movement across the landscape.
14. There is a need for plan components that incorporate adaptive management strategies that increase ecosystem resiliency to changing environmental conditions and stressors.
15. There is a need for standards or guidelines that prioritize use of native plant materials (the use of local and genetically appropriate seed sources) for revegetation, restoration and rehabilitation of native plant communities to provide for the conservation of ecosystem diversity and maintain healthy ecosystem function.
16. There is a need to add plan components that emphasize landscape scale restoration.
17. There is a need to develop desired conditions (at multiple scales) for vegetation structure by promoting a diversity of seral states, vegetation function, and species composition.
18. There is a need for plan components, including desired conditions and objectives that recognize fire-adapted ecosystems, the role of fire on the landscape (including wilderness), and its use as a management tool, including planned and unplanned ignitions.
19. There is a need for plan components, including desired conditions and standards and guidelines, to address current and foreseeable stressors in desert ecosystems (
20. There is a need to develop standards and guidelines that promote the maintenance, restoration and monitoring of soil condition and
21. There is a need for desired conditions that identify appropriate riparian characteristics (
22. There is a need for standards and guidelines that minimize ecological impacts of multiple uses in riparian areas.
23. There is a need for standards and guidelines that reduce pollutant runoff into streams.
24. There is a need for providing plan components on the sustainable management of groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems (springs, wetlands, riparian areas, perennial waters) and their interconnections.
25. There is a need to develop plan components for the long term health and sustainability of watersheds utilizing best available scientific information.
26. There is a need to develop plan components to ensure stream channels and floodplains are dynamic and resilient to disturbances.
27. There is a need to develop standards or guidelines to provide for the conservation and recovery of federally listed species, as well as maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern.
28. There is a need to include plan components that consider potential climate change impacts (
29. There is a need to add plan components that recognize the Tonto National Forest's role in contributing to local economies, including service-based sectors such as recreation and tourism, timber, grazing, and other multiple-use related activities and products.
30. There is a need to include plan components for key ecosystem services identified in the Assessment including: Water for consumption; water for recreation; habitat for hunting, fishing, and watchable wildlife; sustainable and productive rangelands; and cultural heritage.
31. There is a need for updating plan components that provide for the management of sustainable water supply for multiple uses (
32. There is a need for plan components to ensure the sustainability and availability of forest products such as firewood, medicinal and ceremonial plants, and edible plants.
33. There is a need for desired conditions that incorporate a wide range of silvicultural practices to promote forest health, resiliency, and sustainability.
34. There is a need to add plan components for rangeland management that maintain or restore ecological integrity of rangelands.
35. There is a need for plan components to allow flexibility in rangeland management to prepare for changing conditions such as drought, fire, social and economic needs.
36. There is a need to include plan components for sustainable recreation management to ensure that recreation resources are integrated into all resource management decisions.
37. There is a need for desired conditions to address the long-term sustainability of recreation infrastructure (
38. There is a need for management approaches to address changing trends in services, activities, and types of facilities desired by the public, while balancing those trends with other resources.
39. There is a need for plan components to address user conflicts (
40. There is a need for plan components to incorporate scenery management with all forest management (
41. There is a need for desired conditions that address transmission corridors and renewable energy generation, including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, while protecting natural resources, heritage and sacred sites, traditional tribal activities, and scenery.
42. There is a need for plan components regarding the use of common variety mineral materials, such as commercial contracts, personal use, and free use permits.
43. There is a need for standards and guidelines for meteorite collection, rock hounding and mineral collection.
44. There is a need for plan components that ensure sustainable infrastructure (
45. There is a need for plan components aimed at managing for Native American traditional cultural properties and sacred sites, and non-Native American traditional cultural properties, while conserving anonymity of such sites where appropriate.
46. There is a need for plan components that protect historic properties and tribal use areas at risk of damage or destruction during non-prescribed/unplanned fire.
47. There is a need to update plan components to protect areas that may be identified as a sacred site or part of an important cultural landscape by tribe.
48. There is a need for desired conditions in the plan that address the alignment of heritage resources management objectives (the management of historic properties and landscapes, sacred sites, contemporary uses) with other resource management objectives (ecosystem restoration, rangeland management, recreation).
49. There is a need to develop, modify, or remove plan components to allow flexible and efficient management of special uses while balancing resource protection with public needs.
50. There is a need to develop plan components related to Forest Service lands acquisitions, disposals, and exchanges.
51. There is a need for plan components that encourage the
52. There is a need to include management approaches to develop a strategy to address issues related to known and suspected trespass and encroachment issues present on the forest.
53. There is a need for the revised plan to identify and evaluate potential additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System and eligibility of rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, and potentially other types of designated areas.
54. There is a need to reevaluate designated and proposed special areas that no longer suite the original purpose for designation (
A Notice of Initiation of the assessment phase of forest plan revision for the Tonto National Forest was published in the
Additionally, the Tonto National Forest is utilizing internet based collabotation techniquies to gather public input and engaging communities at a local level through presentations at meetings hosted by organizations, government groups and Tribes; informational booths at fairs and local community events; and presentations and field trips for local schools. Public Informaiton to the public was provided by a dedicated Forest Plan revision Web page and through mailings, flyers, news releases, Twitter, and radio interview. Detailed information, including dates and notes of specific events, can be found on the Tonto National Forest Plan Revision Web site:
Written comments received in response to this notice will be analyzed to complete the identification of the needs for change to the existing plan, further develop the proposed action, and identify potential significant issues. Significant issues will, in turn, form the basis for developing alternatives to the proposed action. Comments on the preliminary needs for change and proposed action will be most valuable if received by May 23, 2017, and should clearly articulate the reviewer's opinions and concerns. Comments received in response to this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered in the NEPA process; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents, nor will anonymous comments provide standing to the commenter for the eventual Objection process. See the below Objection process material, particularly the requirements for filing an objection, for how anonymous comments are handled during the objection process. Refer to the Forest's plan revision Web site (
Preparation of the revised forest plan for the Tonto National Forest began with the publication of a Notice of Assessment Initiation in the
No permits or licenses are needed for the development or revision of a forest plan.
The decision to approve the revised forest plan for the Tonto National Forest will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). According to 36 CFR 219.53(a), those who may file an objection are individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to plan revision during the opportunities provided for public comment during the planning process.
The Needs for Change documentation, Assessment Report including specialist reports, summaries of the public meetings and public meeting materials, and public comments are posted on the Forest's Web site at:
16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR part 219 [77 FR 21260-21273].
Departmental Management, Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
This notice announces the Department of Agriculture, Departmental Management, Office of Procurement and Property Management's intention to request an extension and a revision to a currently approved information collection, Voluntary Labeling Program for Biobased Products for Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by June 5, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
The Office of Procurement and Property Management invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Karen Zhang, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the intention of the USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, to request approval for an extension of an existing collection.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB (Office of Management and Budget) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.
A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference: (888) 466-9863 Confirmation Number 8378825#.
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.
Hillary Cohen, Communication Manager, at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of monthly planning meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Maine Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 1:30 p.m. (EDT) on Tuesday, April 18, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss potential panelists for the briefing on its project regarding the criminalization of the mentally ill and other details related to its briefing to be held in Lewiston in June 2017.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT.
Ivy L. Davis, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-359-3627 and conference call ID: 5355775. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-684-1264 and conference call ID: 9702460.
Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the
Thursday, April 20, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. (MST)
To be held via teleconference: Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-800-967-7188, Conference ID: 2292231. TDD: Dial Federal Relay Service 1-800-977-8339 and give the operator the above conference call number and conference ID.
Malee V. Craft, DFO,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-800-967-7188; Conference ID: 2292231. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-800-967-7188, Conference ID: 2292231. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, May 22, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
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
Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, dba Mead Johnson Nutritional (Mead Johnson) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Zeeland, Michigan, within Subzone 43B. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 27, 2017.
Mead Johnson already has authority to produce within Subzone 43B infant formula/nutritional products subject to a restriction requiring all foreign-origin dairy products admitted to the subzone to be re-exported (sugar is of domestic origin). The current request would add a foreign-status material (lactose) to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status material described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Mead Johnson from customs duty payments on the foreign-status lactose used in export production. On its domestic sales, Mead Johnson would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to infant formula/nutritional products (duty rates range between 6.4% − $1.035/kg + 14.9%) authorized by the FTZ Board for the foreign-status lactose (6.4%). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 16, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the County of Orange, grantee of FTZ 37, requesting subzone status for the facility of Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., located in Inwood, New York. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on April 3, 2017.
The proposed subzone (10 acres) is located at 245 Roger Avenue, Inwood, Nassau County. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 37.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 16, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 31, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
On January 27, 2016, in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Sihai Cheng, a/k/a Alex Cheng, a/k/a Chu Hai Cheng (“Cheng”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Cheng's conviction for violating IEEPA, and in accordance with Section 766.25 of the Regulations, BIS has provided notice and an opportunity for Cheng to make a written submission to BIS. BIS has not received a submission from Cheng.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Cheng's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Cheng's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Cheng had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly,
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On July 25, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Juan Jose Estrada (“Estrada”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Estrada knowingly and intentionally conspired and agreed to knowingly and willfully export, attempt to export, and cause to be exported into Mexico from the United States a defense article, that is: A Browning Model 1919, .30 caliber, semi-automatic rifle, which was designated as a defense article on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the Department of State a license for such export or written authorization for such export. Estrada was sentenced 46 months in prison, one year of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Estrada's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Estrada to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has received a submission from Estrada.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Estrada's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Estrada's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Estrada had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly,
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On June 13, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Amin Al-Baroudi, a/k/a Abu al-Jud (“Al-Baroudi”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Al-Baroudi's conviction for violating IEEPA, and in accordance with Section 766.25 of the Regulations, BIS has provided notice and an opportunity for Al-Baroudi to make a written submission to BIS. BIS has not received a submission from Al-Baroudi.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Al-Baroudi's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Al-Baroudi's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Al-Baroudi had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly,
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Issued this 31st day of March, 2017.
On February 29, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Song II Kim, a/k/a Kim Song II (“Kim”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Kim willfully attempted to export or caused to be exported from the United States, defense articles listed on the United States Munitions List, to wit: PVS-7 and PVVS-14 Night Vision Optics and a THOR 320 Thermal Imaging Weapons Sight, without having first obtained from the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Kim's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Kim to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Kim.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Kim's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Kim's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Kim had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly,
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Issued this 31st day of March, 2017.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel
Effective April 6, 2017.
John Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1009.
On December 1, 2016, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the CVD orders on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from India, Indonesia and Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The Department received adequate substantive responses collectively from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any government or respondent interested party to these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited reviews of these CVD orders.
The products covered by the countervailing duty orders are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (
Steel products to be included in the scope are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (
Steel products to be included in the scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the orders: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the orders is dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
The Department determines that revocation of the CVD orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:
This notice
We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (“PRCBs”) from Malaysia, covering the period of review (“POR”) August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. The review covers one producer/exporter of subject merchandise, Euro SME Sdn Bhd (“Euro SME”). The Department preliminarily determines that Euro SME did not have reviewable entries during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective April 6, 2017.
Alex Rosen, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7814.
On August 5, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia for the POR.
The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs), which also may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).
PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments,
Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this antidumping duty order are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). This subheading may also cover products that are outside the scope of this antidumping duty order. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this antidumping duty order is dispositive.
Subsequent to the initiation of this administrative review, the Department received a timely submission from Euro SME certifying that it did not have sales, shipments, or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), unless this deadline is extended.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Euro SME, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to Euro SME in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters is 2.40 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand, covering the period of review (POR) March 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016. This review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai) and Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe). The Department preliminarily determines that Saha Thai sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR and that Pacific Pipe had no shipments during the POR. Interested parties are
Effective April 6, 2017.
Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.
The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pacific Pipe timely filed a “no shipment” certification stating that it had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016:
The Department intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii) and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and, (3) a table of authorities.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. If a party requests a hearing, the Department will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if that rate is
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain stainless steel wire rods from India (wire rods) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Effective April 6, 2017.
Andre Gziryan or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
On December 1, 1993, the Department published the AD order on wire rods from India.
On December 13, 2016, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Carpenter Technology Corporation, North American Stainless, and Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. (collectively, the domestic interested parties) within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as manufacturers in the United States of a domestic like product for the proceeding.
On January 3, 2017, the Department received a complete substantive response to the
The merchandise covered by the AD order is certain stainless steel wire rods from India, which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order is revoked, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD order on wire rods from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 48.80 percent.
This notice serves as the only reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of propriety information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
On February 9, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Southwest Idaho Manufacturers' Alliance, grantee of FTZ 280, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 280, on behalf of Orgill, Inc., in Post Falls, Idaho.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before April 26,
This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave NW., Washington, DC.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on April 30, 2017.
The meeting will be held Sunday, April 30, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Denver at the Colorado Convention Center, 650 15th St. Denver, CO 80202. Please note admittance instructions in the
Cheryl L. Gendron, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, telephone number (301) 975-2785, email:
The MEP Advisory Board is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69), as amended by the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, Public Law 114-329 sec. 501 (2017), and codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of centers in each state and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. By statute, the MEP Advisory Board provides the NIST Director with: (1) Advice on the activities, plans, and policies of the Program; (2) assessments of the soundness of the plans and strategies of the Program; and (3) assessments of current performance against the plans of the Program.
Background information on the MEP Advisory Board is available at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Sunday, April 30, 2017,
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet via webinar to discuss the SEDAR assessment schedule, progress on SEDAR projects, and the research track approach. See
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Friday, May 5, 2017.
John Carmichael, Deputy Director for Science and Statistics, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The items of discussion are as follows:
1. Review and consideration of ongoing SEDAR projects.
2. Review and consideration of the proposed research track process, including guidance on applying the process to 2018 assessments.
3. Review and consideration of the SEDAR assessment schedule including future priority assessment projects.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. 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.
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public hearings and comment period.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold nine public hearings in April and May 2017 to solicit public input on an amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. The amendment focuses on the plan's longfin squid and
The public hearings will be held between April 24, 2017 and May 11, 2017. The dates and times of each hearing are listed in
See
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Council will hold nine public hearings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The purpose of the meetings and comment period is gather input from the public on the alternatives in the amendment. The objectives of this action are to:
A. Consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed longfin squid and
B. Re-evaluate the management of longfin squid in Trimester 2. The Council is considering this action because the productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing effort in T2, which occurs on the inshore spawning grounds, does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from egg mops. Additional information and relevant background documents are available on the Council's Web site at
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to any meeting date.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Email:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife—Central Region (CADFW) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during construction activities associated with the tidal marsh restoration project within the Minhoto-Hester Marsh in Elkhorn Slough (Monterey, CA).
This Authorization is in effect for one year beginning August 1, 2017.
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of the CADFW's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Sections 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”
On June 2, 2016, we received an application from the CADFW for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with a 47-acre tidal marsh restoration project within the Minhoto-Hester Marsh in Elkhorn Slough (Monterey, CA) (Phase 1). The overall Elkhorn Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project will restore a total of 147 acres, however, future phases are not part of this application as they are currently unfunded and present some additional technical challenges. Another IHA request will be made prior to implementation of any proposed future phases. The CADFW submitted revised versions of the application on July 13, 2016, August 2, 2016, August 29, 2016, and a final application on September 6, 2016 which we deemed adequate and complete.
The activity will begin August 1, 2017 and last approximately 11 months with built in buffers for adverse weather and other conditions when work is not possible. Pacific harbor seal (
A detailed description of the project is provided in the
The CADFW proposes to restore approximately 47 acres of tidal marsh within the Minhoto-Hester Marsh in Elkhorn Slough (Monterey, CA) and additional tidal marsh, upland ecotone, native grasslands restoration within a buffer area (Phase 1). The CADFW intends to restore tidal marsh to reduce tidal erosion, improve water quality, provide sea-level rise resilience, increase carbon sequestration, and improve ecosystem function that have been altered by past land use practices. Under the planned action, 132 days of construction activities and four days of vibratory pile driving (total 136 days of project activities) related to the tidal marsh restoration will occur over an 11-month period.
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to CADFW was published in the
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction occurring in the project area is the Pacific harbor seal (see Table 1).
A detailed description of the harbor seal likely to be affected by the restoration project, including a brief introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effects of noise and visual disturbance from construction activities for the project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
In summary, harbor seals that use the four haul out sites, just beyond the footprint of the construction, area and in other nearby areas may potentially experience behavioral disruption rising to the level of harassment (Level B) from construction activities, which may include visual disturbance due to the presence and activity of heavy equipment and construction workers, airborne noise from the equipment, and from underwater noise during the brief period of sheet pile installation. Disturbed seals are likely to experience any or all of these stimuli, and take may occur due to any of these in isolation or in combination with the others.
