Page Range | 18687-18839 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 18837 - Buy American and Hire American | |
82 FR 18763 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Board Member Meeting | |
82 FR 18831 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce Benefits | |
82 FR 18770 - Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects | |
82 FR 18746 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 18807 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “World on the Horizon: Swahili Arts Across the Indian Ocean” Exhibition | |
82 FR 18776 - Change of Time to Government in the Sunshine Meeting | |
82 FR 18825 - Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
82 FR 18728 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 18759 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 18832 - Notice of Open Public Hearing | |
82 FR 18724 - Great Lakes-Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones | |
82 FR 18770 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Compliance Inspection Report and Mortgagee's Assurance of Completion | |
82 FR 18832 - National Research Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 18737 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
82 FR 18738 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
82 FR 18739 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 18696 - Safety Zone; Navy UNDET, Apra Outer Harbor and Piti, GU | |
82 FR 18746 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
82 FR 18768 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evaluation of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program, Phase II | |
82 FR 18766 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Mortgage Insurance for Cooperative and Condominium Housing | |
82 FR 18767 - 30 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Survey of Market Absorption of New Multifamily Units | |
82 FR 18783 - Nextera Energy Seabrook LLC; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board | |
82 FR 18747 - Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities-Stepping-Up Technology Implementation | |
82 FR 18698 - Update to Product Lists | |
82 FR 18704 - International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 2017 and 2018 Commercial Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean | |
82 FR 18716 - Pacific Island Fisheries; 2016 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures | |
82 FR 18781 - In the Matter of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 | |
82 FR 18743 - Information Collection To Be Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval Under the Paperwork Reduction Act; Initial Certification | |
82 FR 18742 - Procurement List; Additions and Deletions | |
82 FR 18741 - Procurement List; Proposed Deletion | |
82 FR 18759 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
82 FR 18822 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 18780 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 18781 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 18809 - Notice of Availability of Categorical Exclusion and Record of Decision (CATEX/ROD) for EWR RNAV (GPS) X Runway 29 Procedure | |
82 FR 18744 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0070, Real-Time Public Reporting and Block Trade | |
82 FR 18687 - Policy on Ex Parte Presentations in Rulemaking Proceedings | |
82 FR 18746 - Nassau Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study-NEPA Scoping Meetings and Public Comment Period | |
82 FR 18824 - Notice of Request for Applications for Appointment to the National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council | |
82 FR 18779 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Radiation Sampling and Exposure Records | |
82 FR 18820 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S) | |
82 FR 18807 - Projects Approved for Minor Modifications | |
82 FR 18809 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
82 FR 18808 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
82 FR 18758 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 18758 - Renewable Energy Systems Americas and Invenergy Storage Development LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint | |
82 FR 18758 - DATC Path 15, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
82 FR 18732 - Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Meeting | |
82 FR 18807 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name | |
82 FR 18736 - Impact of Long Term Evolution Signals on Global Positioning System Receivers | |
82 FR 18818 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
82 FR 18812 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
82 FR 18805 - Small Business Size Standards: Termination of Nonmanufacturer Rule Class Waiver | |
82 FR 18810 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Renewal for the Flatbed Carrier Safety Group | |
82 FR 18826 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements | |
82 FR 18729 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 18759 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 18765 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans, and Enlistees | |
82 FR 18765 - Opioid State Targeted Response Grants | |
82 FR 18780 - Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations: Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 18763 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Focus Groups as Used by the Food and Drug Administration (All Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Products) | |
82 FR 18776 - Sulfanilic Acid From China and India | |
82 FR 18798 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Rule 7018 | |
82 FR 18795 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Pricing Schedule | |
82 FR 18790 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
82 FR 18797 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
82 FR 18802 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MDX Fees Schedule | |
82 FR 18792 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule | |
82 FR 18800 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Shorten the Standard Settlement Cycle From Three Business Days After the Trade Date to Two Business Days After the Trade Date | |
82 FR 18784 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Customer Rebates and Pricing for Multiply Listed Options | |
82 FR 18784 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 7017 | |
82 FR 18763 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
82 FR 18762 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
82 FR 18765 - Delegation of Authority to the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use | |
82 FR 18740 - Recruitment of First Responder Network Authority Board Members | |
82 FR 18765 - Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Debts | |
82 FR 18828 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities | |
82 FR 18783 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 18784 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 18783 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 18806 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
82 FR 18783 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 18783 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 18696 - Special Local Regulations; Conch Republic Navy Parade and Battle, Key West, FL | |
82 FR 18706 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 18 | |
82 FR 18721 - Proposed California Federal Milk Marketing Order; Producer Ballots | |
82 FR 18739 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21199 | |
82 FR 18779 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act | |
82 FR 18732 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Potatoes From Mexico | |
82 FR 18731 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Citrus Canker; Interstate Movement of Regulated Nursery Stock and Fruit From Quarantined Areas | |
82 FR 18777 - William H. Wyttenbach, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
82 FR 18775 - Notice of Application for Extension of Public Land Order No. 4145, as Modified, Correction of Legal Description, and Opportunity for Public Comment and Meeting; West Eagle Meadow Campground; Oregon | |
82 FR 18733 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
82 FR 18738 - Evaluations of National Estuarine Research Reserves | |
82 FR 18722 - Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders | |
82 FR 18833 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Fiduciary Agreement | |
82 FR 18805 - Oregon Disaster #OR-00085 Declaration of Economic Injury | |
82 FR 18690 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters | |
82 FR 18694 - Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH | |
82 FR 18810 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Policy Guidance and Procedural Rule.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has adopted the following updated policy on ex parte presentations in rulemaking proceedings. The original policy was posted on the CFPB's Web site on August 16, 2011.
The substantive amendments made in paragraph (e)(1) of this updated Policy on Ex Parte Presentations in Rulemaking Proceedings apply only to informal rulemaking proceedings where the CFPB has published general notice of proposed rulemaking on or after May 22, 2017. All other revisions apply May 22, 2017, to all CFPB informal rulemaking proceedings subject to the Policy, including rulemakings that have not been finalized.
Stephen Hayes, Counsel, Legal Division, 1700 G Street NW., 20552, 202-435-9585.
On August 16, 2011, the CFPB posted on its Web site a Policy on Ex Parte Presentations in Rulemaking Proceedings.
Under the CFPB's Policy, an “ex parte presentation” means “any written or oral communication” by “any person outside the CFPB that imparts information or argument directed to the merits or outcome of a rulemaking proceeding.” These presentations are only covered by the Policy to the extent they are made to “decision-making personnel.” The Updated Policy makes certain non-substantive changes to this definition. First, in the Prior Policy, the “decision-making personnel” limitation was contained in paragraph (d), which describes the Policy's disclosure requirements. For clarity, the Updated Policy instead moves that limitation to the definition of “ex parte presentation,” in paragraph (b). This change does not affect the scope of disclosure obligations under the Policy.
Second, the Updated Policy makes clear that ex parte presentations can include communications “made in any form, including those made in person, or via mail, telephone, email, or other medium. A communication may be an `ex parte presentation' even if the person making the communication does not intend or desire it to be publicly disclosed.” The CFPB's Policy has always covered these types of communications, but the CFPB has received feedback suggesting that outside parties may not have always understood this scope of coverage. The new clarificatory language addresses that feedback.
The Policy continues to define “ex parte presentations” to not include: (i) “Statements by any person made in a public meeting, hearing, conference, or similar event, or public medium such as a newspaper, magazine, or blog”; (ii) “Communications that are inadvertently or casually made”; (iii) “Inquiries limited to the status of a rulemaking or concerning compliance with procedural requirements”; or (iv) “Communications that occur as part of the CFPB's regular supervisory, monitoring, research, and/or other statutory responsibilities, which communications are only incidentally relevant to, and not intended to influence the outcome of, a rulemaking proceeding.” The Updated Policy inserts the word “enforcement” into clause (iv), to make clear that communications that occur as part of the CFPB's regular enforcement activities, if incidentally relevant to, and not intended to influence the outcome of, a rulemaking proceeding, also are not ex parte presentations. These communications have always been excluded from the definition of “ex parte presentation” because they occur as part of the CFPB's regular statutory responsibilities. For clarity, the Updated Policy makes that coverage explicit.
It bears emphasis that comments submitted through the methods set forth in a notice of proposed rulemaking for the submission of comments are not ex parte presentations, and therefore are not subject to the requirements under the Policy. Moreover, the CFPB notes that the Policy addresses the public disclosure obligations for ex parte presentations as set forth in the Policy. Although decision-making personnel may in their discretion consider ex parte presentations in the course of developing a final rule covered by the Policy, the Policy does not require such consideration. As the Policy makes clear, once a proposed rule is published, the CFPB “expects that the primary means of communicating a person's view in the course of a rulemaking will be through the submission of written comments to the rulemaking docket. Ex parte presentations should supplement and not substitute for those submissions.”
The Updated Policy also clarifies that it applies only where “the CFPB is required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to publish general notice of proposed
The Policy applies once the CFPB has published a proposed rule on its Web site or in the
The Policy continues to provide that its requirements do not apply to presentations: (i) “to the General Counsel and his or her staff that concern judicial review of a matter that has been decided by the CFPB”; (ii) “by other Federal government agencies, offices, or their staff”; or (iii) “by members of Congress or their staff,” unless “such presentations are of major significance, contain information or argument not already reflected in the rulemaking docket, and are plainly intended to affect the ultimate outcome of the rulemaking.” The Updated Policy makes two non-substantive clarifications to the Policy, which make explicit: (1) That Federal government agencies include “components of the Federal Reserve System;” and (2) that clauses (ii) and (iii) above apply only when the entities identified in those clauses are acting “in their official capacities.”
The Updated Policy also makes a substantive change to this paragraph, by providing that the Policy's requirements do not apply to communications “by State attorneys general or their equivalents, State bank regulatory authorities, or State agencies that license, supervise, or examine the offering of consumer financial products or services, including their offices or staff, when acting in their official capacities.” The Updated Policy specifies that “State” means “any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States or any federally recognized Indian tribe.” The CFPB has special partnerships with these sister entities, including certain cooperative supervisory and enforcement relationships, and these entities often have uniquely valuable insights into proposed rulemakings. In the CFPB's experience, communications from these entities have at times been sensitive, and the CFPB believes that these entities are likely to provide more frank and robust feedback if communications are not subject to the disclosure requirements of the Policy. The Updated Policy therefore includes a tailored exemption from coverage designed to further those objectives, as well as the purposes of the Policy in general.