The main impact to marine mammal habitat associated with the CADFW's restoration project is the temporary exclusion from the accustomed haul out areas. During the restoration, the inability of seals to use suitable habitat within the footprint of the construction area will temporarily remove less than two percent of the potential haul out areas in the Slough (see Figure 4-4 of the application). Although the action will permanently alter habitat within the footprint of the construction area, harbor seals haul out in many locations throughout the estuary, and the activities are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant). CADFW shall implement the following mitigation measures:
Construction work shall occur only during daylight hours when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be implemented. No in-water work will be conducted at night.
After sheet piles are installed, it will be unlikely that harbor seals will be able to access the construction area and will temporarily be displaced from using the four haul outs within the footprint of the construction area. Should seals attempt to enter the construction area, they will need to traverse a minimum 7ft high berm into an area without water. If a seal enters the construction area after installation of barriers, CADFW shall use a government official to flush any such seals from the area for purposes of protection/welfare of the animals (as allowed through section 109(h) of the MMPA). The NMFS' West Coast Regional Office and The Marine Mammal Center (Rescue and Response) will be available should this occur. In addition, to reduce the risk of potentially startling marine mammals with a sudden intensive sound, the contractor shall begin construction activities gradually each day by moving around the project area and starting heavy equipment one at a time.
While CADFW does not anticipate any pupping within the project area, should a pup less than one week old (neonate) come within 20 m of where heavy machinery is working, construction activities in that area will be delayed until the pup has left the area. In the event that a pup less than one week old remains within those 20 m, NMFS will be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action.
An exclusion zone of 15 m shall be established during the 4 days of pile driving to prevent the unlikely potential for physical injury of harbor seals due to close approach to construction equipment. Pile extraction or driving shall not commence (or re-commence following a shutdown) until marine mammals are not sighted within the exclusion zone for a 15-minute period. If a marine mammal enters the exclusion zone during sheet pile work, work shall stop until the animal leaves the exclusion zone or is not observed for a minimum of 15 minutes.
Based on our evaluation of the mitigation measures, as well as any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 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 incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in the action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Qualified Protected Species Observers (PSO) (a NMFS approved biologist) shall be used to detect, document, and minimize impacts to marine mammals. Monitoring shall be conducted before, during, and after construction activities. In addition, PSOs shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from construction activities.
Important qualifications for PSOs for visual monitoring include:
• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of harbor seals on land or in the water with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
• Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);
• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when construction activities were conducted; dates and times when construction activities were suspended, if necessary; and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
PSOs shall be placed at the best vantage point(s) (
CADFW developed a monitoring plan based on discussions between the CADFW and NMFS. CADFW shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction activities for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All PSOs shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
The monitoring plan involves PSOs surveying and conducting visual counts beginning prior to construction activities (beginning at least 30 minutes prior to construction activities), hourly monitoring during construction activities, and post-activity monitoring (continuing for at least 30 minutes after construction activities have ended). PSOs shall conduct monitoring from a vantage point in the marsh (
Counts shall be performed for harbor seals hauled out and observed in the water. Total counts, sex, and age (adult, juvenile, pup) shall be recorded. Behavioral monitoring shall be conducted for the duration of the construction activities to document any behavioral responses to visual (or other) disturbance, according to the disturbance scale shown in Table 2 below. When responses are observed, the degree of response (
Additional parameters shall be recorded including: Atmospheric conditions, cloud cover, visibility conditions, air and water temperature, tide height, and any other disturbance (visual or noise) that may be noted. We require that PSOs use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, CADFW shall record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to construction activities and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, CADFW shall attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. Additional requirements of PSOs include:
(1) The PSO shall be selected prior to construction activities;
(2) The PSO shall attend the project site prior to, during, and after construction activities cease each day that the construction activities occur (as outlined in the monitoring plan);
(3) The PSO shall search for marine mammals on the seal haul outs, other suitable haul out habitat, and within the waters of this area from the observation site. PSOs shall use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
(4) The PSO shall be present during construction activities to observe for the presence of marine mammals in the vicinity of the specified activity (as outlined in the monitoring plan). All such activity will occur during daylight hours. If inclement weather limits visibility within the area of effect, the PSO will perform visual scans to the extent conditions allow. For pile driving activities, if the 15 m area around the pile driving is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving shall not be initiated until that area is visible;
(5) If marine mammals are sighted by the PSO, the PSO shall record the number of marine mammals and the duration of their presence while the construction activity is occurring. The PSO shall also note whether the marine mammals appeared to respond to the noise/visual disturbance and, if so, the nature of that response. The PSO shall record the following information; date and time of initial sighting, tidal stage, weather conditions, species, behavior (
(6) A final report shall be submitted summarizing all effects from construction activities and marine mammal monitoring during the time of the authorization.
A written log of dates and times of monitoring activity shall be kept. The log shall report the following information:
• Time of PSO arrival on site;
• Time of the commencement of construction activities;
• Distances to all marine mammals relative to the disturbance;
• Observations, notes on marine mammal behavior during construction activities, as described above, and on the number and distribution observed in the project vicinity;
• For observations of all other marine mammals (if observed) the time and duration of each animal's presence in the project vicinity; the number of animals observed; the behavior of each animal, including any response to construction activities;
• Time of the cessation of construction activities; and
• Time of PSO departure from site.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol shall assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. PSOs shall use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol shall be coordinated between NMFS and the CADFW.
A draft report shall be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project (if required), whichever comes first. The report shall include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity of construction, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses by marine mammals due to disturbance from construction activities and a complete description of total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report shall be submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”
All anticipated takes will be by Level B harassment resulting from construction activities involving temporary changes in behavior. It is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes will occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures. Further, the mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of take by Level A harassment, such that it is considered discountable.
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound or visual disturbance on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound or visual disturbance. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the area subject to the disturbance that may be produced by the construction activities and then consider in combination information about harbor seals present and the number of days animals will be disturbed during the project. We then provide information to estimate potential incidents of take from disturbance as related to construction activities.
We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur. To date, no studies have been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been established. The generic thresholds described below (Table 3) are used to estimate when harassment may occur (
Any underwater noise produced during pile driving in Minhoto-Hester Marsh will attenuate according to the shoreline topography. In a narrow and relatively shallow slough, bends and topographic changes in the bottom will act to reflect sound and attenuate sound levels. Seals within the project area, from the sound source (vibratory pile driving) to the north bank of the main channel of Elkhorn Slough (approximately 525-600 m; see Figure 6-4 in the application), may be impacted by noise and were used as the area to define Level B take estimates. Seals may be exposed to underwater noise that could cause behavioral harassment (
Restoration activities will produce airborne noise that could potentially harass harbor seals that are hauled out near the activities. For example, airborne noise produced from earth moving equipment (
The following sections are descriptions of how take was determined for impacts to harbor seals from noise and visual disturbance related to construction activities.
Incidental take is calculated for each species by estimating the likelihood of a marine mammal being present within the project area during construction activities. Expected marine mammal presence is determined by past observations and general abundance during the construction window. For this project, the take requests were estimated using local marine mammal data sets, and information from state and federal agencies.
The calculation for marine mammal exposures is estimated by:
Exposure estimate = N (number of animals in the area) * 132 days of construction activities or 4 days of pile driving activity
All estimates by the applicant and accepted by NMFS, are considered conservative. Construction activities will occur in sections, and some sections (
The best scientific information available was considered for use in the harbor seal take assessment calculations. It is difficult to estimate the number of harbor seals that could be affected by construction activities because the animals are mainly either in the project area or venture near the project area to haul out during the day when the tide is low. Once the tidal channel is blocked and four haul out sites (Small Island, M2 North, M3 North and M3 East) are inaccessible, some seals will be able to use the alternative four hauls outs (M5 Northeast, M5 Southeast, Yampah Northwest and Yampah Southwest). Seals that use these alternative four haul outs may be potentially impacted from noise and visual disturbance from construction activities of the tidal marsh restoration, but seals that normally use areas in the interior tidal channel may use haul outs that are outside the expected area of influence of the construction activity.
Various types of construction equipment (in addition to pile drivers) will be utilized for project activities such as dozers, loaders, and backhoes that may generate sound that can cause both noise and visual disturbance to harbor seals. Although the exact distance of all noise disturbances from construction activities is unknown, it is anticipated that the disturbance area for airborne noise will be small as earth moving equipment (
We assume that an average of 50 harbor seals will potentially occupy the alternate haul outs based on the size of the haul out habitat that is available. Four haul outs (out of eight) will be temporarily inaccessible during the construction; therefore, half of the seals (approximately 50 out of the 100 seals) of the Minhoto-Hester Marsh Complex will likely use the alternate four haul outs and experience disturbance from construction activities. It is presumed that the other half of the seals (50 seals) of the Minhoto-Hester March Complex will utilize other suitable haul out habitat within Elkhorn Slough and are not considered available to be “taken” during construction activities (Monique Fountain, Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, pers. comm. 2016). We multiply this estimate of the number of harbor seals potentially available to be taken by the total number of days (132 days) the applicant expects construction activities to occur. Therefore, NMFS authorizes 132 instances of takes for 50 harbor seals (total of 6,600 instances) by Level B harassment incidental to construction activities (airborne noise and visual disturbance) over the course of the action if all of the estimated harbor seals present are taken by incidental harassment each day (Table 4). Note: NMFS does not assume that the 50 seals will be the same individuals taken during each of the 132 days of construction; rather some seals in the area may be taken more times than others if they stay in the area and do not utilize other parts of the Slough.
While the pile driving activities are planned to take place during slack tide to the extent possible (when harbor seals are less likely to be present), and only for a short duration, there may still
No takes by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality are expected from the disturbance associated with the construction activities. It is unlikely adult seals will flush into the water injuring or abandoning any pups. No pupping is expected within the footprint of the construction area as most pups are found along the main channel of Elkhorn Slough. Pacific harbor seals have been hauling out in the project area and within the greater Elkhorn Slough throughout the year for many years (including during pupping season and while females are pregnant) while being exposed to anthropogenic sound sources such as recreational vessel traffic, UPRR, and other stimuli from human presence. The number of harbor seals disturbed will likely also fluctuate depending on time day and tidal stage. Fewer harbor seals will be present in the early morning and approaching evening hours as seals leave the haul out site to feed and they are also not present when the tide is high and the haul out is inundated.
The following assumptions are made when estimating potential incidences of take:
• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period;
• There were will be 136 total days of activity for project (four days of pile driving and 132 construction activities); and
• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an
Construction activities associated with this project have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. No serious injury or mortality is expected at all, and with mitigation we expect to avoid any potential for Level A harassment as a result of the Minhoto-Hester Marsh construction activities, and none are authorized by NMFS. The specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from visual disturbance and/or noise from construction activities. The project area is within a portion of the local habitat for harbor seals of the greater Elkhorn Slough and seals are present year-round. Behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound or visual disturbance associated with these activities are expected to affect only a small amount of the total population (
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as displacement from the area or disturbance during resting. The construction activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than for Parson's Slough (and other projects) which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of noise or visual disturbance that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (
Pacific harbor seals, as the potentially affected marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction in the action area, are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and NMFS SARs for this stock have shown that the population is increasing and is considered stable (Carretta
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) primary foraging and reproductive habitat are outside of the project area and the construction activities are not expected to result in the alteration of habitat important to these behaviors or substantially impact the behaviors themselves; (4) there is alternative haul out habitat just outside the footprint of the construction area, along the main channel of Elkhorn Slough, and in Parson's Slough that will be available for seals while some of the haul outs are inaccessible; (5) restoration of the marsh habitat will have no adverse effect on marine mammal habitat, but possibly a long-term beneficial effect; (6) and the presumed efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In addition, these stocks are not listed under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from the construction activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The number of incidents of take authorized for harbor seals is considered small relative to the relevant stock and populations (see Table 4) even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for pinnipeds in estuarine/inland waters, there is likely to be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day. As noted above, we assume that a maximum of 250 seals will be impacted during the course of this specified activity. While we cannot say that the same 250 individual seals
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by these actions. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of harbor seals will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
No ESA-listed marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
NMFS prepared an SEA and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that will result from the project. After reviewing the project, NMFS determined the Minhoto-Hester Marsh restoration fell within the scope and effects of activities analyzed in the NOAA Restoration Center, Southwest Region Community-Based Restoration Program's (CRP) August 2010 Targeted SEA (TSEA) for the Parson's Slough Project (the adjoining salt marsh to the Minhoto-Hester Marsh and also within Elkhorn Slough), as well as the February 6, 2002 Programmatic EA (PEA) for the CRP Implementation Plan and the June 23, 2006 Supplemental PEA the CRP Implementation Plan (SPEA). The impacts to ESA listed species and marine mammals under the MMPA were analyzed in the TSEA, PEA, and SPEA; however, updated as is relevant for this SEA. The SEA level of review was conducted in accordance with the implementation procedures described in the SPEA (specifically for Sediment Removal and Materials Placement in the tidal wetlands environment) and appropriately focused on consideration of effects to species listed under the ESA and protected under the MMPA (
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to CADFW for the harassment of small numbers of harbor seals incidental to the Minhoto-Hester Marsh restoration project in Elkhorn Slough, Monterey, California, effective for one year beginning August 1, 2017, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated.
82 FR 15699, March 30, 2017.
11:00 a.m., Thursday, April 6, 2017.
The meeting has been cancelled.
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Supervisory Highlights; notice.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) is issuing its fourteenth edition of its Supervisory Highlights. In this issue of
The Bureau released this edition of the Supervisory Highlights on its Web site on March 2, 2017.
Alice Hrdy, Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Supervision Policy, 1700 G Street NW., 20552, (202) 435-7129.
Credit reporting plays a critical role in consumers' financial lives, a role that most consumers do not recognize because it is usually not very visible to them. Credit reports on a consumer's financial behavior can determine a consumer's eligibility for credit cards, car loans, and home mortgage loans—and they often affect how much a consumer is going to pay for that loan. Federal law provides an important framework to ensure the players in the consumer reporting system receive the benefits of our risk-based credit economy.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the first Federal agency to have supervisory authority over many of the key institutions in the consumer reporting system. First are the creditors and others that supply the information about consumers' financial behavior, referred to as furnishers, including banks, mortgage servicers, student loan servicers, and debt collectors. Second are the consumer reporting companies (CRCs), including the largest consumer reporting companies, consumer report resellers, and specialty consumer reporting companies. CRCs sell the information in the form of consumer reports to creditors and other users and provide them to consumers. Third are those that use the information for credit decisions as well as employment, insurance, and other decisions. The CFPB's jurisdiction over the major players in each of these categories is unique and has allowed the Bureau to take an integrated approach to improving the accuracy of information across the system.
We prioritized this market for oversight to promote our vision of a consumer reporting system: A system where furnishers provide and CRCs maintain and distribute data that are accurate, supplemented by an effective and efficient dispute management and resolution process for consumers.
The CFPB's vision is rooted in the obligations and rights set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V.
• Stepped-up oversight of incoming data from furnishers;
• institution of quality control programs of compiled consumer reports;
• monitoring of furnisher dispute metrics to identify and correct root causes;
• enhanced oversight of third-party public records service providers;
• enforced independent obligation to reinvestigate consumer disputes, including review of relevant information provided by consumers; and
• improved communication to consumers of dispute results.
We directed both bank and nonbank furnishers to develop reasonable written policies and procedures regarding accuracy of the information they furnish and to take corrective action when they furnished inaccurate information. In addition, we took significant steps to ensure furnishers' dispute handling processes comply with the law in response to failures either to conduct investigations or to send results of dispute investigations to consumers.
This Special Edition of
The CFPB's supervisory authority over CRCs extends to those that are larger participants in the consumer reporting market.
Overall, and as a result of these reviews, CRCs have made significant advances to promote greater accuracy, the oversight of furnishers, and enhancements to the dispute resolution function. Continued improvements are necessary in these and other areas. Supervision has directed many CRCs to take actions in these areas and will monitor closely the progress by these CRCs.
The accuracy of the data maintained by the CRCs is the backbone on which our credit-based economy relies. Consumers depend on the accuracy of the credit reporting data to obtain credit and to realize their financial goals. Similarly, financial institutions and other industries (for example, mortgage and auto lending) that are heavily dependent on credit markets also rely on the accuracy of data in these reports to calibrate the appropriate risk-based credit to offer consumers.
Initial accuracy reviews indicated that CRC(s)' data governance functions were decentralized and had undefined responsibilities. They lacked quality control policies and procedures to test compiled consumer reports for accuracy, had inconsistent practices for vetting furnishers and providing data quality feedback to them, and had insufficient monitoring and oversight of furnishers once approved to provide data. The following sections detail improvements CRC(s) are implementing to remedy these deficiencies.
To demonstrate some of the data accuracy enhancements that Supervision has directed many CRCs to undertake, Supervision created this diagram:
Data governance systems are crucial to accuracy and data integrity obligations of the CRCs. Effective data governance policies establish and clearly document the company's system of decision rights and accountabilities for handling consumer information and managing any changes that may affect such information.