Next, the Prior Policy directed outside parties to submit summaries of oral ex parte presentations or written ex parte presentations within three business days after a presentation. In response to feedback the CFPB has received regarding difficulties complying with that timing requirement, the Updated Policy extends that period for outside parties from three to ten business days. For clarity, the Updated Policy also instructs that summary memoranda include “the identity of the person(s) preparing the memorandum” and “the date of the memorandum.” The Prior Policy directed outside parties to file ex parte presentation materials directly to the public rulemaking docket at
The Prior Policy provided that CFPB staff may require filers to correct inaccuracies or missing information in ex parte materials. The Updated Policy clarifies and supplements that clause, explaining “that CFPB staff may communicate with the presenter regarding the summary memorandum or presentation, including, for example, requiring the submitter to correct any inaccuracies or insert missing information, or regarding treatment of confidential information, as appropriate.” In light of the technical limitations experienced by outside parties making submissions to rulemaking dockets on
The Updated Policy clarifies procedures for requesting confidential treatment under the Policy. The Prior Policy provided that where a filer believed that one or more documents or portions thereof should be withheld from public inspection, the filer should electronically request that the information not be made available for public inspection, and it instructed the filer to file with the CFPB's Executive Secretary confidential and public copies of the documents. The Updated Policy makes several non-substantive clarifications to this paragraph for clarity, and it instructs the submitter to explain why confidential treatment is requested and why such information would be properly withheld from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. These changes reflect and clarify practices under the Policy, and the CFPB believes they will facilitate requests for confidentiality.
Finally, the Updated Policy makes non-substantive changes to a provision
Section 1022(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) authorizes the CFPB to prescribe rules as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions of those laws.
As described above, the Updated Policy makes changes to paragraph (e)(1) by including a clause providing that the Policy's requirements do not apply to communications “by State attorneys general or their equivalents, State bank regulatory authorities, or State agencies that license, supervise, or examine the offering of consumer financial products or services, including their offices or staff, when acting in their official capacities.” The Updated Policy specifies that “State” means “any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States or any federally recognized Indian tribe.” These substantive revisions apply only to informal rulemaking proceedings subject to the Policy where the CFPB has published general notice of proposed rulemaking at least thirty days after publication of the Updated Policy in the
The updated CFPB Policy on Ex Parte Presentations in Rulemaking Proceedings is a policy statement and procedural rule that articulates the CFPB's policies and expectations for communications with persons outside the CFPB during informal rulemaking proceedings where general notice is required by section 553 of the APA. It is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). The CFPB has determined that this policy does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The text of the Policy is as follows:
(a) Scope.—This policy applies to communications with persons outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during informal rulemaking proceedings where the CFPB is required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking.
(b) Definitions.—For purposes of this policy, the following definitions apply:
(1) Ex Parte Presentation.—
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (b)(1)(B), the term “ex parte presentation” means any written or oral communication by any person outside the CFPB to any decision-making personnel that imparts information or argument directed to the merits or outcome of a rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations include such communications made in any form, including those made in person, or via mail, telephone, email, or other medium. A communication may be an “ex parte presentation” even if the person making the communication does not intend or desire it to be publicly disclosed.
(B) Ex parte presentations do not include the following:
(i) Statements by any person made in a public meeting, hearing, conference, or similar event, or public medium such as a newspaper, magazine, or blog;
(ii) Communications that are inadvertently or casually made;
(iii) Inquiries limited to the status of a rulemaking or concerning compliance with procedural requirements; or
(iv) Communications that occur as part of the CFPB's regular supervisory, enforcement, monitoring, research, and/or other statutory responsibilities, which communications are only incidentally relevant to, and not intended to influence the outcome of, a rulemaking proceeding.
(2) Decision-making personnel.—The term “decision-making personnel” means any employee of the CFPB who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in formulating a CFPB rule.
(c) Policy.—It is the CFPB's policy to provide for open development of rules and to encourage full public participation in rulemaking actions. The CFPB encourages decision-making personnel to contact the public directly when factual information is needed to resolve questions of substance and to be receptive, consistent with the limitations on CFPB staff time, to communications from persons affected by or interested in a CFPB rulemaking. However, to promote fairness and reasoned decision-making, the CFPB's policy is to require public disclosure of ex parte presentations according to CFPB guidelines. The CFPB expects that the primary means of communicating a person's views in the course of a rulemaking will be through the submission of written comments to the rulemaking docket. Ex parte presentations should supplement and not substitute for those submissions.
(d) Disclosure.—Except as provided in paragraph (e), the following requirements apply from the date of publication in the
(1) Oral Ex Parte Presentations.—A person who makes an oral ex parte presentation shall, not later than ten business days after the presentation, submit to the CFPB's Executive Secretary and the CFPB employee point of contact for the presentation, a memorandum summarizing the presentation. The memorandum must contain the identity of the person(s) preparing the memorandum; the date of the memorandum; a list of all persons attending or otherwise participating in the presentation; the date of the presentation; and a summary of data presented and arguments made during the presentation by the person(s)
(2) Written Ex Parte Presentations.—A person who makes a written ex parte presentation (including documents shown or given to decision-making personnel during oral ex parte presentations) shall, not later than ten business days after the presentation, submit to the CFPB's Executive Secretary and the CFPB employee point of contact for the presentation, if applicable, a copy of the presentation. CFPB staff may communicate with the presenter regarding the written ex parte presentation. CFPB staff will post written ex parte presentations on the public rulemaking docket in accordance with this policy, including making reasonable efforts to do so within a reasonable period of time before publication of the final rule.
(3) Submission Requirements.—
(i) Any memorandum summarizing an oral ex parte presentation or written ex parte presentation (and cover letter, if any) shall identify the proceeding to which it relates, including the docket number, if any, and must be labeled as an ex parte submission.
(ii) All submissions under paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) shall be made electronically by emailing the required materials to the Executive Secretary (at
(iii) In cases where a member of the public believes that one or more of the documents or portions thereof covered by this policy (whether a written ex parte presentation or summary of an oral ex parte presentation) should not be posted on the public rulemaking docket, he or she should submit electronically a request for confidential treatment under this policy. Such requests should explain why confidential treatment is requested and why such information would be properly withheld from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Unless otherwise agreed to with the CFPB, such requests should include a copy of the document(s) containing the confidential information and marked prominently as “Confidential,” and a copy of the same document(s) with confidential information redacted and marked “Public Copy.”
(iv) CFPB staff may in their discretion elect to prepare written summaries of oral ex parte presentations and post them to the rulemaking docket in lieu of requiring the person who made the ex parte presentation to prepare such summaries.
(e) Exemptions.—
(1) The requirements in section (d) do not apply to ex parte presentations (i) to the General Counsel and his or her staff that concern judicial review of a matter that has been decided by the CFPB; (ii) by other Federal government agencies, offices, or their staff (including components of the Federal Reserve System), when acting in their official capacities; (iii) by State attorneys general or their equivalents, State bank regulatory authorities, or State agencies that license, supervise, or examine the offering of consumer financial products or services, including their offices or staff, when acting in their official capacities; or (iv) by members of Congress or their staff, when acting in their official capacities, unless such presentations are of major significance, contain information or argument not already reflected in the rulemaking docket, and are plainly intended to affect the ultimate outcome of the rulemaking. For purposes of this policy, State means any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States, or any federally recognized Indian tribe. All entities are welcome to post written comments to the rulemaking docket.
(2) The CFPB may properly withhold from the rulemaking docket information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
(f) CFPB Discretion.—Where the public interest so requires in particular rulemaking proceedings, the CFPB and its staff retain the discretion to deviate from this ex parte policy set forth above, including to apply this policy during proceedings other than those described in paragraph (a), and not to apply the policy during proceedings described in paragraph (a), such as where the CFPB has determined that a rule for which general notice of proposed rulemaking was provided in accordance with section 553 of the APA will not be finalized.
(g) Violations.—Persons who fail to adhere to this policy are subject to such sanctions as may be appropriate. Any person who becomes aware of a possible violation of any of the requirements of this policy may advise the Office of General Counsel of all the facts and circumstances that are known to him or her.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Emergency Airworthiness Directive (Emergency AD) 2015-24-51 for Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B. Emergency AD 2015-24-51 required inspections of the air conditioning system. This supersedure revises the applicability, some of the terminology, and the
This AD becomes effective May 8, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 20, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Air Comm Corporation, 1575 West 124th Avenue, Westminster, CO 80234, telephone: (303) 440-4075 (during business hours) or (720) 233-8330 (after hours), email
Richard R. Thomas, Aviation Safety Engineer, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Technical Operations Center, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, CO 80249; telephone (303) 342-1085; fax (303) 342-1088; email
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 prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
On November 27, 2015, we issued Emergency AD 2015-24-51, which was made immediately effective to all known U.S. owners and operators of Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters. Emergency AD 2015-24-51 applied to Model EC120B helicopters with an Air Comm Corporation (Air Comm) air conditioning system installed in accordance with STC No. SR00491DE. Emergency AD 2015-24-51 required, before further flight and at intervals not to exceed 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), manually inspecting the air conditioner compressor drive pulley (pulley) for movement (play) between the pulley and the tail rotor output wheel (wheel). If there was any movement, Emergency AD 2015-24-51 required replacing the pulley and the wheel before further flight. If no play existed, Emergency AD 2015-24-51 required an additional inspection for wear and, if needed, replacing the pulley and the wheel. Emergency AD 2015-24-51 also required reporting information to the FAA to enable us to obtain better insight into the cause of the unsafe condition.
Emergency AD 2015-24-51was prompted by a report that the operator of an Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopter heard an abnormal noise during flight that gradually became more pronounced, resulting in a precautionary landing. While applying power to land, the helicopter yawed left. Application of the right pedal did not correct the rotation, requiring the pilot to perform a hovering auto rotation. A preliminary investigation showed that the pulley and wheel mating splines had worn away, allowing the pulley to rotate freely on the wheel. Failure of the pulley and wheel during flight may result in the loss of tail rotor drive and subsequent loss of directional control.
After Emergency AD 2015-24-51 was issued, we received a comment from an operator requesting that we clarify the applicability of the AD. The commenter notes that there are two different configurations for the Air Comm conditioning system, the earlier of which has the output flange that is terminating action in the AD already installed. However, the applicability of Emergency AD 2015-24-51 does not distinguish between the two configurations. Pictures from another operator we received with an inspection report showed this earlier configuration where the compressor is driven by a pulley mounted forward of the rotor brake.