One or more CRCs have improved their data governance policies and procedures and formalized a data governance program. As an example, one or more CRCs established data governance structures with personnel authorized and directed to:
• Oversee policies, procedures, data quality metrics, and trends;
• approve policies and procedures, as well as escalate decisions to higher authorities within the CRC(s);
• oversee furnisher monitoring, law and policy, and procedures;
• take actions against furnishers that fail to comply with the established requirements, including ceasing to accept data furnished from noncompliant furnishers;
• review and track metrics relating to data governance on a regular basis; and
• oversee a centralized repository of data definitions, business rules, and data quality rules.
In a prior issue of
In follow-up reviews at one or more CRCs, examiners found the following improvements:
• Establishment of robust quality control programs that regularly assess the accuracy of information included in consumer reports;
• as part of the quality control program, development of tests to identify whether consumer reports are produced regarding the wrong consumer and whether consumer reports contain mixed file data, and development of systems designed to measure the accuracy of consumer reports and identify patterns and trends in errors; and
• utilization of the results of the quality control program to take corrective action by identifying the source of identified inaccuracies and making necessary system improvements to prevent the recurrence of such errors.
Examiners have also noted improvements in the oversight of public records providers at one or more CRCs. In the initial accuracy reviews, examiners noted that one or more CRCs did not adequately oversee the accuracy or integrity procedures at third-party
• Enhancing the CRC(s)' standards for the public records data that will be accepted, including greater frequency of updates and stricter identity-matching criteria; and
• increasing the frequency and scope of audits of its third-party public records provider, thereby strengthening the CRC(s)' ability to identify potential sources of inaccuracy and identity-matching errors.
We will continue to monitor the status of these system improvements.
In a previous issue of
• The review of an existing furnisher's ability to maintain minimum data security standards;
• the re-vetting of furnishers where the furnisher's management changes could impact its capacity to meet membership requirements; and
• a process to temporarily cease accepting data from identified furnishers that fail re-vetting until required improvements are made by the furnisher, during which time trade line information reported by the furnisher is suppressed, and the furnisher must then demonstrate compliance with the reporting requirements before its furnished data will again be included in consumer reports.
One or more CRCs established policies and procedures to monitor and identify furnishers who do not meet data submission and quality requirements and to take corrective action where appropriate. Examiners found that the improved monitoring program(s) include:
• Actively monitoring for inactive data furnishers, notifying furnishers when monthly data submissions are missed, and ceasing to accept data from furnishers who fail to furnish updated data for a number of consecutive months;
• monitoring for furnishers that do not comply with the CRC(s)' data submission thresholds establishing the maximum number of times a furnisher's data can be rejected by the CRC(s); and
• alerting furnishers when anomalies are detected in furnished data to identify and correct potential sources of inaccuracy.
We also reviewed one or more CRCs' policies and procedures to monitor furnisher dispute data as a component of their data accuracy programs. For example, data indicating that particular furnishers receive a higher rate of disputes from consumers under the FCRA, or respond to disputes in ways that indicate the furnisher is not investigating disputes, can be useful to CRCs in identifying sources of data inaccuracy. Examiners found that one or more CRCs:
• Monitored furnisher responses to consumer disputes to identify furnishers with response rates and other patterns potentially indicating that they are not meeting their reinvestigation requirements, for example because the furnisher does not respond to consumer disputes;
• identified furnishers with particular response rates that are higher in one area than expected and notified the identified furnishers of the CRC(s)' concerns;
• requested the furnisher to investigate the cause of the anomaly and correct its practices where needed; and
• for any furnisher that does not respond and correct its practices, the CRC(s) took further action, including ceasing to accept data from the furnisher.
At one or more CRCs, examiners observed that these new procedures improved furnishers' dispute response levels, for example by eliminating data provided by furnishers that refuse to reasonably investigate disputes and, for those furnishers that wish to continue furnishing, increasing the rate at which the furnishers investigate and respond to disputes within the time periods required under the FCRA.
However, examiners also noted that one or more CRCs had not yet implemented policies or procedures to monitor furnisher dispute data. Based on these findings, Supervision directed the CRC(s) to develop and implement internal processes to monitor furnisher dispute responses and to detect furnishers with dispute rates or dispute responses that may indicate risk of inaccurate consumer data or other consumer harm. Directives included:
• Establishing the necessary employee training and escalation guidelines for reporting furnisher monitoring issues to senior management;
• instituting procedures for monitoring furnisher dispute data; and
• establishing adequate corrective action measures designed to minimize the risk of reporting inaccurate data.
In a prior issue of
In follow-up reviews, examiners found that one or more CRCs improved furnisher access to data quality reports. The CRC(s) made receipt of certain data-quality reports mandatory for all data furnishers at no cost, thereby resulting in increased visibility and availability of such reports to furnishers on a regular basis.
Examiners also evaluated the accuracy and dispute handling procedures at one or more reseller CRCs.
Supervision also continued its focus on CRCs' compliance with the FCRA's requirements to process and investigate consumer disputes. When a consumer believes there is inaccurate information in his or her consumer report, the FCRA enables consumers to dispute the information. The consumer may provide relevant supporting information with the dispute, such as a cancelled check to demonstrate payment or a document to demonstrate that the consumer is not liable for the credit account or debt.
Once a determination regarding the dispute is made, timely and clear notification to the consumer of the results of the dispute helps ensure the consumer understands whether a change was made and the reason for the decision. A well-functioning dispute resolution process is critical to promoting confidence in the consumer reporting system and in empowering consumers to take charge of their financial lives. A strong system that efficiently and clearly resolves consumer disputes so that consumers do not needlessly re-dispute information benefits CRCs and furnishers as well.
In previous issues of
• Consumers now are able to use online portals to submit disputes and upload attachments of supporting documentation;
• CRC(s) have implemented systems to forward to furnishers relevant dispute documents submitted by consumers;
• CRC(s) have made improvements to call center scripts and training regarding solicitation of relevant information from consumers with disputes; and
• CRC(s) no longer require that consumers obtain or purchase a recent consumer report before the CRC(s) accept disputes filed online or by telephone.
Building on these improvements, subsequent reviews at one or more CRCs have focused on the dispute resolution procedures in place to conduct a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes and communicate the results of the investigation adequately to the consumer.
To aid in our description of the dispute process, Supervision created the following simplified diagram depicting a number of key steps taken by CRC(s) when processing, investigating, and responding to consumer disputes:
The FCRA requires that, when a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any item contained in his or her consumer file with the CRC, the CRC must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed item is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information or delete the item from the file.
Examiners found that one or more CRCs did not comply with this obligation in certain circumstances. For example, in cases where consumers submitted certain categories of documentary evidence in support of a dispute, one or more CRCs failed to review and consider the attached documentation and relied entirely on the furnisher to investigate the dispute. To correct this violation, examiners directed the CRC(s) to revise policies and procedures regarding dispute reinvestigations to ensure appropriate and reasonable review and consideration of consumer proof documents.
When a consumer files a dispute with a CRC, the FCRA requires the CRC to provide notification of the dispute within five business days to the furnisher who provided the information that is in dispute.
The FCRA also requires that, following a dispute investigation, the CRC must provide prompt notice of any modification or deletion to the furnisher.
The FCRA requires that, upon completion of the reasonable reinvestigation, the CRC must provide written notice of the results to the consumer not later than five business days after completion of the reinvestigation.
Examiners found that one or more CRCs sent dispute notices to consumers that did not report the results of the reinvestigation. In particular, at one or more CRCs, examiners identified consumer dispute notices that failed to articulate clearly the results of the dispute investigation to the consumer as required by the FCRA. The notices, instead, simply indicated that the dispute investigation was complete but did not state the result of that investigation. To correct this violation, examiners directed one or more CRCs to describe more precisely the result of the investigation, such as whether changes were made as a result of the dispute investigation.
Furnishers of information play a crucial role in the accuracy and integrity of consumer reports when they provide information to CRCs. Inaccurate information from furnishers can lead to inaccurate reports and consequent harm to consumers and the market. For example, inaccurate information on a consumer report can affect a consumer's ability to obtain credit, housing, or employment. Moreover, furnishers have an important role in the dispute process when consumers dispute the accuracy of information on their consumer reports. Consumers may dispute information that appears on their consumer report directly to furnishers (“direct disputes”) or indirectly through CRCs (“indirect disputes”), and furnishers are required to investigate both types of consumer disputes to verify the accuracy of the information furnished.
A timely and responsive reply to a consumer dispute may reduce the impact that inaccurate negative information on a consumer report may have on the consumer. The FCRA and Regulation V set forth requirements for furnishers concerning both accuracy and dispute handling. To ensure compliance with these requirements, Supervision has conducted a number of reviews at a variety of furnishers subject to its supervisory authority.
Supervision found CMS weaknesses and numerous violations of the FCRA and Regulation V that required corrective action by furnisher(s).
As the CFPB has emphasized, we expect institutions subject to our supervisory authority to structure their CMS in a manner sufficient to comply with Federal consumer financial laws and appropriately address associated risks of harm to consumers.
In one or more reviews of furnisher(s), examiners found several weaknesses in CMS, including the following:
• Weak oversight by management and the Board of Directors over furnishing practices;
• no formal data governance program;
• failure to update policies and procedures;
• weak training of employees who conduct furnishing and dispute handling operations; and
• weak monitoring and corrective action, including failure to conduct follow up testing on consumer account files submitted to and rejected by one or more CRAs.
Supervision directed the furnisher(s) to take appropriate action to address these weaknesses in their CMS programs as they relate to their actions in furnishing information to CRCs.
Regulation V requires furnishers to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers that they provide to CRCs.
• For handling and investigating direct disputes from consumers;
• for the creation and retention of documentation to substantiate final dispute decisions;
• to prevent duplicative or mixed file reporting;
• to instruct how to conduct reasonable investigations of consumer disputes, including directing dispute-handling agents to compare the disputed information to all available information in all systems of record that could contain information relevant to a consumer's dispute;
• to prevent dispute-handling agents from responding “verified” immediately upon receipt of a dispute, instead of ensuring a reasonable reinvestigation was completed timely; and
• for the third-party service providers conducting the furnishing on behalf of the furnisher(s).
For furnishing consumer deposit account information, Supervision found that furnisher(s):
• Had enterprise-wide FCRA policies, but the policies were inadequate to address furnishing activity for consumer deposit accounts;
• failed to establish, implement, and maintain reasonable written policies and procedures consistent with Regulation V regarding the accuracy and integrity of consumer deposit account information furnished;
• had policies for furnishing consumer deposit account information that were overly broad and not supplemented with sufficiently-detailed operating procedures and guidance for consumer deposit-related furnishing;
• had procedures that did not address the requirement to notify a consumer of the results of a dispute investigation; and
• had procedures that failed to address the requirement to update and correct inaccurate consumer deposit information.
Supervision directed the furnisher(s) to correct the deficiencies.
Regulation V requires furnishers, as they create policies and procedures, to consider and incorporate, as appropriate, the guidelines of Appendix E to Regulation V.
Appendix E of Regulation V states that a furnisher's policies and procedures should be reasonably designed to promote furnishing information that is accurate, which includes furnishing information that reflects the terms of and liability for accounts, as well as consumers' performance on such accounts.
Examiners found that one or more furnishers' written policies and procedures for furnishing did not address situations where information is absent on incoming loan servicing data transfers. Specifically, if a transferor's servicer did not provide the date of first delinquency (DOFD), the policies and procedures did not require follow-up to obtain and accurately report the DOFD. The DOFD affects consumers because the FCRA directs that certain negative information not be included on consumer reports for longer than a specified period of time.
In developing its policies and procedures, a furnisher should address how to “maintain[ ]records for a reasonable period of time, not less than any applicable recordkeeping requirement, in order to substantiate the accuracy of any information about consumers it furnishes that is subject to a direct dispute.”
Examiners found at one or more furnishers that the policies and procedures for handling direct and indirect disputes required only the retention of certain documents. Examiners found that the retained documents did not substantiate the accuracy of the furnishers' decision as to the dispute. Deficient documentation included the failure to memorialize what the agent reviewed or the logic of the agent's investigation. Examiners attributed these failures to the weak policies and procedures and the failure to conduct monitoring or a compliance audit to identify the inadequate record retention. Examiners also found that when furnisher(s) processed an indirect dispute, they did not retain a copy of the attachments submitted by consumers to the CRC in connection with the dispute. By not retaining attachments, a furnisher compromises its ability to conduct ongoing quality checks of its dispute investigations. Supervision directed furnisher(s) to retain attachments submitted with indirect disputes for a reasonable amount of time.
Additionally, examiners found that furnisher(s) did not have adequate written policies and procedures in place to properly identify and track direct disputes. Accordingly, examiners were unable to verify that the furnisher(s) undertook a reasonable reinvestigation within the legally required timeframe. Supervision directed the furnisher(s) to ensure records related to disputes are maintained for a reasonable amount of time. Supervision made this direction to rectify the furnisher(s)' failure to consider the guidelines as required by Regulation V in developing their policies and procedures.
In establishing and implementing its policies and procedures, a furnisher should consider any feedback received from CRCs, consumers, or other appropriate parties.
• Have policies or procedures for the handling of feedback received from CRCs related to data quality;
• review exception reports or identify, correct, and resubmit invalid
• have policies and procedures that provide sufficient guidance to dispute-handling agents on how to proceed when the information provided by the consumer is inconsistent with the information contained in the furnisher's system.
Furnishers' policies and procedures should address appropriate and effective oversight of relevant service providers whose activities may affect the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to CRCs.
Appendix E of Regulation V states that a furnisher, in developing its policies and procedures, should specify how it will establish and implement appropriate internal controls for the accuracy of information furnished. These controls can include implementing standard procedures and verifying random samples of information provided to CRCs.
In one or more reviews, examiners found the following deficiencies in quality control:
• Failure to perform quality checks on the data furnished to CRCs;
• failure to test for the accuracy of the information after it is furnished, such as whether the amount furnished as charged off is correct or whether the name or other identifying information of the account holder is correct;
• failure to conduct ongoing periodic evaluations or audits of furnishing practices, or data furnished to CRCs; and
• failure to conduct audits of dispute information to identify and correct root causes of any inaccurate furnishing.
Appendix E of Regulation V provides that furnishers' policies and procedures should be reasonably designed to promote reasonable investigations of consumer disputes and take appropriate action based on the outcome of such investigations.
In developing their policies and procedures, furnishers should address how they will train the staff that participates in activities related to the furnishing of information on how to implement the policies and procedures.
Regulation V requires furnishers to review their policies and procedures “periodically and update them as necessary to ensure their continued effectiveness.”
Inaccurate reporting undermines the central purpose of consumer reports, which is to predict, among other factors, the potential creditworthiness of consumers. Section 623(a)(1)(A) of the FCRA requires that a furnisher shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any CRC if the furnisher knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.
Examiners found one or more furnishers provided consumer information to CRCs while knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the information was inaccurate because the information furnished did not accurately reflect the information in the furnisher(s)' systems. The types of information inaccurately furnished included that:
• Consumers were delinquent;
• consumers had no payment history;
• consumers had a “$0” actual payment amount;
• consumers had an unpaid charged-off balance when consumers had, in fact, settled the account in full; and
• amounts past due and bankruptcy status.
A furnisher is not subject to Section 623(a)(1)(A) if the furnisher clearly and conspicuously specifies an address for consumers to provide notice that they dispute specific information as inaccurate.
The date of first delinquency is important for CRCs, creditors, and consumers because it determines when information on a consumer report becomes obsolete and may no longer be reported.
When furnishers become aware of inaccurate information previously furnished to a CRC, the furnisher must inform the CRC that the previously furnished information is incorrect and promptly update the information.
• Failing to promptly update the information provided to CRCs after determining that consumer information was not complete or accurate;
• failing to promptly update payment information for charged-off accounts when consumers made payments under payment plans;
• lacking oversight of the furnisher's service providers, who delayed updating incomplete or inaccurate consumer information from a range of 190 days up to 337 days; and
• failing to update reports to reflect delinquencies that had been cured when a consumer had a qualifying deferment during the period of delinquency.
Supervision directed the furnisher(s) to correct these violations to ensure prompt updating and correcting of inaccurate or incomplete information.
Notifications to consumers regarding action, or inaction, taken on disputes by furnishers play an important function in the dispute process. Regulation V requires furnishers to conduct a reasonable investigation of a direct dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer.
The FCRA and Regulation V require furnishers to complete their investigations of direct disputes received from consumers and to report the results to the consumer before the applicable expiration period.
Examiners also found that furnisher(s) failed to provide the results of direct dispute investigations to consumers in bankruptcy. Examiners determined that the furnisher(s) had system errors, which misinterpreted the automatic stay provision of the bankruptcy code and suppressed result letters to consumers. Supervision directed furnisher(s) to rectify these issues.
Furnishers are required, after receiving notice of a dispute of the completeness or accuracy of any information from a CRC, to conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information.
Examiners also found that one or more furnishers failed to conduct an investigation of indirect disputes. Supervision directed furnishers to update and implement dispute handling policies and procedures to ensure disputes are handled in accordance with the requirements of the FCRA.