We agree with the request to clarify the applicability. Pulleys installed forward of the rotor brake are not part of the tail rotor drive train and their failure would not result in a loss of directional control. We have revised this AD to apply only to those helicopters with an Air Comm air conditioning kit installed in accordance with STC No. SR00491DE where the compressor is driven by a pulley installed
We are replacing the term “tail rotor output pinion” used in Emergency AD 2015-24-51 with “tail rotor output wheel,” because it is the more commonly known term for this part.
We also received a comment from an operator stating that if play between the pulley and the wheel is found during the inspection, and if the Air Comm pulley is replaced with an Airbus output flange, the AD should not require that the wheel be replaced if it passes the damage and wear criteria in the Airbus Helicopters maintenance manual. We agree that in the absence of wear, regardless of any play, the wheel should not have to be replaced. We are revising the required actions in this AD to remove the inspection for play and instead require an inspection of the
We also obtained additional information from Air Comm about the effect of the terminating action in Emergency AD 2015-24-51 and whether it is necessary to deactivate the airconditioning system. As a result, we are removing from the terminating action the requirement to fully or partially deactivate the air conditioning system. Replacing the Air Comm pulley with Airbus Helicopters output flange part number C632A2158201 partially deactivates the system. With the Air Comm pulley replaced, the system is sufficiently deactivated. Cooling will no longer be available, but the evaporator blowers will remain operable to circulate air. Neither the air conditioning system nor the helicopter will be damaged by removing the compressor drive belt and leaving the circuit breakers engaged.
We also have learned that this AD affects five helicopters of U.S. registry, and not only the two helicopters noted in Emergency AD 2015-24-51.
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of this same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
We reviewed Air Comm Service Bulletin SB-EC120-111815, Revision A, dated November 20, 2015. Air Comm reports that the pulley, mounted to the Thomas coupling just aft of the main rotor brake caliper, is an integral piece of the power transmission components for the tail rotor. A field report indicated that the spline joint on the pulley can wear beyond its capability to ensure power transmission to the tail rotor shaft. Given that the installation is flight critical, the Air Comm service bulletin specifies an inspection of the pulley-output wheel interface. If excessive play or wear is found, the aircraft must be made inoperable until unairworthy parts are replaced.
This AD requires, before further flight and at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, removing the pulley and visually inspecting the pulley splines for wear and inspecting the exposed portion of the wheel splines for cracks, scoring, metal pick-up, and measuring for wear. If any of the splines on the pulley are not straight, contain any inconsistent cross-sections end-to-end, or contain any localized material deformation or any material loss, this AD requires replacing the pulley before further flight. If there is cracking, any scoring or metal pick-up, or if a measurement shows wear, this AD requires replacing the wheel before further flight.
This AD also requires reporting certain information to the FAA within 10 days.
Replacing the Air Comm pulley with Airbus Helicopters output flange part number C632A2158201 constitutes terminating action for this AD.
The service information specifies recurring inspections after 100 flight hours, while this AD requires recurring inspections at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS. The service information requires inspecting the pulley and drive shaft (wheel) splines for excessive wear or chatter and replacing the pulley and wheel if there is any play. This AD requires replacing the pulley if any splines are not straight, have inconsistent cross-sections, or contain material deformation or loss. This AD requires replacing the wheel if cracking, scoring, or metal pick-up are found, or measurement of the splines indicates excessive wear. The service information requests that information be submitted to Air Comm, while this AD requires the inspection results be reported to the FAA.
We estimate that this AD will affect 5 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates we expect that inspecting the pulley and wheel will take about 7.5 work-hours for a cost of $638 per helicopter and $3,190 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing an Air Comm pulley will cost $2,380 for parts and 0.5 additional work-hour for a cost of $2,423 per helicopter. Replacing an Airbus wheel will cost $19,231 for parts and 10 additional work-hours for a cost of $20,081 per helicopter. The optional terminating action of installing an Airbus output flange will cost $2,327 for parts and 0.5 additional work-hour for a cost of $2,370 per helicopter. Reporting the required inspection information to the FAA will take about 0.5 work-hour for a cost of about $43 per helicopter and $215 for the U.S. fleet.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting required by this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.
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
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, 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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters with an Air Comm Corporation (Air Comm) air conditioning kit installed in accordance with supplemental type certificate (STC) No. SR00491DE, where the compressor is driven by a pulley installed
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of an air conditioner compressor drive pulley (pulley) or tail rotor output wheel (wheel), leading to loss of tail rotor drive and helicopter control.
This AD supersedes Emergency AD 2015-24-51, Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-086-AD, dated November 27, 2015.
This AD becomes effective May 8, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight, and at intervals not to exceed 25 hours time-in-service, disassemble the tail rotor drive system and remove the pulley.
(i) Visually inspect the pulley splines for wear. If any splines are not straight, contain any inconsistent cross-sections end-to-end, or contain any localized material deformation or any material loss, replace the pulley before further flight.
Note 1 to paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD: End-to-end (fore-and-aft) movement witness marks and polishing are acceptable as the pulley is allowed to slip fore and aft on the wheel per its intended function.
(ii) Inspect the exposed portion of each wheel spline for cracking, scoring, metal pick-up, and wear by using Figure 1 to paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD. To inspect for wear, position two 3 mm (0.118 inch) rods in all diametrically opposed splines and measure to determine whether there is a minimum of 37.3 mm (1.47 inches) across the outside diameter of the rods. If there is any cracking, scoring or metal pick-up, or if a measurement is less than 37.3 mm, replace the wheel.
(2) Within 10 days after completing the initial inspection, report the information requested in Appendix 1 to this AD by mail to the Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Technical Operations Center, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, CO 80249, attn. Richard R. Thomas; by fax to (303) 342-1088; or by email to
(3) Replacing the Air Comm pulley with Airbus Helicopters output flange part number C632A2158201 constitutes terminating action for this AD.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(i) Air Comm Service Bulletin No. SB-EC120-111815, Revision A, dated November 20, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact: Air Comm Corporation, 1575 West 124th Avenue, Westminster, CO 80234, telephone: (303) 440-4075 (during business hours) or (720) 233-8330 (after hours); email:
(ii) You may view a copy of Supplemental Type Certificate No. SR00491DE, reissued on November 24, 2014, on the Internet at
(iii) You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6500, Tail Rotor Drive System.
Please report the following to the Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Technical Operations Center, by mail to 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, CO 80249, attn. Richard R. Thomas; by fax to (303) 342-1088; or by email to
(1) Condition of the splined joint. Document any damage found with photographs.
(2) Flight hours since the air-conditioning kit was installed.
(3) Aircraft serial number.
(4) Pulley serial number (etched on the pulley's face).
(5) Output wheel serial number from main gearbox, MAIN MODULE hard card.
(6) Primary operating location of the aircraft.
(7) Approximate average percentage of time the air conditioner is used.
(8) Operator and maintenance facility contact information.
(9) If parts are replaced, will air conditioning system remain fully or partially operable?
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders that are equipped with a Solo 2625 02 engine modified with a fuel injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (TM)/Service Bulletin (SB) 4600-3 “Fuel Injection System” and identified as Solo 2625 02i. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as possible in-flight engine shut-down and engine fire due to failure of the connecting stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy system. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 26, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 26, 2017.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email:
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders. The NPRM was published in the
An occurrence was reported involving a failure of the connecting stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy system.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncommanded in-flight engine shut-down and engine fire, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH issued SB/TM 4600-5 to provide instructions for reinforcement and securing of the injector mounts.
For the reason described above, this AD requires modification of the engine redundancy system.
Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH SB/TM 4600-3 (currently at issue 2, dated 03 December 2012) will be revised to incorporate the modification required by SB/TM 4600-5 for future Solo 2625 02i engines.
The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 2 (English translation: Issue 2), dated December 12, 2014. The service information describes procedures for changing the fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy system and securing the connection of the lower to the upper mount. 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 will affect 3 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $67 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $456, or $152 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under 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 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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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:
9 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 26, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH DG-500MB gliders, all serial numbers, that are:
(1) Equipped with a Solo 2625 02 engine modified with a fuel injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin (SB)/Technische Mitteilung (TM) 4600-3 “Fuel Injection System” and identified as Solo 2625 02i; and
(2) certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Engine.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the connecting stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy system on gliders equipped with a Solo 2625 02i engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent such failure that could lead to the potential of an in-flight shut-down and engine fire and result in loss of control.
Unless already done, within the next 60 days after May 26, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), modify the engine redundancy system following the actions in Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 2 (English translation: Issue 2), dated December 12, 2014.
This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information as it appears on the document.
This AD allows credit for modification of the engine redundancy system as required in paragraph (f) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 1 (English translation: Issue 1), dated November 24, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2014-0269, dated December 11, 2014 for related information. The MCAI can 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 2 (English translation: Issue 2), dated December 12, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH service information identified in this AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email:
(4) You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations for the Conch Republic Navy Parade and Battle in Key West, Florida, from 6:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on April 28, 2017. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Key West Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period no person or vessel may enter into, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1(c)(7) will be enforced from 6:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on April 28, 2017.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Scott Ledee, Sector Key West Waterways Management Department, Coast Guard; telephone (305) 292-8768, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.701 from 6:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on April 28, 2017, for the annual Conch Republic Navy Parade and Battle in Key West, Florida. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Key West Harbor during the simulated battle event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Key West Zone, § 100.701, Table 1, item (c)(7), specifies the location of the regulated area for the reenactment of the battle within the Key West Harbor.
During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor within, or remain within the established regulated areas without approval from the Captain of the Port Key West or designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. If the Captain of the Port Key West determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this publication, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for underwater detonation operations in the waters of Apra Outer Harbor and Piti, Guam. This rule is effective from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 27th through April 28th, 2017. The Coast Guard believes this safety zone regulation is necessary to protect all persons and vessels that would otherwise transit or be within the affected areas from possible safety hazards associated with underwater detonation operations. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 27 through April 28, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. The Coast Guard received notice of this operation on March 9, 2017, only 49 days before the operation is scheduled. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have time to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect vessels and waterway users from the hazards associated with this operation.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Guam (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the U.S. Navy training exercise, which include detonation of underwater explosives, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 700-yard radius above and below the surface on April 27, 2017 and a 1400-yard radius above and below the surface on April 28, 2017. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the exercise. Mariners and divers approaching too close to such exercises could potentially expose the mariner to flying debris or other hazardous conditions.