The FCRA prohibits a person from obtaining a consumer report unless the consumer report is obtained for a purpose authorized by the FCRA.
• Establish and implement effective policies and procedures to ensure the
• strengthen the monitoring and testing function to respond to agent violations more quickly; and
• report to the board quarterly on the number of complaints and disputes involving consumer reports obtained without a permissible purpose.
Supervision's work in the consumer reporting market is ongoing and remains a high priority. Consumer reporting companies and furnishers have an obligation to maintain the accuracy of consumer data, but experience indicates that they lack incentives and under-invest in accuracy. Indeed, these most recent supervisory findings underscore Supervision's concern about the lack of resources that furnishers in particular have devoted to this important function and the resulting violations of law.
We have targeted substantial resources to improve the accuracy of consumer information, and we will continue to do so. We have observed steady progress at consumer reporting companies to improve data governance. However, we also observed that one or more CRCs have not yet finalized the development of data governance programs as required by Supervision, although such improvements are reported to be in the implementation phase. As to furnisher monitoring programs, Supervision found one or more CRCs made significant progress in leveraging furnisher dispute data as part of an accuracy program. But Supervision also observed that one or more programs require additional development and formalization of the corrective actions taken for furnishers that have been identified through the monitoring program. Overall, we are satisfied with the steady pace of progress in addressing weaknesses identified in Supervision's first round of accuracy and dispute resolution reviews and will continue to work with supervised companies to ensure that they invest the necessary resources to solve compliance challenges.
Supervision will continue to conduct reviews at a wide range of furnishers subject to our authority and expects furnishers to evaluate carefully their entire operations as they relate to their furnishing practices in light of the FCRA and Regulation V's requirements. We are encouraged by some positive trends. For example, at one or more large furnishers, Supervision observed a special emphasis on evaluating, on an enterprise-wide basis, the furnisher's FCRA compliance management system. In addition, furnisher(s) proactively established action plans for recordkeeping and taking inventory of dispute resolution letters that they will more clearly communicate the results of investigations to consumers.
Supervision will continue to prioritize new and existing FCRA areas based on insights from a robust number of data sources that help us to identify areas where the risk of consumer harm is greatest.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of meeting; amendment.
On Friday, March 17, 2017 (82 FR 14211-14212), the Department of Defense published a notice to announce a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC) to be held on April 27, 2017. Subsequent to the publication of this notice, the meeting purpose statement and agenda items changed. All other information in the March 17, 2017 notice remains the same.
Open to the public Thursday, April 27, 2017 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Pentagon Library & Conference Center, Room B6. Escorts will be provided from the Pentagon Visitors Center waiting area (Pentagon Metro entrance) upon request.
Ms. Melody McDonald or Dr. Randy Eltringham, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community & Family Policy), Office of Family Readiness Policy, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, Room 3G15. Telephones (571) 372-0880; (571) 372-5315 or email: OSD Pentagon OUSD P-R Mailbox Family Readiness Council,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Welcome & Administrative Remarks.
Making Military Family Connections through High Tech-High Touch Community Collaboratives.
Minnesota's Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program: Support for the National Guard and Reserve.
Military OneSource: Creating an Integrated I&R-Counseling System to Build Community Capacity to Serve.
Best Practice Collaboratives with Military Support Organizations.
Military Service Best Practice Spotlights: Demonstrating the Positive Impacts of Sharing Information and Connecting Military Families to Needed Resources.
Closing Remarks.
Water Power Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of the Executive Summit for Hydropower Research and Development.
This notice serves to announce that the Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) intends to hold an Executive Summit on Hydropower Research and Development (“Summit”) in Washington, DC on May 4, 2017. Through this initiative, the WPTO intends to engage industry and researchers to articulate hydropower
DOE will host the Summit from 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on May 4, 2017.
The Summit will be held at The National Press Club, 529 14th St NW., Washington, DC 20045.
Alexsandra Lemke, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (720)-648-4381. Email:
The Executive Summit provides a premier opportunity to learn how DOE-funded research at the national laboratories and beyond is addressing the hydropower industry's R&D needs—and how companies can directly partner with the labs to accelerate innovation and achieve bottom-line results. The Summit will bring together hydropower industry executives, government leaders, and technology researchers to showcase how private-sector and national lab partnerships are successfully addressing critical technology challenges to improve the competitiveness of American hydropower businesses across the country. Invited participants from industry will include design, consulting, assessment, and operations professionals with experience in addressing the short- and long-term challenges of hydropower development and operations.
The information provided and discussed throughout this summit will be compiled in a summary report, which will provide clarity on how the capabilities of DOE's National Laboratories and other DOE Hydropower Program resources align with the perceived and prioritized R&D needs of the industry as outlined in the recently-published DOE Hydropower Vision. The Vision includes a roadmap outlining potential actions, in a non-prescriptive manner, for consideration by all hydropower stakeholder sectors. The workshop sessions will address four primary categories of R&D activities included in the roadmap: (1) Enhanced Revenue and Market Structures, (2) Optimization of Hydropower Security, Reliability, and Value Sustainable Development and Operation, (3) Addressing Hydropower Sustainability Optimization of Hydropower, and (4) Technology Advancement for Hydropower. The remaining categories of the Roadmap, Regulatory Process Optimization and Enhanced Collaboration, Education, and Outreach, will be addressed in the workshop as cross-cut issues to connect activities in the first three categories.
The event is open to the public based upon space availability. DOE will also accept public comments as described above for purposes of better understanding the hydropower industry and challenges associated with increased deployment. These comments may be submitted at
Participants should limit information and comments to those based on personal experience, individual advice, information, or facts regarding this topic. It is not the object of this session to obtain any group position or consensus from the meeting participants.
Following the meeting, a summary will be compiled by DOE and posted for public comment. For those interested in providing additional public comment, the summary will be posted at
Office of Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC) will be renewed for a two-year period beginning on February 10, 2017.
The DPAC will provide advice and recommendations to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs on the stewardship and maintenance of the Nation's nuclear deterrent.
Additionally, the renewal of the Committee has been determined to be essential to the conduct of the Department's business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law and agreement. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
Robert Hanrahan, Office of Defense Programs, at (202) 586-4606.
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:
This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC's (Mountain Valley) Mountain Valley Project and Equitrans LP's (Equitrans) Equitrans Expansion Project. The first notice of schedule, issued on June 28, 2016, identified a final EIS date of March 10, 2017. However, in response to comments on the draft EIS issued September 16, 2016 (with a comment closing date of December 22, 2016), staff produced several environmental information requests sent to Mountain Valley and Equitrans in January and March, 2017, and only recently received information necessary for us to complete our environmental review. As a result, staff has revised the schedule for issuance of the final EIS.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the project's progress.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the final EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend upcoming PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Members Committee and Markets and Reliability Committee meetings, as well as other PJM committee, subcommittee or task force meetings.
The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address matters at issue in pending proceedings before the Commission, including the following currently pending proceedings:
For additional meeting information, see:
The meetings are open to stakeholders. For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6139 or
On January 10, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Richmondale Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project to be located near the town of Simpson in Lackawanna and Wayne Counties, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 260 acres and a storage capacity of 3,900 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,000 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of new roller-compacted concrete or rock-filled dams and/or dikes; (2) excavating a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 75 acres and a total storage capacity of 5,625 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,450 feet msl; (3) a new 6,710-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (5) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 230 megawatts; (6) a new transmission line connecting the powerhouse to a nearby electric grid interconnection point with options to evaluate multiple grid interconnection locations; and (7) appurtenant facilities. Possible initial fill water and make-up water would come from the Lackawanna River. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 676,873 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Erie Boulevard Hydropower filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on January 31, 2017. Erie Boulevard Hydropower provided public notice of its request on January 27, 2017. In a letter dated March 30, 2017, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Erie Boulevard Hydropower's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Erie Boulevard Hydropower as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Erie Boulevard Hydropower filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 9222-032. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by January 31, 2020.
p. Register online at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Green Mountain Power Corporation (Green Mountain Power) as the Commission's non-federal representatives for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Green Mountain Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by May 30, 2017.
p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the Commission.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an Environmental Site Review (site visit) of the project on Tuesday, April 25, starting at 2:00 p.m., and ending at or about 3:30. All participants should meet at 1:45 p.m. at 341 Power Plant Road, Duxbury, Vermont, at the parking lot located to the left off Power Plant Road before you reach the substation and powerhouse. Participants are responsible for their own transportation. Persons with questions about the site visit should contact John Greenan (802-770-3213) or Gary Lemay (603-428-4960). Persons planning on participating in the site visit should contact Gary Lemay (603-428-4960;
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.
On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Stony Creek Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near the town of Somerset in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir having a surface area of 100 acres and a storage capacity of 1,500 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,540 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of new roller-compacted concrete or rock-filled dams; (2) a new lower reservoir having a surface area of 40 acres and a storage capacity of 1,800 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 1,800 feet msl created through construction of new roller-compacted concrete or rock-filled dams; (3) a new 2,560-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 91 megawatts; (5) a new transmission line connecting the powerhouse to a nearby electric grid interconnection point with options to evaluate multiple grid interconnection locations; and (6) appurtenant facilities. Possible initial fill water and make-up water would come from Stony Creek Lake. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 332,152 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of revised information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on a revision to the information collection, FERC-725E (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. RD16-10-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The remaining reporting requirements included in FERC-725E are not being revised.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: May 1, 2017.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following 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:
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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
Southeastern Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed rate.
Southeastern Power Administration (Southeastern) proposes to revise existing schedules of rates and charges applicable to the sale of power from the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System of Projects effective for a 5-year period, October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2022. Additionally, opportunities will be available for interested persons to review the present rates and the proposed rates and supporting studies, to participate in a public forum and to submit written comments. Southeastern will evaluate all comments received in this process.
Written comments are due on or before July 5, 2017. A public information and comment forum will be held in Savannah, Georgia, at 2:30 p.m. on May 9, 2017. Persons desiring to attend the forum should notify Southeastern by May 2, 2017, so that a list of forum participants can be prepared. Persons desiring to speak at the forum should specify this in their notification to Southeastern; others may speak if time permits. If Southeastern has not been notified by close of business on May 2, 2017, that at least one person intends to be present at the forum, the forum may be canceled with no further notice.
Written comments should be submitted to: Administrator, Southeastern Power Administration, Department of Energy, 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, Georgia, 30635-6711. The public information and comment forum for the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System of Projects will be at the DoubleTree Hotel Savannah Historic District, 411 West Bay Street, Savannah, Georgia 31401, Phone: (912) 790-7000.
Virgil Hobbs, Assistant Administrator, Finance & Marketing, Southeastern Power Administration, Department of Energy, 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, Georgia 30635, (706) 213-3838.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) confirmed and approved on a final basis Wholesale Power Rate Schedules SOCO-1-E, SOCO-2-E, SOCO-3-E, SOCO-4-E, ALA-1-N, MISS-1-N, Duke-1-E, Duke-2-E, Duke-3-E, Duke-4-E, Santee-1-E, Santee-2-E, Santee-3-E, Santee-4-E, SCE&G-1-E, SCE&G-2-E, SCE&G-3-E, SCE&G-4-E, Pump-1-A, Pump-2, Regulation-1, and Replacement-1 applicable to Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System of Projects' power for a period ending September 30, 2017. (143 FERC ¶ 62,002; Apr. 2, 2013).
Existing rate schedules are predicated upon a July 2012 repayment study and other supporting data. A repayment study prepared in February of 2017 shows that existing rates meet repayment criteria and would generate a large surplus.
The revised repayment study shows that a revenue reduction of $18,991,000 in Fiscal Year 2018 and all future years over the current repayment study will result in all costs being repaid within the term of these rate schedules or their service life. The revenue requirement is $200,000,000 per year. Southeastern is proposing to revise the existing rate schedules to generate this revenue. The rate adjustment reduces the Revenue Requirement by about nine percent (9%). To collect this reduced revenue requirement, rates for capacity have been reduced by fifteen percent (15%). The current energy rate will be extended.
This rate reduction is due to capitalized deficits that were unpaid in 2012 being recovered, and required payments due in the last five years being met.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to whom power may be wheeled and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Southern Company Services, Inc.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Southern Company Services, Inc. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Southern Company Services, Inc. The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida served through the transmission facilities of Southern Company Services, Inc. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement.
Available to PowerSouth Energy Cooperative.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Energy Carolinas.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Energy Carolinas. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Energy Carolinas. The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in North Carolina and South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of Duke Energy Carolinas. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in South Carolina to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority. The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of South Carolina Public Service Authority. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in South Carolina to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement.
Available to public bodies and cooperatives in South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement.
Available to all customers of the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System and applicable to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
Available to all customers in the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System and applicable to replacement energy.
The proposed rates for capacity, energy, and generation services are as follows:
Under this scenario, 75 percent of generation revenues are recovered from capacity sales and 25 percent are recovered from energy sales. These rates are expected to produce an average revenue of $200,119,000 in FY 2018, $200,030,000 in FY 2019, and $200,011,000 in FY 2020 and all future years. The change in revenue for FY 2018 to FY 2020 is due to changing transmission arrangements.
The rates for transmission, scheduling, reactive supply, and regulation and frequency response apply to all four scenarios and are illustrated in Table 1.
The referenced repayment studies are available for examination at 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, Georgia 30635-6711. Proposed Rate Schedules SOCO-1-F, SOCO-2-F, SOCO-3-F, SOCO-4-F, ALA-1-O, Duke-1-F, Duke-2-F, Duke-3-F, Duke-4-F, Santee-1-F, Santee-2-F, Santee-3-F, Santee-4-F, SCE&G-1-F, SCE&G-2-F, SCE&G-3-F, SCE&G-4-F, Pump-1-A, and Replacement-1 are also available.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Federal Advisory Subcommittee Meetings.
Consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving notice of an upcoming public meeting of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee convened under the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). The Assumable Waters Subcommittee will provide advice and recommendations as to how the EPA can best clarify assumable waters for dredge and fill permit programs pursuant to Clean Water Act section 404(g)(1). The EPA is undertaking this effort to support states and tribes that wish to assume the program. Similar to the parent NACEPT, the subcommittee represents a diversity of interests from academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and local, State, and tribal governments.
Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than fifteen calendar days' notice. Meeting agendas and materials will be posted at
The Assumable Waters Subcommittee will hold a public meeting on:
• April 17, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT, at this Web site:
• This is virtual meeting which can be accessed at Web site:
Jacob B. Strickler, Acting Designated Federal Officer, via email at:
Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to the Assumable Waters Subcommittee should be sent to Jacob B. Strickler via email at:
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on April 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
* Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(8) and (9).
** Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(2).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces the E-rate program funding cap for funding year 2017.
James Bachtell, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
Pursuant to section 54.507(a) of the Commission's rules, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces that the E-rate program funding cap for funding year 2017 is $3,990,207,000. The new cap represents a 1.3 percent inflation-adjusted increase in the $3,939,000,000 billion cap from funding year 2016. This represents a $51,207,000 increase for the E-rate program funding cap as a whole, including a $38,077,000 increase for the category one services funding level and a $13,130,000 increase for the category two services funding level. The Commission began indexing the funding cap to inflation in 2010 to ensure that E-rate program funding keeps pace with the changing broadband and telecommunications needs of schools and libraries. A Public Notice was released on March 13, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission announces and provides an agenda for the first meeting of Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC).
Friday, April 21, 2017, 10:00 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Brian Hurley, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at (202) 418-2220 or
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will accommodate as many participants as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will also provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations Program III—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is requesting a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance for a new information collection request (ICR) titled “Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations Program III.” ATSDR awarded funds to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (WIDHS) to conduct this information collection under cooperative agreement #NU61TS000269-01-00. The purpose of the current program is to evaluate body burden levels of legacy and emerging contaminants in susceptible Great Lakes populations in the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern (AOC) in Wisconsin, an area that has not been previously covered by Great Lakes Biomonitoring Programs I and II.
The Great Lakes Basin has suffered decades of pollution and ecosystem damage. Many chemicals persist in Great Lakes waters and sediments, as well as in wildlife. These chemicals can build up in the aquatic food chain, and eating contaminated fish is a known route of human exposure. In 2016, ATSDR initiated the Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations Program III to provide additional public health information to supplement the previous cooperative agreement programs CDC-RFA-TS10-1001 “Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations” (hereafter referred to as “Program I,” OMB Control Number 0923-0044) and CDC-RFA-TS13-1302 “Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations—II” (hereafter referred to as “Program II,” OMB Control Number 0923-0052) initiated in FY2010 and FY2013, respectively.
WIDHS received funding for the current program. WIDHS will recruit and enroll two subpopulations of adults in the Milwaukee Bay Estuary Area of Concern (AOC) who are known to eat fish from the Milwaukee River Basin and Lake Michigan. This study will not include pregnant women.