This rule establishes safety zones from 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. on April 27th through April 28th, 2017. The safety zones will cover all navigable waters within a 700-yard radius above and below the surface on April 27, 2017 and a 1400-yard radius above and below the surface on April 28, 2017 of vessels and machinery being used by Navy. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the underwater detonation exercise. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around theses safety zones, which will impact a small designated area of waters off of Piti, Guam, for eight hours for one day and in Apra Outer Harbor for eight hours for one day. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 8 hours a day for 2 days that will prohibit entry within a 700-yard radius above and below the surface on April 27, 2017 and a 1400-yard radius above and below the surface on April 28, 2017 of vessels and machinery being used by Navy personnel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An 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
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission is updating the product lists. This action reflects a publication policy adopted by Commission order. The referenced policy assumes periodic updates. The updates are identified in the body of this document. The product list, which is re-published in its entirety, includes these updates.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6800.
This document identifies updates to the market dominant and the competitive product lists, which appear as 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Market Dominant Product List and 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List, respectively. Publication of the updated product lists in the
1. Inbound Market Dominant PRIME Tracked Service Agreement (MC2017-71 and R2017-3) (Order No. 3755), added January 17, 2017.
2. Notice of Market-Dominant (Price Adjustment) (R2017-1) (Order No. 3610), added November 15, 2016.
1. Priority Mail Contract 280 (MC2017-60 and CP2017-88) (Order No. 3719), added January 4, 2017.
2. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 39 (MC2017-63 and CP2017-91) (Order No. 3720), added January 4, 2017.
3. Priority Mail Contract 281 (MC2017-61 and CP2017-89) (Order No. 3721), added January 4, 2017.
4. Priority Mail Contract 279 (MC2017-59 and CP2017-87) (Order No. 3722), added January 4, 2017.
5. First-Class Package Service Contract 71 (MC2017-62 and CP2017-90) (Order No. 3723), added January 4, 2017.
6. Parcel Select Contract 18 (MC2017-65 and CP2017-93) (Order No. 3724), added January 5, 2017.
7. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 41 (MC2017-67 and CP2017-95) (Order No. 3725), added January 5, 2017.
8. Priority Mail Contract 282 (MC2017-68 and CP2017-96) (Order No. 3726), added January 5, 2017.
9. Parcel Select Contract 19 (MC2017-66 and CP2017-94) (Order No. 3727), added January 5, 2017.
10. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 40 (MC2017-64 and CP2017-92) (Order No. 3728), added January 5, 2017.
11. First-Class Package Service Contract 72 (MC2017-70 and CP2017-98) (Order No. 3729), added January 6, 2017.
12. Priority Mail Contract 283 (MC2017-69 and CP2017-97) (Order No. 3730), added January 6, 2017.
13. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 42 (MC2017-73 and CP2017-100) (Order No. 3732), added January 9, 2017.
14. Priority Mail Contract 284 (MC2017-74 and CP2017-101) (Order No. 3738), added January 10, 2017.
15. Priority Mail Contract 285 (MC2017-75 and CP2017-102) (Order No. 3739), added January 10, 2017.
16. Priority Mail Contract 286 (MC2017-76 and CP2017-103) (Order No. 3745), added January 11, 2017.
17. Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 11 (MC2017-72 and CP2017-99) (Order No. 3746), added January 11, 2017.
18. Parcel Select Contract 20 (MC2017-78 and CP2017-105) (Order No. 3759), added January 26, 2017.
19. Priority Mail Contract 288 (MC2017-79 and CP2017-106) (Order No. 3762), added January 30, 2017.
20. Priority Mail Contract 287 (MC2017-77 and CP2017-104) (Order No. 3764), added January 30, 2017.
21. Priority Mail Contract 289 (MC2017-81 and CP2017-107) (Order No. 3774), added February 6, 2017.
22. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 43 (MC2017-83 and CP2017-112) (Order No. 3779), added February 9, 2017.
23. Priority Mail Contract 290 (MC2017-84 and CP2017-113) (Order No. 3781), added February 14, 2017.
24. Priority Mail Contract 293 (MC2017-87 and CP2017-116) (Order No. 3782), added February 14, 2017.
25. Priority Mail Contract 292 (MC2017-86 and CP2017-115) (Order No. 3783), added February 14, 2017.
26. Priority Mail Contract 291 (MC2017-85 and CP2017-114) (Order No. 3784), added February 14, 2017.
27. Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 6 (MC2017-88 and CP2017-117) (Order No. 3785), added February 14, 2017.
28. Parcel Select Contract 21 (MC2017-90 and CP2017-119) (Order No. 3786), added February 14, 2017.
29. First-Class Package Service Contract 73 (MC2017-89 and CP2017-118) (Order No. 3787), added February 14, 2017.
30. Alternative Delivery Provider 1 Contracts (MC2017-82 and CP2017-111) (Order No. 3793), added February 16, 2017.
31. Priority Mail Contract 294 (MC2017-91 and CP2017-125) (Order No. 3801), added February 24, 2017.
32. Priority Mail Express Contract 45 (MC2017-92 and CP2017-126) (Order No. 3802), added February 24, 2017.
33. Priority Mail Contract 295 (MC2017-93 and CP2017-128) (Order No. 3814), added March 14, 2017.
34. Priority Mail Contract 296 (MC2017-94 and CP2017-129) (Order No. 3815), added March 14, 2017.
35. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 15 (MC2017-97 and CP2017-137) (Order No. 3830), added March 27, 2017.
36. Priority Mail Contract 297 (MC2017-95 and CP2017-135) (Order No. 3832), added March 28, 2017.
37. First-Class Package Service Contract 74 (MC2017-96 and CP2017-136) (Order No. 3833), added March 28, 2017.
38. Priority Mail Contract 298 (MC2017-98 and CP2017-144) (Order No. 3836), added March 29, 2017.
39. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 44 (MC2017-99 and CP2017-145) (Order No. 3837), added March 29, 2017.
40. Competitive Products Price Changes Rates of General Applicability (CP2017-20) (Order No. 3622), added November 18, 2016.
The following negotiated service agreements have expired and are being deleted from the Competitive Product List:
1. Priority Mail Express Contract 8 (MC2010-16 and CP2010-16) (Order No. 379).
2. Priority Mail Express Contract 17 (MC2014-13 and CP2014-17) (Order No. 1947).
3. Priority Mail Express Contract 18 (MC2014-25 and CP2014-48) (Order No. 2072).
4. Priority Mail Express Contract 22 (MC2015-15 and CP2015-19) (Order No. 2307).
5. Priority Mail Express Contract 24 (MC2015-21 and CP2015-26) (Order No. 2311).
6. Priority Mail Express Contract 25 (MC2015-22 and CP2015-28) (Order No. 2318).
7. Priority Mail Express Contract 33 (MC2016-87 and CP2016-112) (Order No. 3136).
8. Priority Mail Contract 24 (MC2010-15 and CP2010-15) (Order No. 378).
9. Priority Mail Contract 65 (MC2013-63 and CP2013-83) (Order No. 1854).
10. Priority Mail Contract 73 (MC2014-11 and CP2014-15) (Order No. 1949).
11. Priority Mail Contract 74 (MC2014-15 and CP2014-24) (Order No. 1960).
12. Priority Mail Contract 75 (MC2014-16 and CP2014-25) (Order No. 1979).
13. Priority Mail Contract 76 (MC2014-17 and CP2014-26) (Order No. 1978).
14. Priority Mail Contract 79 (MC2014-20 and CP2014-33) (Order No. 2016).
15. Priority Mail Contract 83 (MC2014-31 and CP2014-56) (Order No. 2126).
16. Priority Mail Contract 84 (MC2014-33 and CP2014-59) (Order No. 2143).
17. Priority Mail Contract 86 (MC2014-35 and CP2014-61) (Order No. 2138).
18. Priority Mail Contract 89 (MC2014-39 and CP2014-72) (Order No. 2175).
19. Priority Mail Contract 91 (MC2014-45 and CP2014-81) (Order No. 2205).
20. Priority Mail Contract 97 (MC2015-5 and CP2015-6) (Order No. 2239).
21. Priority Mail Contract 100 (MC2015-10 and CP2015-13) (Order No. 2274).
22. Priority Mail Contract 101 (MC2015-11 and CP2015-14) (Order No. 2272).
23. Priority Mail Contract 102 (MC2015-13 and CP2015-16) (Order No. 2288).
24. Priority Mail Contract 103 (MC2015-17 and CP2015-21) (Order No. 2305).
25. Priority Mail Contract 105 (MC2015-20 and CP2015-25) (Order No. 2317).
26. Priority Mail Contract 108 (MC2015-27 and CP2015-36) (Order No. 2353).
27. Priority Mail Contract 109 (MC2015-28 and CP2015-37) (Order No. 2362).
28. Priority Mail Contract 112 (MC2015-32 and CP2015-42) (Order No. 2373).
29. Priority Mail Contract 114 (MC2015-34 and CP2015-45) (Order No. 2404).
30. Priority Mail Contract 116 (MC2015-36 and CP2015-47) (Order No. 2401).
31. Priority Mail Contract 118 (MC2015-38 and CP2015-49) (Order No. 2405).
32. Priority Mail Contract 120 (MC2015-40 and CP2015-51) (Order No. 2403).
33. Priority Mail Contract 122 (MC2015-46 and CP2015-57) (Order No. 2451).
34. Priority Mail Contract 124 (MC2015-53 and CP2015-81) (Order No. 2534).
35. Priority Mail Contract 128 (MC2015-61 and CP2015-92) (Order No. 2592).
36. Priority Mail Contract 129 (MC2015-62 and CP2015-93) (Order No. 2582).
37. Priority Mail Contract 135 (MC2015-71 and CP2015-109) (Order No. 2636).
38. Priority Mail Contract 139 (MC2015-76 and CP2015-120) (Order No. 2651).
39. Priority Mail Contract 142 (MC2015-82 and CP2015-138) (Order No. 2738).
40. Priority Mail Contract 143 (MC2015-83 and CP2015-139) (Order No. 2737).
41. Priority Mail Contract 147 (MC2016-4 and CP2016-4) (Order No. 2764).
42. Priority Mail Contract 151 (MC2016-12 and CP2016-14) (Order No. 2802).
43. Priority Mail Contract 162 (MC2016-31 and CP2016-37) (Order No. 2907).
44. Priority Mail Contract 165 (MC2016-39 and CP2016-48) (Order No. 3069).
45. Priority Mail Contract 173 (MC2016-50 and CP2016-65) (Order No. 3009).
46. Priority Mail Contract 182 (MC2016-68 and CP2016-83) (Order No. 3004).
47. Priority Mail Contract 184 (MC2016-66 and CP2016-81) (Order No. 2996).
48. Priority Mail Contract 187 (MC2016-79 and CP2016-104) (Order No. 3112).
49. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 16 (MC2015-2 and CP2015-4) (Order No. 2232).