The target populations are: (1) Licensed anglers living in proximity to the Milwaukee Estuary AOC and (2) Burmese immigrants and their descendants who are known to eat a substantial amount of fish from this area. WIDHS study staff will work closely with local refugee and citizen support organizations on participant recruitment.
The aims of the information collection in this surveillance project are:
1. Assess levels of contaminants (metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorinated pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons) in blood and urine of residents who consume fish from contaminated areas that had not been studied in previous Programs I and II;
2. Use the project findings to inform public health officials and offer guidance on public health actions to reduce exposure to Great Lakes contaminants.
This applied public health program aims to measure contaminants in biological samples (blood and urine) from people who may be at high risk of chemical exposure in the Great Lakes area. These measurements will provide a baseline for current and future restoration activities. The results will be compared to available national estimates, such as those reported by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Respondents will be screened for eligibility and consent will be obtained. Participants who consent will respond to a questionnaire and participate in clinic visits for body measurements and biological specimen collection (blood, urine, and hair). Their blood will be tested for polychlorinated biphenyls, metals, perfluorinated compounds, persistent pesticides, and lipids. Urine will be tested for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and creatinine. The hair samples (optional) will be saved for a later analysis.
Respondents will also be interviewed. They will be asked about demographic and lifestyle factors, hobbies, health conditions that may affect fish consumption and fishing habits, and types of jobs which can contribute to chemical exposure. Some dietary questions will be asked with a focus on consumption of Great Lakes fish.
Participation in the study is voluntary. The estimated annualized burden for the program averaged over the three-year study period is a maximum of 225 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time spent in the study.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on performance monitoring activities for funding opportunity announcement PS13-1308 “
Written comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0031 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Promoting Adolescent Health Through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention (OMB Control Number 0920-1049, expiration, 2/28/2018)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Many young people engage in sexual behaviors that place them at risk for HIV infection, other sexually transmitted diseases (STD), and pregnancy. According to the 2011 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) results, 47% of U.S. high school students ever had sexual intercourse; 34% had sexual intercourse with at least one person during the three months before the survey; and 15% had had sexual intercourse with four or more persons during their lifetime. Of those sexually active high school students, 40% reported that either they or their partner had not used a condom during last sexual intercourse, and 77% reported that either they or their partner had not used birth control pills or Depo-Provera (or any injectable birth control), Nuva Ring (or any birth control ring), Implanon (or any implant), or any intrauterine device (IUD) before last sexual intercourse.
Establishing healthy behaviors during childhood and adolescence is easier and more effective than trying to change unhealthy behaviors during adulthood. Since 1987, the Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH), which is now a part of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been a unique source of support for HIV prevention efforts in the Nation's schools.
Funded agencies include non-governmental organizations, state education agencies, and local education agencies. The primary purpose of Cooperative Agreement PS-13-1308 is (1) to build the capacity of priority districts and priority schools to effectively contribute to the reduction of HIV infection and other STD among adolescents; (2) the reduction of disparities in HIV infection and other STD experienced by specific adolescent sub-populations; and (3) the conducting of school-based surveillance, a component not included in this data collection for evaluation.
During the previous approval period we completed six rounds of data collection and review, including the completion of biannual progress reports that provided our funded partners with information on their progress towards achieving the goals of PS13-1308. We completed two annual reports that summarized all of the data collected via this information collection request and provided our division and center information on strengths and barriers to the success of activities under funding opportunity announcement PS13-1308. Additionally, these findings have been submitted to the upcoming American Public Health Association 2017 meeting for dissemination to broader public health audiences.
We are requesting an OMB approval for a one-year extension of the current information collection request so that we can gather performance monitoring data for the remaining year of PS13-1308. We will use this time to collect data on the performance of PS13-1308 funded agencies to better inform our program as they make decisions about the progress of the current funding opportunity and future funding announcements.
CDC continue to use a web-based system to collect data on the approaches that funded agencies are using to meet their goals. Approaches include helping districts and schools deliver exemplary sexual health education emphasizing HIV and other STD prevention; increasing adolescent access to key sexual health services; and establishing safe and supportive environments for students and staff.
To track funded agency progress and evaluate the effectiveness of program activities, CDC will collect data using a mix of process and performance measures. Process measures, which all funded agencies will complete, are important to assess the extent to which planned program activities have been implemented and lead to feasible and sustainable programmatic outcomes. Process measures include items on school health policy assessment and monitoring, and on providing training and technical assistance to partner education agencies and schools. Only state and local education agencies will complete performance measures to assess whether funded activities at each site are leading to intended outcomes including public health impact of systemic change in schools. These measures drove the development of questionnaires that have been tailored to each funded agencies' approach (
Respondents include 18 state education agencies, 17 local education agencies, and 6 non-governmental organizations that have all been funded under PS13-1308. The questionnaires will be submitted to CDC semi-annually using the Program Evaluation and Reporting System, an electronic web-based interface specifically designed for this data collection.
Each funded agency received a unique log-in to the system and technical assistance to ensure they can use the system easily. The dates when data are requested reflect Procurement and Grants Office deadlines to provide timely feedback to funded agencies and CDC staff for accountability and optimal use of funds. CDC anticipates that semi-annual information collection will occur in August 2017-July 2018.
The estimated burden per response ranges from 0.5 hours to 6 hours. This variation in burden is due to the variability in the questions on the forms based on the approach and type of funded agency. For instance, non-governmental organizations have fewer questions to respond to because they only have questions for process evaluation. Local education agencies have the highest burden because it takes more time to gather information as they gather data at the school- and student-level as compared with state education agencies that report only state- and district-level data. The annualized burden of 804 hours is for all funded agencies. The reduction in burden is a result of one partner agency that withdrew from participation.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Assessment of Interventions Intended to Protect Pregnant Women in Puerto Rico from Zika virus Infections—Existing Information Collection in Use Without an OMB Control Number—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC intends to request OMB approval of an Existing Information Collection in Use Without an OMB Control Number. CDC seeks OMB approval until September 2017. This collection is a de facto extension of OMB Control number 0920-1118 (expiration date 12/31/16), an information collection request approved by OMB under an emergency review in June, 2016. This information collection request includes continuing one project which is part of CDC's ongoing response in Puerto Rico to the Zika virus outbreak.
The goal of the project is to assess the delivery and effects of interventions implemented in Puerto Rico to protect pregnant women from Zika virus infections and the birth defects that Zika virus can cause in their babies. As of February 22, 2017, interventions that have been implemented include Zika Education Sessions (at Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] clinics), Zika Prevention Kits, communications activities, and vector control services in and around the home of pregnant women [Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS), Outdoor Residual Spraying (ORS), and larviciding].
Information collected in this assessment will be used to help refine interventions that have been conducted to prevent and control Zika virus in Puerto Rico and to assess which interventions reduce risk and/or offer protection from Zika virus infections.
Telephone interviews will be conducted with pregnant women in Puerto Rico. CDC needs this assessment to ensure that Zika prevention activities effectively educate, equip, and encourage women to participate in as many Zika prevention behaviors as possible. On-going assessment is an important part of this program because it can reveal novel ways that women protect themselves from Zika, how effective the distribution of the Zika Prevention Kit has been in Puerto Rico, perceived severity and susceptibility to Zika, pregnant women's self-efficacy in protecting themselves from Zika after the interventions have been implemented, as well as the extent to which target populations are using contents of the Zika Prevention Kit.
As the outbreak evolves, interviews with pregnant women in Puerto Rico can help articulate motivations for and against engaging in Zika prevention behaviors that are critical for preventing Zika-associated birth defects and morbidities. Implementing changes based on results from this assessment has occurred with the previous information collection and is expected to facilitate program improvement and ensure the most efficient allocation of resources for this public health emergency. Understanding risk and protective factors related to interventions and behaviors of pregnant women can help to establish priorities.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total number of estimated annual burden hours is 500.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Assessing Safety and Health Hazards to Workers in Oil and Gas Extraction: A Survey—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 91 (section 20[a] [1]), authorizes NIOSH to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. NIOSH is proposing a two year study to conduct a survey questionnaire of 500 land-based oil and gas (O&G) extraction workers in 5 U.S. states (Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma and a state in the Appalachian Basin) to examine safety and health issues and concerns of this workforce. Workers who drive as a part of their work duties will be asked to complete an additional set of questions about their driving environment and behaviors. We expect a response rate of 80%, so it is estimated that we will approach 625 workers in order to have 500 workers complete the survey.
The goals of this study are (1) To determine on-duty and off-duty factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes, injuries and illness among U.S. land-based O&G extraction workers and (2) To identify other safety and health needs and concerns of U.S. land-based O&G extraction workers. The results of this study will guide the development of evidence-based and priority interventions and future research in the O&G extraction industry that will improve the safety and health of O&G workers.
Administration of the survey questionnaire will occur at temporary modular lodging facilities (`man camps'), training centers, equipment/trucking yards, well sites, and community centers in oilfield towns. A screening questionnaire, “Module 1: Screening” will be administered to 313 workers per year (for 2 years) to determine that the worker is eligible for the survey. This questionnaire will take about 5 minutes. NIOSH anticipates that up to 63 workers per year (20% of screened workers) will be eligible but not interested in participating in this study. These workers will be asked to complete a brief, 6-question “Non-Respondent Questionnaire”, which will take about 5 minutes. Approximately 250 workers per year (for 2 years) will be eligible and agree to participate in the study (80% response rate). These workers will complete “Module 2: General,” “Module 3: Well-site work,” and “Module 5: Closing Questions” (approximately 225 workers will use the tablet version and 25 will opt to use the hardcopy version). “Module 5: Closing Questions” includes a brief interview with program staff. The questionnaire and interview will take approximately 25 minutes to complete for workers using the tablet as well as for those using the hardcopy version. Workers
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be reviewed and addressed prior to OMB application submission. The total estimated burden hours are 151.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on Zika virus persistence in body fluids of patients with Zika virus infection in Puerto Rico (ZIPER Study) to fill gaps in the scientific knowledge base for ZIKV regarding the persistence and transmissibility of ZIKV in body fluids. This information assist ongoing public health response activities, as well as advance the scientific understanding of ZIKV illness and transmission.
Written comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0030 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Zika virus persistence in body fluids of patients with Zika virus infection in Puerto Rico (ZIPER Study)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC plans to seek a one-year OMB approval to extend information collection covered under OMB Control Number 0920-1140, expiration date 10/31/2017.
The Zika PERsistence (ZIPER) study will help inform the presence and duration of Zika virus (ZIKV) shedding in several body fluids among RT-PCR-positive ZIKV cases from Puerto Rico. It will also provide information regarding the duration of detection of anti-ZIKV Immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies and the time for development of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies among the same population. In addition, this study will determine the prevalence of anti-ZIKV IgM and IgG, and virus shedding in body fluids among household contacts of ZIKV cases.
We propose to investigate the persistence (shedding) of ZIKV in different body fluids and its relation to immune response to provide a basis for development of non-blood-based diagnostic tools, and target and refine public health interventions to arrest ongoing spread of infection. To do so, we will conduct a prospective cohort study of individuals with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive ZIKV infection and a cross-sectional study of their household contacts. Results and analyses will be used to update relevant counseling messages and recommendations from the CDC.
The study will include baseline and follow-up questionnaires and the collection of the following specimens: blood, saliva, urine from participants of all ages, and semen/vaginal secretions from adults (ages 21 years or older) and legally emancipated minors (support themselves financially, live independent of their parents, are pregnant, or have children). Individuals with RT-PCR positive ZIKV infection will be recruited through the Sentinel Enhanced Dengue Surveillance System (SEDSS) at Saint Luke's Episcopal Hospital in Ponce, Puerto Rico and through passive surveillance in selected municipalities in Puerto Rico. SEDSS was established in 2012 through a cooperative agreement between the hospital in Consortium with the Ponce School of Medicine and Ponce Research Institute from the Ponce Health Sciences University and the CDC (Protocol #6214). Specimens will be tested for the presence of ZIKV ribonucleic acid (RNA) by RT-PCR at the CDC Dengue Branch Laboratory in San Juan, and positive specimens will be further tested for virus isolation to evaluate infectivity. Each body fluid will be collected on a weekly basis for 4 weeks and biweekly thereafter until two consecutive negative RT-PCR results are obtained from all specimens. Irrespective of RNA detection, body fluids will also be collected for RT-PCT at 2, 4, and 6 months to investigate intermittent shedding. Analyses of antibody response through titers of IgM and IgG will be performed at baseline and repeated at 2, 4, and 6 months. Among symptomatic participants seven milliliters (ml) of blood will be drawn at each study visit split into a tiger top tube (5ml) and a purple top tube (2ml) for a total not to exceed 50 ml during any given 8-week period. At enrollment healthy non-pregnant adults will have 20 ml of blood collected following standard procedures. Two tiger top tubes of 8.5 ml and one 3ml purple top tubes will be collected. These procedures will be repeated at each follow-up visit, see below. RT-PCR-positive participants will be asked to refer up to 5 household members to establish the percentage of household members with detectable and potentially infectious Zika virus RNA in body fluids. Household members who are found to be ZIKV RT-PCR-positive in any body fluid will be invited to participate in the cohort study. A second study visit will be scheduled with household contact at 2 or 4 months, to detect new infections and estimate incidence. Because the original study consent forms do not include this visit, household contacts will be contacted by study staff and will be consented again using the same consent form.
Since receipt of the initial OMB information collection approval in October 2016, the project has enrolled 295 Zika virus-infected individuals into the Zika virus Persistence study, which are 55 individuals below the target enrollment of 350 individuals. Nonetheless, preliminary findings have been published in New England Journal of Medicine, where we also expect that the final report that includes the full sample size will be published.
This is a request to continue information collection with minor modifications. Modifications have been made to reflect the developing nature of the science surrounding Zika virus infection and potential outcomes associated with infection, as well as additional questions that were best answered by taking advantage of the existing study platform. Specifically, CDC proposes the addition of two components to the collection of data under this study, one of which has already begun:
1. A follow-up household visit has been added to determine how many household members of Zika virus-infected participants become infected during the 4 months following initial screening. For any household members that had no evidence of Zika virus infection at the initial visit, the same questionnaires used at the initial household visit will again be completed ~4 months later. Such information will provide additional information regarding the incidence of Zika virus infections among households with a Zika-positive household member.
2. Additionally, CDC proposes following up with men with Zika virus-positive semen specimens to better understand the effect of Zika virus infection on sperm. To do this, 8-14 semen ejaculates from 10-20 men participating in the ZIPER study will be used to determine the presence and/or detection of the Zika virus in different fractions of the semen ejaculate (
There is no cost to respondents other than the time to participate.
Authorizing legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on “Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS) and Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES).” The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) is leading a new three-year information collection request (ICR) that covers two CDC information collections, one for childhood blood lead surveillance by NCEH and another for adult blood lead surveillance by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). CDC requests an annual time burden of 1,120 burden hours for both collections.
Written comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0032 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS) and Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES)—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) is leading a new three-year information collection request (ICR) that covers two Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information collections, one for childhood blood lead surveillance by NCEH and another for adult blood lead surveillance by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
The goal of the NCEH Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS) Program is to support blood lead screening and to promote primary prevention of exposure to lead. Also, the CBLS Program supports secondary prevention of adverse health effects when lead exposures occur in children through improved program management and oversight in respondent jurisdictions. The goal of the NIOSH Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) Program is to build state capacity for adult blood lead surveillance programs to measure trends in adult blood lead levels and to prevent lead over-exposures. Thus, blood lead surveillance over the human lifespan is covered under this single information collection request (ICR), specifically for children, less than 16 years, through CBLS at NCEH, and for adults, 16 years and older, through ABLES at NIOSH.
NCEH is announcing a new three-year cooperative agreement, titled “Lead Poisoning Prevention—Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention—financed partially by Prevention and Public Health Funds” (Funding Opportunity Announcement [FOA] No. CDC-RFA-EH17-1701-PPHF17). The first year of this new program will run concurrently with the final and fourth budget year for “PPHF 2014: Lead Poisoning Prevention—Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention—financed solely by 2014 Prevention and Public Health Funds” (FOA No. CDC-RFA-EH14-1408PPHF14). The four-year FY14 cooperative agreement program has an existing Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance titled “Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Surveillance System (HHLPSS)” (OMB Control No. 0920-0931; expiration date 05/31/2018), which will be extended through the end of the FY14 program and then discontinued.
In addition to the overlap in program periods, there are sufficient program differences to justify a new ICR for the FY17 NCEH cooperative agreement. For FY17, NCEH is requesting approval for the following: (1) Clarifying partners' procedures for data delivery into the Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS) system; (2) revising the CBLS Variables form to remove healthy homes variables, which will not be collected, and adding three new CBLS indicator variables. Based on available FY17 funds, NCEH is also requesting the following: (3) Increasing the number of potential NCEH respondents from 40 to 50; and (4) increasing the NCEH annual time burden from 640 to 800 hours.