50. First-Class Package Service Contract 35 (MC2014-14 and CP2014-23) (Order No. 1975).
51. First-Class Package Service Contract 56 (MC2016-154 and CP2016-217) (Order No. 3391).
52. First-Class Package Service Contract 58 (MC2016-170 and CP2016-248) (Order No. 3452).
53. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 (MC2014-27 and CP2014-53) (Order No. 2106).
54. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 4 (MC2014-43 and CP2014-76) (Order No. 2183).
55. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 (MC2015-45 and CP2015-56) (Order No. 2430).
56. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 12 (MC2016-70 and CP2016-85) (Order No. 2998).
57. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 14 (MC2016-88 and CP2016-113) (Order No. 3139).
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Postal Regulatory Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
(An asterisk (*) indicates an organizational class or group, not a Postal Service product.)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to implement Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC or the Commission) Resolution C-16-08, which establishes limits on the U.S. commercial catch of Pacific bluefin tuna from waters of the IATTC Convention Area for 2017 and 2018. This action is necessary for the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC.
The final rule is effective May 22, 2017.
Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Celia Barroso, NMFS,
On January 18, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
The final rule is implemented under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951
The proposed rule contains additional background information, including information on the IATTC, the international obligations of the United States as an IATTC member, and the need for regulations. Public comments received are addressed below. The regulatory text in this final rule is unchanged from the regulatory text of the proposed rule.
This final rule establishes catch limits for U.S. commercial vessels that catch Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area (defined as the area bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N. and 50° S. parallels, the 150° W. meridian, and the waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO)) for 2017 and 2018. In 2017, the catch limit for the entire U.S. fleet is 425 metric tons (mt) with an initial trip limit
When NMFS determines that the catch limit is expected to be reached in 2017 or 2018 (based on landings receipts, data submitted in logbooks, and other available fishery information), it will prohibit commercial fishing for, or retention of, Pacific bluefin tuna for the remainder of the calendar year. NMFS will publish a notice in the
NMFS will provide updates on Pacific bluefin tuna catch in the Convention Area to the public via the IATTC listserv and the West Coast Region Web site:
In 2017, NMFS will publish up to two
In 2018, NMFS will publish up to three notices in the
NMFS received two written comments. Both commenters supported the proposed catch limits, while one of the commenters also suggested a moratorium on commercial fishing for Pacific bluefin tuna in either 2017 or 2018. NMFS notes that a fishing moratorium on commercial fishing for Pacific bluefin tuna is beyond the scope of this rule, which implements an international agreement to establish catch limits; however, in 2016, NMFS responded to a petition that, among other requests, called for a prohibition on fishing for Pacific bluefin tuna under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (81 FR 39213, June 16, 2016). Please see NMFS' response here:
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act and other applicable laws.
This rule was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Although there are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, existing collection-of-information requirements associated with the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species still apply. These requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0204. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification. Therefore, the certification published with the proposed rule—that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities—is still valid. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 951
(u) Use a United States commercial fishing vessel in the Convention Area to target, retain on board, transship, or land Pacific bluefin tuna in contravention of § 300.25(g)(3) through (5).
(g)
(1) For the calendar year 2017, all commercial fishing vessels of the United States combined may capture, retain, transship, or land no more than 425 metric tons in the Convention Area.
(2) In 2018, NMFS will publish a notice in the
(i) If 175 metric tons or less are caught in 2017, as determined by NMFS, then the 2018 catch limit is 425 metric tons; or,
(ii) If greater than 425 metric tons are caught in 2017, as determined by NMFS, then the 2018 catch limit is calculated by subtracting the amount caught in 2017 from 600 metric tons.
(3) In 2017 and 2018, a 25 metric ton trip limit will be in effect until NMFS anticipates that catch will be within 50 metric tons of the catch limit, after which a 2 metric ton trip limit will be in effect upon publication of a notice in the
(4) After NMFS determines that the catch limits under paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section are expected to be reached by a future date, NMFS will publish a fishing closure notice in the
(5) Beginning on the date announced in the fishing closure notice published under paragraph (g)(4) of this section through the end of the calendar year, a commercial fishing vessel of the United States may not be used to target, retain on board, transship, or land Pacific bluefin tuna captured in the Convention Area, with the exception that any Pacific bluefin tuna already on board a fishing vessel on the effective date of the notice may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided such Pacific bluefin tuna is landed within 14 days after the effective date published in the fishing closure notice.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule implements Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The New England Fishery Management Council developed Amendment 18 to promote fleet diversity and in the groundfish fishery, prevent the acquisition of excessive shares of permits, and enhance sector management. This action limits the number of permits and annual groundfish allocation that an entity can hold. This action also removes several effort restrictions to increase operational flexibility for fishermen on limited access handgear vessels.
This rule is effective May 22, 2017, except for the amendments to §§ 648.82(b) and 648.87(c), which will be effective on May 1, 2017.
Copies of Amendment 18, including the Environmental Impact Statement, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared in support of the proposed rule are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet at:
A copy of the record of decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement can be obtained from the NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (address above) or the Office of Management and Budget by email
William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9182; email:
This action approves and implements the management measures in Amendment 18 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The measures for this action were explained in a notice of availability published on December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87862), and a proposed rule that published on December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92761). NMFS approved Amendment 18 on March 6, 2017.
Amendment 18 includes several general measures detailing how permit accumulation limits are applied.
• Accumulation limits apply to individuals, permit banks, and other entities, including groundfish sectors, at the individual permit and potential sector contribution (PSC) level.
• Accumulation limits do not apply to the amount of annual groundfish allocated to a sector, technically referred to as a sector's annual catch entitlement, or ACE.
• Accumulation limits may be modified in a future framework due to changes from a Federal permit buyback or buyout.
• If an entity held permits or PSC on the control date (April 7, 2011) that exceed the accumulation limits, it is exempt from the accumulation limit, but is restricted to holding no more permits or PSC than it held as of the control date. The grandfathered holdings may be fished or leased by the entity but are not transferrable. Current analyses show that no entity exceeds the control date accumulation limits.
• There is no calculation of partial ownership when considering accumulation limits. Any entity that is a partial owner is assumed to have full-ownership when calculating permit and PSC accumulation limits.
This action imposes accumulation limits to prevent the acquisition of excessive shares. For Amendment 18 analyses purposes, an excessive share of fishing privileges was interpreted as a share of PSC that would allow an entity to influence the market to its advantage (
This action limits an entity to holding no more than 5 percent of all limited access groundfish permits. An entity is prohibited from acquiring a permit that would result in it exceeding the 5-percent permit cap. As of February 21, 2017, there were 1,335 limited access permits in the fishery; a 5-percent cap would limit an entity to 67 permits. The most permits held by any entity was 50. Based on this information, this permit cap is unlikely to immediately restrict any entity.
This action also limits an entity to holding no more than an aggregated average of all allocated groundfish stocks to 15.5 PSC. With 15 groundfish stocks currently allocated to the fishery, the total PSC across all stocks used by an individual or an entity can be no more than 232.5 (an average PSC of 15.5 percent per stock multiplied by 15 stocks). This allows an entity to hold PSC for a single stock in excess of 15.5 percent, so long as the total holdings used do not exceed 232.5. If the number of allocated groundfish stocks increases or decreases in the future, then this aggregate number (232.5) would increase or decrease by 15.5 per stock. As of February 21, 2017, no entity holds more than 141 PSC. Based on this information, the PSC limit is unlikely to immediately restrict any entity.
Compared to other PSC limits that the Council considered, this option is the least restrictive because there is no stock-specific limit. Further, an entity would be permitted to purchase a vessel permit during a fishing year that would result in exceeding the aggregate 232.5 PSC limit. In this case, the entity must render at least one permit unusable (or “shelve” the permit) so that the entity is not operating above the PSC limit the following fishing year. Any permit that is shelved may not be enrolled in a sector, fished, or leased, but could be sold. An entity is prohibited from
Additional information on these accumulation limits is available in the Amendment 18 environmental impact statement and the proposed rule.
The combination of the PSC limit and 5 percent permit cap raises the difficulty and cost of acquiring enough permits and PSC for any one entity in the groundfish fishery to exert market power over the fishery. Analyses in Amendment 18 conclude that no entity currently has an excessive share of permits. Analyses also show that the maximum allocation an entity could acquire would be around 20 PSC for the majority of stocks, though PSC for certain stocks, such as Georges Bank winter flounder, could be acquired at higher levels than other stocks. Any payoff from obtaining excessive shares would not be realized for many years, if at all. Therefore, the combination of an aggregate PSC limit of 232.5 and a 5-percent permit cap should be sufficient to prevent market power from being exerted.
We expressed concern in the proposed rule that Amendment 18 does not include permit transfer restrictions on an individual entity that has exceeded the permit accumulation limit. We determined this could potentially create an unintended loophole that would allow transfers to related parties. Such transfers could result in family members controlling permits or PSC in excess of the limits. We argued this was inconsistent with the Council's intent for Amendment 18 to limit an entity's holdings to a level that would prevent exerting market power. We requested public comment on a restriction we proposed that would require permit transfers from an entity with a PSC greater than the PSC limit to be made via an “arm's-length” transaction. For example, an arm's-length transaction would be a permit transfer in the ordinary course of business between independent and unrelated entities, which would result in the owner who exceeded the limit maintaining no interest in or control over the transferred permit and its PSC.
We view this restriction to be consistent with the Council's intent and the goals and objectives for the Amendment. This measure also improves the enforceability of the PSC accumulation limit. As a result, using our authority under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), we are adding regulations to require that a permit transfer for individuals that have exceeded the accumulation limit to be by an arm's-length transaction.
Accumulation limits can be modified through a future framework adjustment if a vessel/permit buyback or buyout were enacted in the groundfish fishery. However, any other changes to the accumulation limits would require an amendment to the FMP. We encourage the Council to revisit the accumulation limits established in this Amendment if unanticipated developments adversely affect the goals and objectives of this Amendment. For example, a substantial reduction in the number of NE multispecies limited access permits (due to permit holders relinquishing their permits) could dramatically reduce the permit cap.
In order for an accumulation limit to be developed and applied, it is necessary to first define the ownership interest that will be limited. A unique definition of ownership interest as applied to the groundfish fishery is added in section 50 CFR 648.2 of the regulations. To identify ownership interests and account for accumulation limits in the groundfish fishery, a permit holder is required to identify all persons who hold an ownership interest in a particular permit when submitting a groundfish permit application or renewal form for that permit.
To reduce effort controls and increase flexibility for small boat fishermen, this action removes or modifies several management measures affecting limited access permitted handgear vessels (Handgear A vessels).
First, this action removes the March 1-20 spawning-block closure for all Handgear A vessels. Fishing effort by Handgear A vessels is restricted by a very small annual catch limit, and vessels are subject to other spawning closures. This measure makes the regulations for Handgear A vessels more consistent with vessels fishing in sectors, which account for most of the groundfish fishing effort and are already exempt from the 20-day spawning block. This measure is not anticipated to have any substantial biological consequences and will provide additional fishing opportunities for Handgear A vessels.
Handgear A vessels are no longer required to carry a standard fish tote on board. This requirement was initially implemented to aid in the sorting and weighing of fish by both fishermen and enforcement personnel. However, enforcement no longer uses totes for at-sea weight and volume estimates, so the requirement for vessels to carry a tote is no longer necessary.
Lastly, this action allows a sector to request an exemption from the requirement for Handgear A vessels to use a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). Handgear A fishermen enrolled in a sector are currently required to utilize a VMS; however, installing and utilizing a VMS system makes enrolling in a sector cost prohibitive for these small vessels. Any sector interested in utilizing this exemption is required to submit an exemption request to us for approval. If a sector exemption were approved, a Handgear A vessel fishing within a sector utilizing the exemption would declare its trips through the interactive voice response call-in system instead of through a VMS. This measure is intended to encourage Handgear A vessels to enroll in a sector by reducing operating expenses. Sectors receive regulatory exemptions and larger allocations that could provide additional flexibility and fishing opportunities to Handgear A vessels.
This action allows two measures analyzed in Amendment 18 to be implemented through a future framework action. The Council explored establishing a separate, optional allocation for the Handgear A fishery. Additionally, there was some interest in considering separate management measures for an inshore/offshore Gulf of Maine (GOM) boundary, including separate allocations for inshore and offshore GOM cod. However, because current catch limits for key groundfish stocks, including GOM cod, are so low, further sub-dividing allocations for Handgear A, as well as inshore and offshore GOM cod, were controversial and would be difficult to develop and implement at this time. As a result, the Council elected to potentially consider these measures in a future framework.
In addition, several regulatory clarifications are included at § 648.90 to
We received 15 comments during the public comment period on the Amendment 18 proposed rule. We specifically requested comments on the Council's proposed measures in Amendment 18 and whether they are consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Eight commenters, including the Associated Fisheries of Maine (AFM), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (NAMA), Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF), Penobscot East Resource Center (PERC), Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), and a few commercial fishermen wrote in general opposition to the measures proposed in Amendment 18. The Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC) and Gloucester Fishermen's Community Preservation Fund (GFCPF) supported the Amendment. We consolidated responses to similar comments and our responses are below.
Accumulation limits address goals 1, 3, and 4 of the Amendment by making it unlikely an entity could gain an excessive share of the fishery and exert market power over other fishermen and stakeholders. A detailed discussion of the goals and objectives was provided in the Amendment and the preamble to the proposed rule. The goals and objectives include promoting fleet diversity, upholding a resilient and stable fishery, and preventing any individual or entity from acquiring or controlling an excessive share of the fishery. Amendment 18 acknowledges that it is likely additional consolidation may occur with these accumulation limits in place. However, it is not expected to occur to the extent where an entity could acquire an excessive share and exert market power over other entities. Curbing consolidation helps to maintain diversity even to a limited degree. While other measures considered were more restrictive, the measures adopted by the Council achieve the goals and objectives. As a result, establishing accumulation limits promotes a more diverse and stable groundfish fishery. Comments 5-14 below provide a detailed discussion on the accumulation limits.
Measures modifying and removing limited access handgear fishery restrictions address goals 1, 2, and 3 within the Amendment.
The actions suggested by several members of the fishing industry could also promote the Amendment 18 goals objectives and are worth future consideration by the Council.
Some fishing industry members and organizations argued for more restrictive accumulation limits. Several organizations, such as CLF, viewed the establishment of accumulation limits as an opportunity to readjust the allocations from Amendment 16. For example, some suggested stock-specific PSC limits ranging from 2.5 to 10 PSC, and one commenter proposed reducing the permit cap from 5 to 2.5 percent. These limits are much more restrictive than the PSC many entities currently have and could have adversely affected an entity's ability to adapt to changing conditions. Also, limits as restrictive as these could have forced divestiture by reallocating PSC from larger businesses to smaller.
During the development of Amendment 18, annual catch limits for many groundfish stocks were significantly reduced. Since there was less quota affiliated with each permit, some fishermen acquired more permits and PSC to sustain fishing operations and remain viable. Many entities and organizations argued that more restrictive accumulation limits would have negatively affected many businesses by adversely affecting the market for permits and PSC.
The Council had to balance the need for accumulation limits with the need to provide operational flexibility to the fleet. Understanding that no entity currently holds an excessive share of the fishery, the Council selected the alternative that provides the most operational flexibility to the fleet while substantially reducing the risk of an entity acquiring an excessive share of permits. If conditions or circumstances in the fishery change, the Council can re-visit the accumulation limits established through this action if necessary.
Amendment 18 also includes a probabilistic analysis, which is a model designed to predict the likelihood that an individual could strategically acquire permits that have high levels of PSC while remaining under the permit cap. The probabilistic analysis concludes that this would be very difficult. Under the probabilistic analysis, the median accumulation for all stocks was below 20 PSC. The Amendment 18 economic discussion concludes that the probabilistic analysis is much more realistic than the potential PSC limits projected under the deterministic analysis. The review also explains that even without the accumulation limits, acquiring the necessary permits to hold an excessive share would be extremely complex, expensive, and time consuming. This may explain why no entity currently holds an excessive share of permits, despite years without any limitations.
The Compass Lexecon report used by the Council to research excessive shares in the groundfish fishery also found a substantial “competitive fringe” in several groundfish stocks. A competitive fringe is a large group of permit holders who hold a relatively small amount of PSC. If the permit holders in the competitive fringe are efficient, then they are likely to remain in the fishery and help preserve a competitive market structure. In a fishery where there is a competitive fringe, an entity could acquire a high PSC of a given stock yet be unable to exert market power. The Compass Lexecon report concluded that “an excessive-share cap of about 15 percent would be sufficient to ensure low concentration for ACE regardless of the level of the competitive fringe. The large competitive fringe for some species could allow for a higher share cap, should the [Council] choose to recommend separate caps for different species.”
While the Compass Lexecon recommendation was stock-specific, the report did not include a permit cap in addition to the PSC cap. The Amendment 18 analyses conclude that combining the PSC limit and permit cap should prevent an entity from acquiring an excessive share of permits.
Amendment 18 suggests that further consolidation is anticipated, even with the accumulation limits, but not to the extent where an entity could acquire an excessive share of the fishery. Consolidation could occur at a greater rate without the accumulation limits established through this action. Importantly, the Amendment 18 analysis concludes that fishing communities would be worse off if the proposed accumulation limits were not implemented because entities would remain unconstrained in their ability to acquire permits and PSC, including
Also, there are no specific regulations that prevent one sector from dividing into multiple sectors. If an ACE limit was adopted and a sector was at risk of reaching that limit, the members could simply break into two separate sectors to avoid the limit, but continue operating collaboratively.
For these reasons, establishing an accumulation limit for sector ACE is not necessary at this time and was not included in Amendment 18.
However, we understand some of the concerns expressed by CLF. Although the Council was focused on maintaining flexibility, we recommend that the Council discuss and reconsider the ability for an entity to exceed the PSC limit then “shelve” a permit.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, only data required to be submitted to NMFS for a determination in a limited access program can be released. The Council did not select this alternative as preferred because NMFS determined that ACE price data are not submitted to NMFS for a determination in the sector catch-share program, and, therefore, may not be released under the Magnuson-Stevens Act data confidentiality provisions. Because these data are confidential per the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement, neither the Council nor NMFS can release pricing behavior and ACE usage at the level of detail requested.
As explained in the preamble of this rule and in Comment 14 above, using our authority under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we added a regulatory measure at 50 CFR 648(a)(1)(i)(N)(
The regulatory text proposed at § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(N) was revised to better clarify how the grandfather provision is applied to the accumulation limits implemented through this action.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the NE multispecies fishery and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
The Council prepared, and NMFS filed, a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for this action with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA published a notice of availability for the FEIS on October 14, 2016 (81 FR 71094).
In approving the Amendment on March 6, 2017, NMFS issued a record of decision (ROD) identifying the selected alternative. A copy of the ROD is available from NMFS (see
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
This rule includes two regulatory modifications that will increase the operational flexibility for Handgear A vessels. Because these regulatory changes relieve regulatory restrictions, these measures are not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Currently, Handgear A vessels are required to carry a standard fish tote on board. Because enforcement no longer use totes for at-sea weight and volume estimates, the requirement for vessels to carry a tote is unnecessary and is being removed. This action also allows a groundfish sector to request an exemption from requiring Handgear A vessels to utilize a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Currently, all sector
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The FRFA describes the economic impact of this action on small entities. The FRFA includes a summary of significant issues raised by public comments, the analyses contained in Amendment 18 and its accompanying FEIS/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the IRFA summary in the proposed rule, as well as the summary provided below. A statement of the necessity for and objectives of this action are contained in Amendment 18 and in the preamble to this final rule, and is not repeated here. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see
Our responses to all of the comments received on the proposed rule, including those that raised significant issues with the proposed action, or commented on the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA and below, can be found in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. Comment 2 suggested that additional analyses detailing how permit caps will affect the future viability of the fleet was needed. Comment 5 explained that several commenters were critical of an independent report and analyses utilized by the Council to develop Amendment 18 accumulation limits. Comment 6 summarized that most opponents to the Amendment contend that the accumulation limits will promote additional consolidation and reduced fleet diversity. Detailed responses are provided to each of these specific comments and are not repeated here. There were no other comments directly related to the IRFA; the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) did not file any comments. No changes to the proposed rule measures were necessary as a result of these public comments.
On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the SBA's current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors, respectively, of the U.S. commercial fishing industry in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016.
Pursuant to the RFA, and prior to July 1, 2016, an IRFA was developed for this regulatory action using SBA's size standards. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this regulatory action in light of the new size standard. Under the previously-used SBA's size standards, all of the commercial finfish and other marine fishing businesses were considered small, while 12 of the 237 shellfish businesses were determined to be large (Tables 1 and 2).