CDC is also taking this opportunity to provide the public with a detailed description of the NIOSH ABLES information collection. Previously, ABLES was mentioned but not described in the HHLPSS ICR (OMB Control No. 0920-0931; expiration date 05/31/2018). Thus, NIOSH is requesting approval for the following: (1) Providing a detailed description of the authority and scope of the ABLES information reporting procedures; (2) adding 40 NIOSH respondents to the burden table; and (3) adding 320 hours for the NIOSH annual time burden. Once approved in this new ICR, CDC will submit a change request to remove ABLES from the existing HHLPSS ICR to avoid duplication in PRA clearance.
Over the past several decades there have been substantial efforts in environmental lead abatement, improved protection from occupational lead exposure, and a reduction in the prevalence of population BLLs over time. The U.S. population BLLs have substantially decreased over the last four decades. For example, the CDC has reported the 1976-1980 U.S. BLL mean in children, 6 months to 5 years, as 16.0 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL); and among adults, 18 to 74 years, 14.1 µg/dL. More recently, the CDC reported the 2009-2010 U.S. BLL geometric means among children, 1 to 5 years, and among adults, 20 years and older, as 1.2 µg/dL for both age groups.
In 2012, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that there is sufficient evidence that BLLs at less than 10 µg/dL and at less than 5 µg/dL are associated with adverse health effects in both children, less than 18 years, and in adults, 18 years and older. Despite the reduction in the overall population BLL over four decades, lead exposures continue to occur at unacceptable levels for individuals in communities and workplaces across the nation. Surveillance will continue through CBLS and ABLES to identify cases of elevated BLLs when primary prevention is not achieved. As of 2015, NCEH and NIOSH define elevated BLLs as greater than or equal to 5 µg/dL for individuals of all ages.
Respondents are defined as state, local, and territorial health departments with lead poisoning prevention programs. The estimated annual time burden for NCEH CBLS is 800 hours. The estimated annual time burden for NIOSH ABLES is 320 hours. In total, CDC is requesting approval for a total annual time burden of 1,120 hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a revision to the information collection project approved under OMB Control number 0920-1146 (expiration date 11/30/2019), Survey of Surveillance Records of
Written comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0029 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Survey of Surveillance Records of
The Zika virus response necessitates the collection of county and sub-county level records for
In February 2016, OMB received emergency clearance for a county-level survey of vector surveillance records for a limited number of years (2006-2015) (OMB Control No. 0920-1101, expiration date 8/31/2016). OMB then issued clearance for a follow-up information collection that was very similar to the first (OMB Control No. 0920-1146, expiration date 11/30/2019) but expanded the years that were evaluated. The information collection in this information collection request will be very similar of those surveys, but will collect these data monthly going forward.
The previous two surveys aimed to describe the reported distribution of the Zika virus vectors
In this revision, CDC will also seek information on locations of the mosquito traps at sub-county spatial
Such information will aid in (1) targeting vector control efforts to prevent mosquito-borne Zika virus transmission in the continental U.S. and (2) targeting future vector surveillance efforts. The resulting maps and models will inform the public and policy makers of the known distribution of these vectors, identify gaps in vector surveillance, and target allocation of surveillance and prevention resources. As part of the Zika response, efforts to identify
Respondents will include vector control professionals, entomologists, and public health professionals who are recipients of ELC funding or their designated points of contact. The respondents will be contacted via ELC primary recipients and instructed to set up accounts on the MosquitoNET Web site via a simple process. Data collection from ELC recipients will then begin. In order to limit the burden of data entry on respondents who may be entering information for their state, they will have the option of submitting the data via email to CDC using an excel survey.
This information collection request is authorized by Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241). The total estimated annualized burden time is 192 hours. There will be no anticipated costs to respondents other than time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Use of the Cyclosporiasis National Hypothesis Generating Questionnaire (CNHGQ) during Investigations of Foodborne Disease Clusters and Outbreaks—New—Center for Global Health (CGH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
An estimated 1 in six Americans per year become ill with a foodborne disease. Foodborne outbreaks of cyclosporiasis—caused by the parasite
Collecting the requisite data for the initial hypothesis-generating phase of investigations of multistate foodborne disease outbreaks is associated with multiple challenges, including the need to have high-quality hypothesis-generating questionnaire(s) that can be used effectively in multijurisdictional investigations. Such a questionnaire was developed in the past for use in the context of foodborne outbreaks caused by bacterial pathogens; that
The core data elements from the SNHGQ were developed by a series of working groups comprised of local, state, and federal public health partners. Subject matter experts at CDC have developed the CNHGQ, by modifying the SNHGQ to include and focus on data elements pertinent to
CDC requests OMB approval to collect information via the CNHGQ from persons who have developed symptomatic cases of
The CNHGQ is not expected to entail substantial burden for respondents. The estimated total annualized burden associated with administering the CNHGQ is 750 hours (approximately 1,000 individuals interviewed x 45 minutes/response). There will be no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by June 5, 2017.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
2.
3.
4.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by May 8, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Data sharing within the HFPP primarily focuses on conducting studies for the purpose of combatting fraud, waste, and abuse. These studies are intended to target specific vulnerabilities within the payment systems in both the public and private healthcare sectors. The HFPP and its committees design and develop studies in coordination with the TTP. The core function of the TTP is to manage and execute the HFPP studies within the HFPP. Specifically, the TTP collects and consolidates partner (both public and private) study-related data in order to share information among the HFPP pertaining to analytical tools and techniques; study analysis; successful anti-fraud practices, trends and vulnerabilities; and reports that maintain the confidentiality of its source data.
2.
Montana expects to achieve the following: (1) Premiums and copayment liability that will encourage HELP Program enrollees to be discerning health care purchasers, take personal responsibility for their health care decisions and develop health-conscious behaviors as consumers of health care services; and (2) 12 month continuous eligibility to improve continuity of care. The State also seeks to demonstrate the following over the life of the demonstration: (1) Premiums will not pose a barrier to accessing care for HELP Program beneficiaries; (2) HELP Program enrollees will exhibit health-conscious health care behaviors without harming beneficiary health; and (3) 12 month continuous eligibility will promote continuity of coverage and reduce churning rates.
The demonstration includes the authority to charge premiums of 2 percent of household income to individuals in the new adult group with incomes between 50 and 133 percent of the FPL. The state will credit such individuals' premium obligation towards copayments due. Non-payment of premiums may result in disenrollment for individuals with incomes above 100 percent of the FPL after notice and a grace period. Individuals at or below 100 percent who stop paying premiums will not be disenrolled.
To adequately inform CMS decision-making regarding Section 1115 Demonstrations, this federal evaluation of Montana's HELP demonstration includes surveys and associated focus groups, and informational interviews conducted during site visits and via phone.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting scheduled by the Deputy Director for Intramural Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with the Chairpersons of the Boards of Scientific Counselors. The Boards of Scientific Counselors are advisory groups to the Scientific Directors of the Intramural Research Programs at the NIH.
The meeting will be open to the public. Attendance is limited to space available in the conference room. 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 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 a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIEHS.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 5, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0051 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2005-0032. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments/information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) from New Beginnings of Central Florida, Inc. under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). New Beginnings of Central Florida, Inc. requests a 5-year ITP. We request public comment on the permit application and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act. To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by May 8, 2017.
If you wish to review the application and HCP, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.
Anthony W. Daly-Crews, telephone: (904) 731-3182; email:
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.
New Beginnings of Central Florida, Inc. is requesting take of approximately 3.3 acres of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to the construction of a residential apartment complex and seeks a 5-year permit. The sand skink (
We have determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we determined that the ITP would be for a “low-effect” project and qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If we determine that the application meets these requirements, we will issue ITP number TE19759C-0. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue the permit to the applicant.
If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns or has an interest in irrigation projects located on or associated with various Indian reservations throughout the United States. We are required to establish irrigation assessment rates to recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate these projects. We are notifying you that we have adjusted the irrigation assessment rates at several of our irrigation projects and facilities to reflect current costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.
The irrigation assessment rates are current as of January 1, 2016.
For details about a particular BIA irrigation project or facility, please use the tables in the
A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was published in the
Yes. For the Flathead and Duck Valley Indian Irrigation Projects the rate increase to $33.50 and $6.30, respectively, as published in the proposed notice for the 2016 rate was not implemented. The final 2016 rate will remain at the 2015 amounts of $26.00 and $5.30. All other rates are to be implemented at the respective irrigation project as published.
No. The BIA did not receive any comments to the proposed irrigation assessment rate adjustment.
This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects or if you have a carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.
You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for the
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.
The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts for our irrigation facilities.
The rate table below contains the current rates for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. The table also contains the final rates for the 2016 calendar year and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the rate category notes the irrigation projects where 2016 rates are different from the 2015 rates.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this notice under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria of Executive Order 13175 and have determined there to be substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes because the irrigation projects are located on or associated with Indian reservations. To fulfill its consultation responsibility to Tribes and Tribal organizations, BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with these entities on issues of water delivery, water availability, and costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects that concern them. This is accomplished at the individual irrigation project by project, agency, and regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of our overall coordination and consultation process to provide notice to, and request comments from, these entities when we adjust irrigation assessment rates.
The rate adjustments are not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
These rate adjustments are not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they establish “a rule of particular applicability relating to rates.” 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
These rate adjustments do not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $130 million per year. They do not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, the Department is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
These rate adjustments do not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have “takings” implications under Executive Order 12630. The rate adjustments do not deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, these rate adjustments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement because they will not affect the States, the relationship between the national government and
This notice complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, in issuing this notice, the Department has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.
These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires June 30, 2019.
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(d), pursuant to 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the rate adjustments do not present any of the 12 extraordinary circumstances listed at 43 CFR 46.215.
In developing this notice, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is seeking comments on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for the “Financial Assistance and Social Services” authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0017. This information collection expires June 30, 2017.
Submit comments on or before June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments on the information collection to Ms. Evangeline Campbell, Chief, Division of Human Services, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW., MS-4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; facsimile: (202) 208-5113; email:
Ms. Evangeline Campbell, telephone: (202) 513-7621.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is seeking to renew the information collection it conducts to provide assistance under 25 CFR 20 to eligible Indians when comparable financial assistance or social services either are not available or not provided by State, tribal, county, local, or other Federal agencies. Approval for this collection expires June 30, 2017. The information collection allows BIA to determine whether an individual is eligible for assistance and services. No third party notification or public disclosure burden is associated with this collection.
The BIA requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is seeking comments on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) Part B and C Child Count authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0176. This information collection expires June 30, 2017.
Submit comments on or before June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments on the information collection to Ms. Sue Bement, Bureau of Indian Education, 2001 Killebrew Drive—Suite 122, Bloomington, Minnesota, fax: (952) 851-5439 or email:
Ms. Sue Bement, telephone: (952) 851-5423.
The IDEIA requires Tribes and Tribal organizations to submit certain information to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary).
IDEIA Part B—Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities requires Tribes and Tribal organizations to use the funds to assist in Child Find, screening, and other procedures for the early identification of Indian children aged three through five who may have a disability., Part B funding may also be used to provide parent training, and the provision of direct services.
The BIE requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
The authorities for this action are the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(4)(c) and 1443(b)(3), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
Meeting Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to announce a meeting of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council (Council) created by the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (Compact). Thus far, the Federal Government and 30 states are parties to the Compact which governs the exchange of criminal history records for licensing, employment, and similar purposes. The Compact also
The Council will meet in open session from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., on May 10-11, 2017.
The meeting will take place at the Sheraton Pittsburgh Hotel at Station Square, 300 West Station Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, telephone 412-261-2000.
Inquiries may be addressed to Mrs. Chasity S. Anderson, FBI Compact Officer, Module D3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, telephone 304-625-2803, facsimile 304-625-2868.
The United States Attorney General appointed 15 persons from state and federal agencies to serve on the Council. The Council will prescribe system rules and procedures for the effective and proper operation of the Interstate Identification Index system for noncriminal justice purposes.
Matters for discussion are expected to include:
The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-seated basis. Any member of the public wishing to file a written statement with the Council or wishing to address this session of the Council should notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Compact Officer, Mrs. Chasity S. Anderson at (304) 625-2803, at least 24 hours prior to the start of the session. The notification should contain the individual's name and corporate designation, consumer affiliation, or government designation, along with a short statement describing the topic to be addressed and the time needed for the presentation. Individuals will ordinarily be allowed up to 15 minutes to present a topic.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice.
Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 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 proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment May 8, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lashon M. Hilliard, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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 proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until May 8, 2017.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to grant recognition to Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp. as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) .
Recognition as a NRTL becomes effective on April 6, 2017.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
Many of OSHA's workplace standards require that a NRTL test and certify certain types of equipment as safe for use in the workplace. NRTLs are independent laboratories that meet OSHA's requirements for performing safety testing and certification of products used in the workplace. To obtain and retain OSHA recognition, the NRTLs must meet the requirements in the NRTL Program regulations at 29 CFR 1910.7. More specifically, to be recognized by OSHA, an organization must: (1) Have the appropriate capability to test, evaluate, and approve products to assure their safe use in the workplace; (2) be completely independent of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and manufacturers and vendors of products for which OSHA requires certification; (3) have internal programs that ensure proper control of the testing and certification process; and (4) have effective reporting and complaint handling procedures. Recognition is an acknowledgement by OSHA that the NRTL has the capability to perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the NRTL's scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. Recognition of a NRTL by OSHA also allows employers to use products certified by that NRTL to meet those OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications for initial recognition following requirements in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires OSHA to publish two notices in the
OSHA hereby gives notice of the Agency's decision to grant recognition to Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp. (BACL), as a NRTL. According to its application, BACL was incorporated in 1996 to provide product compliance testing services to customers in the areas of Product Safety, Electromagnetic Compatibility and Telecommunications, testing for Emissions, Immunity, Radio, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure and Telecommunications. The non-profit, third-party, non-governmental accreditation body A2LA accredited BACL for UL 60950-1, the standard for which BACL requests NRTL recognition. In its application, BACL lists the current address of its headquarters as: Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp., 1274 Anvilwood Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94089.
Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for the applicable test standards within the NRTL's scope of recognition. BACL applied for initial recognition as a NRTL on April 30, 2015, and revised its application on May 12, 2016. In its application, BACL requested recognition for one test standard and one site (OSHA-2016-0022-0003 and 0004). OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing BACL's application for recognition in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to BACL's application, go to
OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of BACL's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA staff also performed a comprehensive on-site assessment of BACL's testing facilities on May 9-11, 2016. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that BACL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant recognition to BACL as a NRTL. The following sections set forth the scope of recognition included in BACL's grant of recognition.
OSHA limits BACL's scope of recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standard listed in Table 1 below.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
OSHA limits BACL's scope of recognition to include the site at Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp., 1274 Anvilwood Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94089. OSHA's recognition of this site limits BACL to performing product testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs, and for the test standard in BACL's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, BACL also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. BACL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. BACL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. BACL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on BACL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby grants recognition to BACL as an NRTL, subject to these limitations and conditions specified above.
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Claim for Compensation (CA-7); Authorization for Examination and/or Treatment (CA-16); Duty Status Report (CA-17); Attending Physician's Report (CA-20); Request for the Services of an Attendant (CA-1090); Referral to a Medical Specialist (CA-1305); OWCP Requirements for Audiological Examination (CA-1087); Referral for a Complete Audiologic and Otologic Examination (CA-1331); Outline for Audiologic Examination (CA-1332); Work Capacity Evaluation, Psychiatric/Psychological Conditions (OWCP-5a); Work Capacity Evaluation, Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Conditions (OWCP-5b); and Work Capacity Evaluation, Musculoskeletal Conditions (OWCP-5c). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 5, 2017.
Ms Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor seeks a revision in order to carry out its statutory responsibility to compensate injured employees under the provisions of the Act.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection for the Evaluation of the Poetry Out Loud Program (POL). A copy of the current information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Submit comments on or before June 5, 2017.
Send comments to: Sunil Iyengar, National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506-0001, telephone (202) 682-5424 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 682-5677, or send via email to
The NEA is particularly interested in comments which:
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests recommendations for membership on its scientific and technical Federal advisory committees. Recommendations should consist of the name of the submitting individual, the organization or the affiliation providing the member nomination, the name of the recommended individual, the recommended individual's curriculum vita, an expression of the individual's interest in serving, and the following recommended individual's contact information: employment address, telephone number, FAX number, and email address. Self-recommendations are accepted. If you would like to make a membership recommendation for any of the NSF scientific and technical Federal advisory committees, please send your recommendation to the appropriate committee contact person listed in the chart below.
The mailing address for the National Science Foundation is 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
Web links to individual committee information may be found on the NSF Web site: NSF Advisory Committees.
Each Directorate and Office has an external advisory committee that typically meets twice a year to review and provide advice on program management; discuss
A primary consideration when formulating committee membership is recognized knowledge, expertise, or demonstrated ability.
The chart below is a listing of the committees seeking recommendations for membership. Recommendations should be sent to the contact person identified below. The chart contains web addresses where additional information about individual committees is available.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-56, held by the University of Florida (UF or the licensee) for the continued operation of its University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR or the reactor) for an additional 20 years from the date of issuance.