The new standard could result in a few more commercial shellfish businesses being considered small. However, taking the size standard change into consideration, NMFS has identified no additional significant alternatives that accomplish statutory objectives and minimize economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Further, the new size standard does not affect the decision to prepare a FRFA as opposed to a certification for this regulatory action.
Analyses in Tables 2 and 3 below reveal that no groundfish-dependent entities exceeded the previous SBA standard of $5.5 million in gross sales, with the mean gross sale per entity being less than $2 million. It is therefore unlikely that any finfish, or more specifically, groundfish-dependent vessels, would be considered a large business under the new NMFS size standard.
Amendment 18 regulates commercial fish harvesting entities engaged in the NE multispecies limited access fishery. A description of the specific entities that are likely to be impacted is included below for informational purposes, followed by a discussion of those regulated entities likely to be impacted by the proposed regulations. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities, not the individual vessels, are considered the regulated entities.
Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different FMPs, even beyond those affected by Amendment 18. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For this analysis, ownership entities are defined by those entities with common ownership personnel as listed on permit application documentation. Only permits with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven personnel listed as co-owners on their application paperwork, those seven personnel form one ownership entity, covering those five permits. If one or several of the seven owners also own additional vessels, with sub-sets of the original seven personnel or with new co-owners, those ownership arrangements are deemed to be separate ownership entities for the purpose of this analysis.
Ownership entities are identified on June 1 of each year based on the list of all permit numbers for the most recent complete calendar year that have applied for any type of NE Federal fishing permit. At the time of the Amendment 18 analyses, the ownership data set was based on calendar year 2014 permits and contained gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2012 through 2014.
On June 1, 2015, there were 661 commercial business entities potentially regulated by this action. Entities permitted to operate in the NE multispecies limited access fishery are described in Tables 1 and 2. As of June 1, 2015, there were 1,147 individual limited access permits. The 34 for-hire businesses included here are entities affiliated with limited access commercial groundfish permits, but derive greater than 50 percent of their gross sales from party/charter operations. All are small businesses (average gross revenues from 2012-14 are less than $7.5 million). The remaining 75 entities had no revenue and are classified as small.
These totals may mask some diversity among the entities. Many, if not most, of these ownership entities maintain diversified harvest portfolios, obtaining gross sales from many fisheries and are not dependent on any one. However, not all are equally diversified. Those that depend most heavily on sales from harvesting species affected directly by Amendment 18 are most likely to be affected. By defining dependence as deriving greater than 50 percent of gross sales from sales of regulated species associated with a specific fishery, those ownership groups most likely to be affected by the proposed regulations can be identified. Using this threshold, 61 entities are groundfish-dependent; all of which are small under both the SBA and NMFS size standards (Table 3).
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which is under review by OMB under control number 0648-0202. This revision requires any entity that has exceeded the PSC limit to render one or more permits “unusable” so that the entity would be operating within the allocation limit. If an entity exceeds the PSC limit, the entity would be required to complete a “Permit Shelving Form” and render one or more permits unusable.
Public reporting burden for the permit shelving form is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. If two entities had to complete a “Permit Shelving Form,” the burden estimate would be 1 hr and cost $1. Currently, no entity exceeds the PSC allocation limit; the most PSC any entity holds is approximately 140 PSC, and the limit is 232.5 PSC. As a result, it is unlikely that any entity would reach this threshold, or that this action would directly affect fishing operations.
Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This FRFA is intended to analyze how small entities would be affected by the Amendment 18 management measures. This action is expected to have minimal, if any, impact on regulated small entities. The vast majority (649 out of 661) of potentially regulated entities are classified as small businesses by SBA and NMFS business size standards.
In general, the small entities regulated by this action will be unaffected. The majority of limited access groundfish permit holders possess permits and PSC in far smaller quantities than the proposed accumulation limits. However, individuals who comprise a part of, or the entirety of, these small entities could be restricted in the number of permits or the amount of PSC shares they wish to accumulate in the future, which could affect potential revenue.
The PSC limit alternative that was selected for this action provided the most flexibility of all the alternatives proposed. Vessel permit holders can continue to accumulate permits in a manner that allows them to maximize fishing opportunities within their portfolio.
Several stock-specific PSC limit alternatives considered in the Amendment were not selected because the Council determined the alternatives would have been too restrictive. For example, limiting an ownership entity to an accumulation limit equivalent to the PSC held as of the control date could have forced divestiture in the fishery and would have prevented ownership entities from growing. Similarly, establishing a specific accumulation limit for a specific groundfish stock could have reduced opportunities for entities to expand into other fisheries and restrict operational flexibility. Additional information on these alternatives is available in section 4.1 of the Amendment.
Handgear A permit holders will be largely unaffected by the limited access handgear measures. As explained in the preamble, the Handgear A management measures approved in this action actually remove regulatory restrictions, increasing operational flexibility and fishing opportunities.
Several management measures and alternatives were considered but not selected by the Council. Other alternatives may be considered in a future framework, as explained in the preamble above. Additional information on these alternatives and justifications for the Council's decision are explained in section 4 of the Amendment.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and the guide, (
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(N)
(
(
(
(c) * * *
(2)
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(k) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Fish for, possess, land fish, enroll in a sector, or lease a permit or confirmation of permit history (CPH) as a lessor or lessee, with a permit that has been rendered unusable as specified in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(N).
(vi) Acquire a limited access NE multispecies permit that would result in a permit holder exceeding any of the ownership accumulation limits specified in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(N), unless authorized under § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(N).
(9) * * *
(i) If operating under the provisions of a limited access NE multispecies Handgear A permit south of the GOM Regulated Mesh Area, as defined at § 648.80(a)(1), fail to declare the vessel operator's intent to fish in this area via VMS or fail to obtain or retain on board a letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator, as required by § 648.82(b)(6)(iii).
(ii) * * *
(N) Act as a lessor or lessee of NE multispecies DAS to or from a limited access permit that has been rendered unusable as specified in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(N).
(b) * * *
(6)
(i) The vessel must not use or possess on board gear other than handgear while in possession of, fishing for, or landing NE multispecies;
(ii) Tub-trawls must be hand-hauled only, with a maximum of 250 hooks; and
(iii)
(g)
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(a) * * *
(2)
(ii) Based on this review, the PDT shall recommend ACLs for the upcoming fishing year(s), as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and develop options for consideration by the Council, if necessary, on any changes, adjustments, or additions to DAS allocations, closed areas, or other measures necessary to rebuild overfished stocks and achieve the FMP goals and objectives, which may include a preferred option. The range of options developed by the PDT may include any of the management measures in the FMP, including, but not limited to: ACLs, which must be based on the projected fishing mortality levels required to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the FMP for the 12 regulated species and ocean pout if able to be determined; identifying and distributing ACLs and other sub-components of the ACLs among various segments of the fishery; AMs; DAS changes; possession limits; gear restrictions; closed areas; permitting restrictions; minimum fish sizes; recreational fishing measures; describing and identifying EFH; fishing gear management measures to protect EFH; designating habitat areas of particular concern within EFH; and changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set aside programs. The PDT must demonstrate through analyses and documentation that the options it develops are expected to meet the FMP goals and objectives.
(iii) In addition, the PDT may develop ranges of options for any of the management measures in the FMP and the following conditions that may be adjusted through a framework adjustment to achieve FMP goals and objectives including, but not limited to: Revisions to DAS measures, including DAS allocations (such as the distribution of DAS among the four categories of DAS), future uses for Category C DAS, and DAS baselines, adjustments for steaming time, etc.; accumulation limits due to a permit buyout or buyback; modifications to capacity measures, such as changes to the DAS transfer or DAS leasing measures; calculation of area-specific ACLs (including sub-ACLs for specific stocks and areas (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final specifications.
In this final rule, NMFS specifies the 2016 annual catch limits (ACLs) for Pacific Island bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fisheries, and accountability measures (AMs) to correct or mitigate any overages of catch limits. The final ACLs and AMs are effective for fishing year 2016. The fishing year for each fishery begins on January 1 and ends on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries, which begin July 1 and end on June 30 the following year. Although the 2016 fishing year has ended for most stocks, we will evaluate 2016 catches against these final ACLs when data become available in mid-2017. The ACL and AM specifications support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.
The final specifications are effective May 22, 2017. The final
Copies of the fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs) are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel. 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or
Matt Dunlap, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5177.
NMFS is specifying the 2016 ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem management unit species (MUS) in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii. NMFS proposed these specifications on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5517), and the final specifications do not differ from those proposed. The 2016 fishing year began on January 1 and ended on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries, which began on July 1, 2016, and ends on June 30, 2017. Except for bottomfish in American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI, and Guam jacks, Hawaii crabs, and Hawaii octopus, the final 2016 ACLs are identical to those that NMFS specified for 2015 (80 FR 52415, August 31, 2015). For bottomfish in American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, the 2016 ACLs are based on new estimates of maximum sustainable yield contained in a 2016 stock assessment updated by the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC). This stock assessment update represents the best scientific information available for specifying ACLs.
For Guam jacks, Hawaii crabs, and Hawaii octopus, NMFS and the Council determined that the average 2013-2015 catch for each of these three stock complexes exceeded their respective 2015 ACLs. Specifically, average 2013-2015 catch for Guam jacks was 37,399 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 29,300 lb by 8,099 lb. For Hawaii crabs, average 2013-2015 catch was 40,363 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 33,500 lb by 6,863 lb. For Hawaii octopus, average 2013-2015 catch was 40,237 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 35,700 lb by 4,537 lb. In accordance with the 2015 AMs (80 FR 52415, August 31, 2015), and in consideration of the best available scientific information available, NMFS proposes to reduce the 2016 ACLs from the 2015 ACL by the amount of the 2015 overages for each of the three stocks. As a result, the final ACL for Guam jacks is 21,201 lb, 26,637 lb for Hawaii crabs, and 31,163 lb for Hawaii mollusks.