The renewed facility operating license No. R-56 is effective on March 31, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0295 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Duane A. Hardesty, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3724; email:
The NRC has issued renewed Facility Operating License No. R-56, held by the licensee, which authorizes continued operation of the UFTR, located in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The UFTR is an Argonaut-type graphite-moderated and reflected light water cooled research reactor licensed to operate at a steady-state power level of 100 kilowatts thermal power. The renewed Facility Operating License No. R-56 will expire 20 years from its date of issuance.
The renewed facility operating license complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in chapter I, of title 10 of the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-56 and concluded, based on that evaluation, that the licensee can continue to operate the facility without endangering the health and safety of the public. The NRC also prepared an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for the renewal of the facility operating license, noticed in the
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS accession numbers, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites the public to comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Safeguards on Nuclear Material—Implementation of United States/International Atomic Energy Agency Agreement (US/IAEA).”
Please submit comments by June 5, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit your comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0249 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0249 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intention to request extension of OMB approval of information collections.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of collections of information in PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collections of information.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 5, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments received, including personal information provided, will be posted to
Hilary Duke (
OMB has approved and issued control numbers for seven collections of information in PBGC's regulations relating to multiemployer plans. These collections of information are described below. OMB approvals for these collections of information expire June 30, 2017. PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval of these collections of information for three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments should identify the specific part number(s) of the regulation(s) they relate to.
Sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of ERISA allow PBGC to permit a multiemployer plan to adopt special rules for determining whether a withdrawal from the plan has occurred, subject to PBGC approval.
The regulation specifies the information that a plan that adopts special rules must submit to PBGC about the rules, the plan, and the industry in which the plan operates. PBGC uses the information to determine whether the rules are appropriate for the industry in which the plan functions and do not pose a significant risk to the insurance system.
PBGC estimates that at most one plan sponsor submits a request each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is two hours and $5,000.
If an employer's covered operations or contribution obligation under a plan ceases, the employer must generally pay withdrawal liability to the plan. Section 4204 of ERISA provides an exception, under certain conditions, where the cessation results from a sale of assets. Among other things, the buyer must furnish a bond or escrow, and the sale contract must provide for secondary liability of the seller.
The regulation establishes general variances (rules for avoiding the bond/escrow and sale-contract requirements) and authorizes plans to determine whether the variances apply in particular cases. It also allows buyers and sellers to request individual variances from PBGC. Plans and PBGC use the information to determine whether employers qualify for variances.
PBGC estimates that each year, 100 employers submit, and 100 plans respond to, variance requests under the regulation, and one employer submits a variance request to PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 1,050 hours and $501,000.
Section 4207 of ERISA allows PBGC to provide for abatement of an employer's complete withdrawal liability, and for plan adoption of alternative abatement rules, where appropriate.
Under the regulation, an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must so notify the bonding or escrow agent.
The regulation also permits plans to adopt their own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved.
PBGC estimates that each year, at most one employer submits, and one plan responds to, an application for abatement of complete withdrawal liability, and no plan sponsors request approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.5 hours and $400.
Section 4208 of ERISA provides for abatement, in certain circumstances, of an employer's partial withdrawal liability and authorizes PBGC to issue additional partial withdrawal liability abatement rules.
Under the regulation, an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must so notify the bonding or escrow agent.
The regulation also permits plans to adopt their own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved.
PBGC estimates that each year, at most one employer submits, and one plan responds to, an application for abatement of partial withdrawal liability and no plan sponsors request approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.50 hours and $400.
Section 4211(c)(5)(A) of ERISA requires PBGC to prescribe how plans can, with PBGC approval, change the way they allocate unfunded vested benefits to withdrawing employers for purposes of calculating withdrawal liability.
The regulation prescribes the information that must be submitted to PBGC by a plan seeking such approval. PBGC uses the information to determine how the amendment changes the way the plan allocates unfunded vested benefits and how it will affect the risk of loss to plan participants and PBGC.
PBGC estimates that 10 plan sponsors submit approval requests each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 100 hours and $100,000.
Section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA requires that PBGC prescribe regulations for the allocation of a plan's total unfunded vested benefits in the event of a “mass withdrawal.” ERISA section 4209(c) deals with an employer's liability for de minimis amounts if the employer withdraws in a “substantial withdrawal.”
The reporting requirements in the regulation give employers notice of a mass withdrawal or substantial withdrawal and advise them of their rights and liabilities. They also provide notice to PBGC so that it can monitor the plan, and they help PBGC assess the possible impact of a withdrawal event on participants and the multiemployer plan insurance program.
PBGC estimates that there are six mass withdrawals and three substantial withdrawals per year. The plan sponsor of a plan subject to a withdrawal covered by the regulation provides notices of the withdrawal to PBGC and to employers covered by the plan, liability assessments to the employers, and a certification to PBGC that assessments have been made. (For a mass withdrawal, there are two assessments and two certifications that deal with two different types of liability. For a substantial withdrawal, there is one assessment and one certification (combined with the withdrawal notice to PBGC).) The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 45 hours and $132,000.
Under section 4220 of ERISA, a plan may within certain limits adopt special plan rules regarding when a withdrawal from the plan occurs and how the withdrawing employer's withdrawal liability is determined. Any such special rule is effective only if, within 90 days after receiving notice and a copy of the rule, PBGC either approves or fails to disapprove the rule.
The regulation provides rules for requesting PBGC's approval of an amendment. PBGC needs the required information to identify the plan, evaluate the risk of loss, if any, posed by the plan amendment, and determine whether to approve or disapprove the amendment.
PBGC estimates that at most one plan sponsor submits an approval request per year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standards for Acquisition Companies (“ACs”) to modify the initial and continued distribution requirements. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its initial and continued distribution requirements for Acquisition Companies (or “ACs”) listed under Section 102.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”).
An AC (typically known in the marketplace as a special purpose acquisition company or “SPAC”) is a special purpose company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more operating businesses or assets. The securities sold by the AC in its initial public offering are typically units, consisting of one share of common stock and one or more warrants (or a fraction of a warrant) to purchase common stock, that are separable at some point after the IPO. Management generally is granted a percentage of the AC's equity and may be required to purchase additional shares in a private placement at the time of the AC's IPO.
Section 102.06 requires that an AC meet the distribution requirements of Section 102.01A at the time of initial listing. Under Section 102.01A, companies listing in connection with their IPO must have 400 holders of round lots (
(i) 400 round lot holders;
(ii) 2,200 total stockholders together with average monthly trading volume of 100,000 shares (for the most recent six months); or
(iii) 500 total stockholders together with average monthly trading volume of one million shares (for the most recent twelve months).
The Exchange proposes to modify the distribution requirements for ACs. As proposed, the distribution requirements for ACs would be included in Section 102.06 rather than incorporated by reference to Section 102.01A. Under the proposed amendment, ACs would have to have at least 300 round lot holders when listing in conjunction with an IPO (rather than 400 round lot holders as is the case currently). ACs transferring from other exchanges or listing in connection with a quotation listing would be allowed to list on the basis of 1.1 million publicly held shares and 300 round lot holders (rather than 400 round lot holders as is the case currently). The Exchange is proposing to move to Section 102.06, but not alter, the other distribution criteria for transfers and quotation listings.
In addition, the Exchange is proposing to make minor clarifying revisions to Section 102.06. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to move a sentence detailing the minimum price per share for an AC at the time of initial listing from the end of a paragraph to the beginning of the same paragraph. Further, the Exchange proposes to delete an incorrect reference to footnote (A) after the aggregate market value requirement because footnote (A) only refers to the publicly-held shares requirement.
Consistent with these changes to the initial listing requirements, the Exchange proposes to amend the continued listing standards applicable to ACs set forth in Section 802.01B of the Manual. Under Section 802.01B, ACs are currently deemed to be below continued listing standards if: (i) Their total number of stockholders is less than 400; (ii) the number of total stockholders is less than 1,200 and the average monthly trading volume is less than 100,000 shares (for the most recent 12 months); or (iii) the number of publicly-held shares is less than 600,000. Consistent with the proposed amendments to the initial listing standards, the Exchange proposes to provide that ACs will be deemed to be below continued listing standards if they have fewer than 300 total stockholders (rather than the 400 total stockholders currently required).
The Exchange believes that the proposed modification in the distribution requirements for ACs is appropriate because of the unique characteristics of the Acquisition Company structure. Specifically, pending the completion of a business combination, each share of an AC represents a right to a
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment does not affect the status of NYSE listed securities under Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1(a) (the “Penny Stock Rule”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to its distribution requirements for ACs are consistent with the protection of investors because AC shares typically have a trading price very close to their liquidation value. The Exchange's distribution standards are important because the existence a significant number of holders can be an indicia of a liquid trading market, which supports an appropriate level of price discovery. As AC shares typically trade close to their liquidation value, price discovery is less important than it is with operating companies and therefore there
While the proposed amended distribution requirements for the listing of ACs would be lower than those for other listing applicants, the Exchange does not believe that this difference is unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes this to be the case because market value-based listing standards are largely adopted to ensure adequate trading liquidity and, consequently, efficient market pricing of a company's securities. As an investment in an AC prior to its business combination represents a right to a
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to enable the Exchange to better compete with Nasdaq Capital Market by adopting distribution requirements that a greater number of ACs will be able to meet at the time of their IPOs. As such, it is intended to promote competition for the listing of ACs.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is extending certain exemptions previously granted in connection with requirements applicable to security-based swap data repositories (“SDR”).
The Commission adopted Rules 13n-1 to 13n-12 (the “SDR Rules”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) on February 15, 2015, with a compliance date of March 18, 2016.
To provide the SDR Applicants additional time to file their amended applications, and for the Commission to review and consider any such amended applications, the Commission is extending the temporary exemption from compliance with the SDR Rules
The SDR Rules Release states that SDRs were required to be in compliance with the SDR Rules by March 18, 2016.
ICE Trade Vault filed with the Commission a Form SDR seeking registration as an SDR on March 29, 2016, and amended that form on April 18, 2016. The Commission's notice of ICE Trade Vault's application for registration as an SDR was published in the
DDR filed with the Commission a Form SDR seeking registration as an SDR on April 6, 2016 and amended that form on April 25, 2016. The Commission's notice of DDR's application for registration as an SDR was published in the
The SDR Applicants each have indicated to Commission staff that they intend to file amendments to the Pending SDR Applications. These amendments would provide revised information about the manner in which DDR and ICE Trade Vault propose to operate as SDRs.
The Commission urges the SDR Applicants to finalize and file expeditiously any amendments to the Pending SDR Applications by May 1, 2017, in which case the exemption and the SDR Relief will extend to September 29, 2017.
Subject to certain exceptions, Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission, by rule, regulation, or order, to exempt, either conditionally or unconditionally, any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act, a temporary exemption from compliance with the SDR Rules and an extension of the SDR Relief until the later of (i) May 1, 2017 or (ii) for any SDR Applicant that files with the Commission prior to May 1, 2017 amendments to its Pending SDR Application, September 29, 2017.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 8c-1 generally prohibits a broker-dealer from using its customers' securities as collateral to finance its own trading, speculating, or underwriting transactions. More specifically, Rule 8c-1 states three main principles: (1) A broker-dealer is prohibited from commingling the securities of different customers as collateral for a loan without the consent of each customer; (2) a broker-dealer cannot commingle customers' securities with its own securities under the same pledge; and (3) a broker-dealer can only pledge its customers' securities to the extent that customers are in debt to the broker-dealer.
The information required by Rule 8c-1 is necessary for the execution of the Commission's mandate under the Exchange Act to prevent broker-dealers from hypothecating or arranging for the hypothecation of any securities carried for the account of any customer under certain circumstances. In addition, the information required by Rule 8c-1 provides important investor protections.
There are approximately 60 respondents as of year-end 2015 (
The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement under Rule 8c-1 is three years. The recordkeeping requirement under Rule 8c-1 is mandatory to ensure that broker-dealers do not commingle their securities or use them to finance the broker-dealers' proprietary business. This rule does not involve the collection of confidential or personal identifiable information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Social Security Administration.
Notice of rescission; correction.
The Social Security Administration published a notice of rescission in the
Joshua Silverman, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 594-2128. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number 1-800-772, 1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
In the
Department of State.
Solicitation of applications.
The Department of State announces a request for statements of interest (RSI) from qualified entities interested in seeking the Department's designation as an Accrediting Entity (AE) to accredit and approve U.S. agencies and persons that seek to provide adoption services in intercountry adoption cases. The RSI is posted on the Web site of the Office of Children's Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department State at
The RSI will be open from March 31, 2017 through June 1, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. EDT. Extended time to submit a statement of interest may be considered upon request to the Department.
Consult the RSI posted on
Questions may be submitted to
The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-279; 114 Stat. 825; 42 U.S.C. 14901
This opportunity is extended to nonprofit organizations with expertise in developing and administering standards for entities providing child welfare services and to U.S. State or local government public entities with such expertise and responsibility for licensing adoption agencies, per 22 CFR 96.5. If selected, a State or local government public entity may only accredit/approve agencies and persons within the public entity's State. Federal government entities are not eligible to apply. Newly established nonprofit organizations may apply provided they have IRS Code 501(c)(3) status and can demonstrate that they have the required expertise, as discussed in 22 CFR 96.5
Under 22 CFR 96.4
Department of State.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) announces the availability of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) on the master plan for the long-term development of a Foreign Missions Center, under authorities of the Foreign Missions Act of 1982, on the site of the former Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in the District of Columbia. Actions evaluated in the master plan consist of assignment of federal land to foreign missions for the purpose of constructing and operating new chancery facilities. DOS has prepared this SDEIS on the alternatives considered for the master plan, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1500), and DOS regulations for implementing NEPA (22 CFR part 161).
The master plan is intended to guide the development of a cohesive campus by establishing design and land-use planning principles for the construction of new buildings, roadways, open green space, and utilities, while minimizing environmental impacts. The SDEIS analyzes the potential impacts associated with a no action alternative and an action alternative that could potentially satisfy the purpose and need defined in the SDEIS and master plan.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was previously circulated publicly in February 2014. Subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, the total acreage of the land available for transfer from the Army to DOS was reduced from 43.5 to 31.7 acres through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. Because of the change in the proposed action, DOS has prepared an SDEIS to describe the new preferred alternative, and evaluate any change in potential impacts from the reduction in size of the proposed action.
In addition, the DOS is carrying out the Section 106 review process under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, through which it consults with interested parties on the potential effect of the proposed undertaking on identified historic properties.
This notice announces the opening of the public comment process the DOS will use to gather input from the public on the proposed project. Please note that the public comment period will close on May 18, 2017.
Requests for information on the SDEIS should be directed to Geoffrey Hunt, Department of State, A/OPR/RPM, Room 1264, 2201 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20520-1264.
A “chancery” is the principal offices of a foreign mission used for diplomatic or related purposes, and annexes to such offices (including ancillary offices and support facilities), and includes the site and any buildings on the site which are used for such purposes. A “foreign mission” is any mission to or agency or entity in the United States which is involved in diplomatic, consular or other activities of, or which is substantially owned or effectively controlled by, a foreign government; or an organization representing a territory or political entity which has been granted diplomatic or other official privileges and immunities under the laws of the United States or which engages in some aspect of the conduct of international affairs of such territory or political entity, including any real property of such a mission and the personnel of such a mission.
The need for the project is based on increased and high demand for foreign mission facilities in the District of Columbia, a lack of large sites for foreign mission development or redevelopment in the District of Columbia, and the need for land to use in property exchanges with other countries. The proposed foreign missions center is needed to primarily address the increasing scarcity of suitable properties within the District of Columbia to locate the operations of foreign missions. This scarcity has impacted, in certain cases, the DOS's ability to acquire properties of considerable size in foreign capitals nations.
The DOS identified, developed, and analyzed the No Action Alternative and seven action alternatives that could potentially satisfy the proposed action's purpose and need. One action alternative, Alternative 1, and the No Action Alternative, were retained for detailed study in the DEIS. Alternative 1 was dismissed from detailed study within the SDEIS because it is no longer viable given the change in total acreage
Alternative 7 would provide up to 15 lots for chancery development, retain the historic Memorial Chapel building for adaptive reuse, and potentially retain other buildings for adaptive reuse, depending on marketability. Dahlia Street and 14th Street would be developed as connections to the surrounding neighborhoods. The existing historic perimeter fence along 16th Street and Alaska Avenue would remain. The existing landscape on the western boundary of the site would be enhanced to create a 50-foot vegetated buffer, maximizing the tree canopy in that area. Access to individual lots would be internal to the former WRAMC campus.
The No Action Alternative was included to provide a basis for comparison to the action alternative described above as required by the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1002.14(d)).
After careful consideration of the alternatives developed in response to the study's purpose and needs and in coordination with jurisdictional and interested agencies, DOS has identified Alternative 7 as its Preferred Action Alternative because it best satisfies the study purpose and needs, would fulfill their statutory mission and responsibilities, and has the least adverse environmental impact.
You are encouraged to become involved in this process and provide your comments or concerns about the proposed project. The public comment period provides the public with an opportunity to present comments regarding the content and findings of the SDEIS for the Foreign Missions Center at the former Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The SDEIS is available to the public at the Web site:
DOS invites individuals, organizations and agencies to submit comments. DOS requests comments on the SDEIS that focus on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, reasonable alternatives, and measures to further avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The public comment period starts with the publication of this notice in the
Geoffrey Hunt by email at
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Department of State gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This Committee will meet on Monday April 24, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the American Institute of Architects, Board Room, 1735 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006.
Any member of the public interested in providing input to the meeting should contact Ms. Shereece Robinson, whose contact information is listed below (see the “for further information” section of this notice). Each individual providing oral input is requested to limit his or her comments to five minutes. Requests to be added to the speakers list must be received in writing (letter or email) prior to the close of business on Monday April 17, 2017; written comments from members of the public for distribution at this meeting must reach Ms. Robinson by letter or email on this same date. A member of the public requesting reasonable accommodation should also make his/her request to Ms. Robinson by April 17. Requests received after that date will be considered but might not be able to be fulfilled.
The agenda of the meeting will include: Universal Postal Union Congress outcomes, goals for the current Universal Postal Union Congress cycle, and United States policy on Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange (ETOEs).
For further information please contact Ms. Shereece Robinson of the Office of Specialized and Technical Agencies (IO/STA), Bureau of International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at tel. (202) 663-2649, by email at
Department of State.
Notice.
Delegates from the United States and Mexican governments, the states of California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, and the Mexican states of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas will participate in a plenary meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 in Washington, DC. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss operational matters involving existing and proposed international bridges and border crossings and their related infrastructure and to exchange technical information as well as views on policy. This meeting will include a public session on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. This session will allow proponents of proposed bridges and border crossings and related projects to make presentations to the delegations and members of the public.
For further information on the meeting and to attend the public session, please contact the Office of Mexican Affairs' Border Affairs Unit via email at
Notice and request for comments.
Surface Transportation Board.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an extension of approval for the collection of Demurrage Liability Disclosure Requirements.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by June 5, 2017.
Direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
For further information regarding this collection, contact Michael Higgins, Deputy Director, Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0284 or at
Comments are requested concerning: (1) The accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate; and (4) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility. Submitted comments will be summarized and included in the Board's request for OMB approval.
A railroad and its customers may enter into demurrage contracts without providing notice, but, in the absence of such contracts, demurrage will be governed by the railroad's demurrage tariff. Under 49 CFR 1333.3, a railroad's ability to charge demurrage pursuant to its tariff is conditional on its having given, prior to rail car placement, actual notice of the demurrage tariff to the person receiving rail cars for loading and unloading. Once a shipper receives a notice as to a particular tariff, additional notices are only required when the tariff changes materially. The parties use the information in these disclosure requirements to avoid demurrage disputes, and the Board uses the information to resolve demurrage disputes that come before the agency.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), federal agencies are required to provide, prior to an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 60-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before April 26, 2017.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0236 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA charter renewal.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the renewal of the RTCA Charter (FAA Order 1110.77W) for 6 months, effective April 1, 2017. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is authorized to establish the RTCA advisory committee in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The current charter agreement requires that the RTCA manage various Federal subcommittees on behalf of the agency.
The objective of the advisory committee is to seek resolution of issues and challenges involving air transportation concepts, requirements, operational capabilities, the associated use of technology, and related considerations to aeronautical operations that affect the future of the Air Traffic Management System and the integration of new technologies.
Andy Cebula at
The Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public and announced in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Announcement of advisory committee public meeting.
FMCSA announces a meeting of its Post-Accident Reporting (PAR) Advisory Committee on Monday, April 24, 2017, at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Workshop in Atlanta, GA. Under section 5306 of the FAST Act, the PAR was charged with reviewing post-accident reports and made recommendations on the data elements required by the reports and modifications that may improve their use through the addition of data elements at its meeting in December 2016. At this meeting, the PAR will provide suggestions concerning the implementation of its recommendations to the FMCSA Administrator. The meeting is open to the public for its entirety.
The meeting will be held on Monday, April 24, 2017, from 1:30-5 p.m., Eastern Time (E.T.), at the Hyatt Regency Atlanta, 265 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30303. Copies of the task statement and an agenda for the entire meeting will be made available in advance of the meeting at
Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy Advisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-5221.
The Department established the PAR Advisory Committee as a discretionary committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App 2) on October 13, 2016, making it effective through October 13, 2018. The PAR Committee met in December 2016 and provided advice and recommendations
Oral comments from the public will be heard throughout the meeting, at the discretion of the PAR chairman. Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by Wednesday, April 12, to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2016-0412 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of agency action.
On November 7, 2016, PHMSA published a notice and request for comments in the
Roger Little by telephone at 202-366-4569, by fax at 202-366-4566, by email at
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA) (Pub. L. 99-272, sec. 7005), codified in part at section 60301 of title 49, United States Code, authorizes the assessment and collection of user fees to fund the pipeline safety activities conducted under chapter 601 of title 49. On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-183) (PIPES Act of 2016). Section 12 of the PIPES Act of 2016 mandates that PHMSA issue regulations for underground natural gas storage facilities, authorizes user fees on operators of these facilities, and directs PHMSA to prescribe procedures to collect those fees upon appropriation. Section 2 of the PIPES Act of 2016 authorizes $8 million per year to be appropriated from those fees for each of FY 2017-2019 for the newly established Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility Safety Account in the Pipeline Safety Fund. Accordingly, if Congress appropriates funds to this account for FY 2017 and beyond, PHMSA will collect user fees from the operators of the facilities.
The November 2016 Notice advised all underground natural gas storage facility operators of a proposed PHMSA pipeline user fee assessment and rate structure. 81 FR 78261. During the two-month response period, PHMSA received comments on the proposed underground natural gas storage user-fee billing methodology from nine commenters: David Reitz; the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association; ENSTOR Operating Company; Consumers Energy; Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska; Atmos Energy Corporation; Pacific Gas and Electric Company; the Texas Pipeline Association; and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). The comments may be found at
As discussed above in the comment responses, in the absence of available, reliable data for another suitable metric, PHMSA's only viable option for an equitable allocation of fees among facility operators in the first year is working-gas capacity. Accordingly, for FY 2017 billing, PHMSA will use working-gas capacity as the basis for the user-fee rate structure. PHMSA will use the working-gas capacity values from the most recent Form EIA-191 Monthly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report. PHMSA will sum the working-gas capacity for all fields operated by the holder of a PHMSA-issued operator identification number. For fields where PHMSA is unable to determine the operator identification number, working-gas capacities will be summed based on the company name in the Form EIA-191 data. If a company receives a bill that it believes to be in error in some way, it should contact PHMSA for further information, using the Web site
The operator working-gas capacity values will be divided into 10 tiers. The lowest values will be in tier 1 and the highest values in tier 10. The minimum and maximum working-gas capacities for each tier will be selected to place an equal number of operators in each tier. Each tier will have a user-fee assessment to be paid by each operator in the tier.
In the November 2016 Notice, PHMSA used Form EIA-191 annual data from 2015 to determine the published assessment per tier and tier ranges. Based on Form EIA-191 monthly data available through the EIA's Natural Gas Annual Respondent Query System,
PHMSA placed a spreadsheet in the docket showing the EIA company names in each tier, as well as the methodology used to determine the assessment per tier and tier ranges. If Congress appropriates less than $8 million to the Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility Safety Account, PHMSA will proportionally reduce the assessment for each tier to collect the appropriated amount. Regardless of the appropriated amount, PHMSA expects that approximately 25% will fund PHMSA actions and 75% will fund grants to certified state agencies.
Finally, in the November 2016 Notice, we expressed an intent to assess user fees on operators of active fields on the
This approach is also consistent with PHMSA's exercise of regulatory jurisdiction over pipelines and with its assessment of user fees on such pipelines. In an Advisory Bulletin published on August 16, 2016, titled: “Clarifications of Terms Relating to Pipeline Operational Status,” PHMSA emphasized that idle pipelines are subject to the same regulatory requirements as active pipelines. 81 FR 54512. This same regulatory approach applies to underground natural gas storage fields. Because inactive fields could be restored to service, PHMSA will exercise regulatory authority over inactive fields. Accordingly, PHMSA will bill both inactive and active fields appearing in the Form EIA-191 data.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to seek public comment on a request for special permit, seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by May 8, 2017.
Comments should reference the docket number for the specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
PHMSA has received a special permit request from the City of Bangor, Maine to deviate from the pipeline safety regulations to pressure test a single segment of its pipeline with Jet-A fuel (kerosene), rather than water as the medium, during the performance of a Subpart E pressure test. A Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) accompanies the special permit request. The DEA is available at
Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment we receive in making our decision to grant or deny a request.
The City of Bangor operates its less than one-mile-long pipeline from terminal tankage to the Bangor International Airport. The pipeline is located in an industrial area of the City, offsite of the Bangor International Airport in Penobscot County, Maine.
The City requests this special permit for safety concerns of private, commercial and military aircraft that refuel at the Bangor International Airport. Due to the stringent quality control requirements for fuel established for military and commercial aircraft, any contaminants introduced during a test with water, including the water itself, could endanger commercial and private aircraft, as well as the many military missions originating from the airport.
Testing the pipeline with water would force the City to cease fueling operations for an estimated 48 to72 hours. The City and the Maine Air Natural Guard operate under a Federal Joint Use Agreement, which stipulates that the airport must remain open and available twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, to support strategic military missions. This is the only pipeline that supplies fuel to the airport. Shutting down the airport would put the City in breach of contract with the military.
The maximum allowable operating pressure of this pipeline ranges from 150 to 182 psi, and no leaks have been found in the past 11 years of pressure testing.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 31, 2017, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons and entities whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) or Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers”. Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of one person currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on March 31, 2017.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site at
On March 31, 2017, OFAC removed from the SDN List the persons listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act or Executive Order 12978.
1. CASTRO DE SANTACRUZ, Amparo, c/o INMOBILIARIA SAMARIA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o SAMARIA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES SANTA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o COMERCIALIZACION Y FINANCIACION DE AUTOMOTORES S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES INTEGRAL LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o MIRALUNA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o URBANIZACIONES Y CONSTRUCCIONES LTDA., DE CALI, Cali, Colombia; DOB 13 Jan 1948; alt. DOB 13 Jan 1946; alt. DOB 14 Apr 1959; Cedula No. 38983611 (Colombia); Passport PE027370 (Colombia); alt. Passport AA429676 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
2. CONTRERAS SANCHEZ, Diego; DOB 19 Apr 1985; POB Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. COSD850419T13 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. COSD850419HJCNNG02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: RESTAURANT BAR LOS ANDARIEGOS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: BOCADOS DE AUTOR, S.A. DE C.V.).
3. CONTRERAS SANCHEZ, Maria Aurora, Av. Hidalgo No. 2433, Colonia Vallarta Norte, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; 3888 Paseo de los Parques, Colonia Colinas de San Javier, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 25 Oct 1979; POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. COSA791025645 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: INMOBILIARIA CORSANCH, S.A. DE C.V.).
4. DELAROSA RAMOS, Jibran (a.k.a. DE LA ROSA RAMOS, Jibran); DOB 10 Mar 1984; POB Juan Galindo, Mexico; Passport G01255779 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: NETLLUX MOVIL S.A. DE C.V.).
5. GALLEGO SOSSA, Rosa Esperanza, Calle 24AN No. 42BN-61, Cali, Colombia; c/o CONCRETOS CALI S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA DIMISA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; DOB 01 May 1963; Cedula No. 43059188 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
6. GIL GARZON, Marco Antonio, c/o CONSTRUCTORA AMERICA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 25 May 1947; POB Toca, Boyaca, Colombia; Cedula No. 17176949 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
7. GRAJALES LEMOS, Aida Salome, Calle 14 No. 13-03, La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o AGRONILO S.A., Toro, Valle, Colombia; c/o ALMACAES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o CRETA S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o CASA GRAJALES S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o GAD S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o GRAJALES S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o HOTEL LOS VINEDOS, La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o MACEDONIA LTDA., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o RAMAL S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o SALIM S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o FRUTAS DE LA COSTA S.A., Malambo, Atlantico, Colombia; c/o TARRITOS S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o FUNDACION CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION HORTIFRUTICOLA DE COLOMBIA, La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o JEHOVA LTDA., Tulua, Valle, Colombia; DOB 13 Dec 1970; POB La Union, Valle, Colombia; Cedula No. 39789871 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
8. POSSO DE GRAJALES, Elba Myriam, c/o CASA GRAJALES S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o FREXCO S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o GRAJALES S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o IBADAN LTDA., Tulua, Valle, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES AGUILA LTDA., La Union, Valle, Colombia; Cedula No. 29611241 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
9. QUINTANA FUERTES, Andres Fernando; DOB 03 Jul 1966; POB Candelaria, Valle, Colombia; nationality Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 16989000 (Colombia); Passport AI375038 (Colombia); alt. Passport 16989000 (Colombia) expires 13 Dec 2000 (individual) [SDNT] (Linked To: TARRITOS S.A.).
10. ROSALES MORFIN, Eva Luz, 3888 Calle Paseo de los Parques, La Colonia Colinas de San Javier, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 11 Apr 1968; POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Passport G01626402 (Mexico); R.F.C. ROME6804111R9 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: INMOBILIARIA CORSANCH, S.A. DE C.V.).
11. SANTACRUZ CASTRO, Ana Milena, c/o SOCIEDAD CONSTRUCTORA LA CASCADA S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o COMERCIALIZACION Y FINANCIACION DE AUTOMOTORES S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES INTEGRAL LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o MIRALUNA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o URBANIZACIONES Y CONSTRUCCIONES LTDA., DE CALI, Cali, Colombia; DOB 31 Mar 1965; Cedula No. 31929808 (Colombia); Passport 31929808 (Colombia); alt. Passport AB151189 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
1. COMERCIALIZACION Y FINANCIACION DE AUTOMOTORES S.A. (a.k.a. COMFIAUTOS S.A.), Carrera 4 No. 11-33 of. 303, Cali, Colombia; Avenida 2N No. 7N-55 of. 609, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 800086115-1 (Colombia) [SDNT].
2. INVERSIONES INTEGRAL LTDA., Carrera 4 No. 12-41 of. 1403, 1501 Edificio Seguros Bolivar, Cali, Colombia; Apartado Aereo 10077, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 800092770-9 (Colombia) [SDNT].
3. LE MALL-SAIDA (a.k.a. LE MALL SAIDA), Saida, Al Janub, Lebanon [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
4. MIRALUNA LTDA. (f.k.a. EL PASO LTDA.), Carrera 4 No. 12-41 of. 1403, 1501, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 890328836-9 (Colombia) [SDNT].
5. NEGOCIOS LOS SAUCES LTDA. Y CIA. S.C.S. (f.k.a. INMOBILIARIA SAMARIA LTDA.), Calle 13A 64-50 F102, Cali, Colombia; Carrera 4 12-41 of. 1501, Edificio Seguros Bolivar, Cali, Colombia; Calle 13 3-32 piso 13, Cali, Colombia; Calle 18, No. 106-96 of. 201/202, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 890937859-0 (Colombia) [SDNT].
6. NEGOCIOS LOS SAUCES LTDA., Carrera 4 No. 4-21 of. 1501, Edificio Seguros Bolivar, Cali, Colombia; Apartado Aereo 10077, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 890328835-1 (Colombia) [SDNT].
7. NETLLUX MOVIL S.A. DE C.V., Boulevard Hermanos Serdan No. 45 Penthouse, Colonia Amor, Puebla CP. 72140, Mexico [SDNTK].
8. URBANIZACIONES Y CONSTRUCCIONES LTDA. DE CALI (f.k.a. URBANIZACIONES Y CONSTRUCCIONES LTDA.), Carrera 4 No. 12-41 of. 1403, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 890306569-2 (Colombia) [SDNT].
Additionally, on March 31, 2017, OFAC updated the SDN listing for the person listed below, whose property and interests in property continue to be blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou (a.k.a. ABOU MERHI, Merhi; a.k.a. MERHI, Merhi Abou); DOB 05 Jul 1964; POB Hilalie, Lebanon;
MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou (a.k.a. ABOU MERHI, Merhi; a.k.a. MERHI, Merhi Abou); DOB 05 Jul 1964; POB Hilalie, Lebanon; citizen Lebanon; Passport RL0575682 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI CRUISES SAL; Linked To: QUEEN STATIONS; Linked To: ORIENT QUEEN HOMES; Linked To: ABOU MERHI COTONOU; Linked To: ABOU MERHI NIGERIA; Linked To: ABOU MERHI HAMBURG; Linked To: LEBANON CENTER; Linked To: ABOU MERHI CHARITY INSTITUTION).
| 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 |