In addition, NMFS prepared an updated environmental assessment for Pacific Island crustacean and precious coral fisheries; in December 2015, NMFS and the Council received new information on the historical and projected stock status of Kona crab in Hawaii. The information indicates that the Hawaii Kona crab stock was likely to be overfished as of 2006. However, an independent review identified data gaps and methodological concerns with the 2015 stock assessment. The PIFSC also noted concerns with the data used in the recent stock assessment, but found that the assessment provided useful information regarding stock status within the last decade. Because of the uncertainty in the projected stock status and structure of Hawaii Kona crab after 2006, the Council did not account for the information in the stock assessment, along with the other relevant information that they considered in recommending the 2016 Hawaii Kona crab ACL. For this reason, NMFS will not set a 2016 ACL for Hawaii Kona crab. Instead, NMFS will continue to work with the Council and other partners to review the available data and to set a 2017 acceptable biological catch and ACL for the Hawaii Kona crab stock, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
NMFS is also not specifying ACLs for MUS that are currently subject to Federal fishing moratoria or prohibitions. These MUS include all species of gold coral (78 FR 32181, May 29, 2013), the three Hawaii seamount groundfish (pelagic armorhead, alfonsin, and raftfish (75 FR 69015, November 10, 2010), and deepwater precious corals at the Westpac Bed Refugia (75 FR 2198, January 14, 2010). The current prohibitions on fishing for these MUS serve as the functional equivalent of an ACL of zero.
Additionally, NMFS is not specifying ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, or coral reef ecosystem MUS identified in the Pacific Remote Islands Area (PRIA) FEP. This is because fishing is prohibited in the EEZ within 12 nm of emergent land, unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (78 FR 32996, June 3, 2013). To date, NMFS has not received fishery data that would support any such approvals. In addition, there is no suitable habitat for these stocks beyond the 12 nm no-fishing zone, except at Kingman Reef, where fishing for these resources does not occur. Therefore, the current prohibitions on fishing serve as the functional equivalent of an ACL of zero. However, NMFS will continue to monitor authorized fishing within the Pacific Remote Islands Monument in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and may develop additional fishing requirements, including monument-specific catch limits for species that may require them.
NMFS is also not specifying ACLs for pelagic MUS at this time, because NMFS previously determined that pelagic species are subject to international fishery agreements or have a life cycle of approximately one year and, therefore, are statutorily excepted from the ACL requirements.
Tables 1-4 list the final 2016 ACL specifications.
Federal logbook entries and required catch reporting from fisheries in Federal waters are not sufficient to monitor and track catches towards the ACL specifications accurately. This is because most fishing for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem MUS occurs in state waters, generally 0-3 nm from shore. For these reasons, NMFS will apply a moving 3-year average catch to evaluate fishery performance against the ACLs. Specifically, NMFS and the Council will use the average catch during fishing year 2014, 2015, and 2016 to evaluate fishery performance against the appropriate 2016 ACL. At the end of each fishing year, the Council will review catches relative to each ACL. If NMFS and the Council determine that the three-year average catch for the fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS and the Council will reduce the ACL for that fishery by the amount of the overage in the subsequent year.
You may find additional background information on this action in the preamble to the proposed specifications published on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5517).
The comment period for the proposed specifications ended on February 2, 2017. NMFS received three comments and responds, as follows:
There are no changes in the final specifications from the proposed specifications.
The Regional Administrator, NMFS PIR, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of Pacific Island fisheries, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed specification stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS published the factual basis for certification in the proposed specifications, and does not repeat it here. NMFS did not receive comments regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and one was not prepared.
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Request for public comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget for a new information collection: Proposed California Federal Milk Marketing Order; Referendum Procedures.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden that would result from the conduct of a referendum must be received by June 20, 2017.
Comments should reference the docket number, title of action, date, and page number of this issue of the
Erin Taylor, Acting Director, Order Formulation and Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/Dairy Program, STOP 0231, Room 2969-S, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 720-7311, email address:
This announcement is issued pursuant to the PRA. This document invites comments on the proposed ballots to be used in conducting a referendum to determine whether the issuance of a Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) regulating the handling of milk in California is favored by producers and cooperative associations. The Recommended Decision on the issuance of a FMMO in California was published in the
In accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA), the information collection requirements associated with the FMMO program have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0032 collection, “Report Forms under the Federal Milk Marketing Order Program.”
7 U.S.C. 608c(9) provides two options for determining industry approval of a new FMMO: (1) By two-thirds of those persons voting; or (2) by two-thirds of the milk represented in the referendum. The AMAA lays out the statutory authority for conducting a referendum to determine industry approval of a new FMMO. 7 CFR 900.300 outlines procedures for conducting a referendum, to include: Definitions; associations eligible to vote; conduct of referendum; who may vote; duties of referendum agent; notice of the referendum; time for voting; tabulation of ballots; confidential information; supplementary instructions; and submittals or requests. This document invites comments for the proposed ballots used to conduct a producer referendum regarding promulgation of a California FMMO. Upon approval, these ballots will also be used to determine producer and cooperative association approval for future FMMO promulgation and amendatory proceedings, including any subsequent referenda under the proposed California FMMO.
In accordance with the PRA, this document announces AMS' intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for an information collection totaling 363.25 hours for the requirements contained in the ballots to carry out the referendum procedures for promulgating a California FMMO.
A new information collection package is being submitted to OMB for approval of 363.25 total burden hours to cover this new collection for conducting a producer referendum on the proposed California FMMO. Upon OMB's approval of this new information collection, AMS intends to merge this new information collection into the approved OMB No. 0581-0032 collection.
In accordance with 5 CFR part 1320, we have included below a description of the collection and recordkeeping requirements and an estimate of the annual burden on entities who would participate in the California producer referendum. As with all mandatory regulatory programs, reporting and recordkeeping burdens are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. The PRA provides authority for this action.
The information collection requirements in this document concern the ballots to carry out a referendum to determine industry approval of the
As with all FMMOs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this document. USDA has performed this initial RFA analysis regarding the impact of this document on small businesses.
An estimated 1,453 responses would provide information to AMS. The estimated cost of providing the information to AMS by respondents would be $12,205.20. This total has been estimated by multiplying 363.25 total hours required for reporting and recordkeeping by $33.60, the average mean hourly earnings of Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers, as denoted by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey.
The proposed California FMMO's referendum procedures have been carefully reviewed, and every effort has been made to minimize any unnecessary recordkeeping costs or requirements, including efforts to utilize procedures already administered by USDA.
Comments are invited on: (1) 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; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements contained in this action should reference OMB No. 0581-NEW. In addition, the docket number, date, and page number of this issue of the
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to comment on this proposed information collection. All written comments received will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-400, DG-500M, DG-500MB, DG-800A, and DG-800B gliders. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect in certain textile fabric covered fuel hoses, which could cause the fuel hose to fail. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 5, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto-Lilienthal Weg 2, D-76646 Bruchsal, Germany; telephone: +49 (0)7251 3202-0; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2016-0259, dated December 21, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During service and annual inspection, DG found that some fuel hoses with textile fabric covering, installed from the beginning of the year 2015, had become weak or untight with time. The suspected root cause for this premature degradation is a manufacturing defect of a certain batch of fuel hoses.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to kinking of the fuel hoses, possibly resulting in a reduced fuel supply and consequent partial or total loss of available power.
To address this unsafe condition, DG-Flugzeugbau published Technical Note TN 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02 providing inspection and replacement instructions.
For the reason described above, this AD requires inspection and replacement of the affected fuel hoses.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
DG Flugzeugbau GmbH has issued Technical note No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, are all dated November 9, 2016, and co-published as one document. The service information describes procedures for inspecting and replacing the fuel hoses. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 59 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with each inspection required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the inspection cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $10,030, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that each replacement action required by this proposed AD would take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $500. Based on these figures, we estimate the replacement cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $69,620, or $1,180 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 5, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to certain DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-400, DG-500M, DG-
(1) Have textile fabric covered fuel hoses installed in the fuselage; and
(2) are certificated in any category.
Metal fabric covered fuel hoses installed in the engine area are not affected by this AD.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 28: Fuel.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect in certain textile fabric covered fuel hoses, which could cause the fuel hose to fail. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel hose, which could cause reduced fuel supply and result in partial or total loss of power.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following Instructions 1. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016.
DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. 800-44, DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. 500-10, and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. DG-SS-02 are all dated November 9, 2016, and co-published as one document.
(2) If any kinking or wet fabric covering is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within the next 14 days after the inspection, replace all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016.
(3) If no kinking or wet fabric covering is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016.
(4) Within 12 months after doing the replacements required in paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect all fuel hoses in the fuselage for any signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks. For this inspection, the ignition switch must be turned on to run the electric fuel pump to demonstrate an operating fuel pressure, as specified in Instructions 4. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016.
(5) If any signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, replace the defective fuel hose in the fuselage following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016. Continue with the repetitive inspections as specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.
(6) If no signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, at intervals not to exceed 10 years, replace the fuel hoses in the fuselage with new fuel hoses following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800-44, 500-10, DG-SS-02, dated November 9, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0259, dated December 21, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its Great Lakes Regulated Navigation Areas to include one additional regulated navigation area in Green Bay, Wisconsin and safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and Saginaw Bay, MI. These zones will apply during the winter months and are necessary to protect waterway users, vessels, and mariners from hazards associated with winter conditions and navigation.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0084 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Matthew Stroebel, Ninth District Coast Guard Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-902-6060, email
On May 22, 2015, the Coast Guard proposed a rule to establish three regulated navigation areas (RNA) and two safety zones in its Great Lakes area. These zones were intended to improve the safety of both recreational users and commercial shipping in high use areas. During the comment period that ended July 6, 2015, we received a total of 6 comments. We received one comment
We received 1 comment that did not relate to the rule. Finally, we received 3 comments in favor of the Erie Islands safety zone and two in favor of the Maumee Bay regulated navigation area.
Based on the comments received regarding the NPRM, this proposed rulemaking has been amended. We believe that regulated navigation areas in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac are not necessary. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking retracts the Coast Guard's proposals to create new regulated navigation areas in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac. We also retract our proposal to re-designate three existing regulated navigation areas as safety zones. The three areas that were proposed to be redesignated as safety zones serve two functions; to establish a single route which optimizes limited icebreaking resources and to protect recreational ice users. By keeping these areas as RNA's it emphasizes that these areas do not solely exist to protect recreational users, but to fulfill an important function in maintaining an efficient navigation plan during ice covered periods.
Instead, this rulemaking proposes to retain the addition of two safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and Saginaw Bay to protect recreational ice users from the dangers associated with vessels disturbing the ice that is primarily used for recreation. We also propose to retain adding one regulated navigation area in Green Bay to manage increased commercial traffic in an area that typically experiences high volumes of recreational use.
The Coast Guard does not propose changes to the already existing regulated navigation areas in this section. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.901 based on the foregoing discussion.
The Coast Guard proposes to make paragraph (b) in the current regulation into paragraph (a)(2)(i). Further, the Coast Guard proposes to add paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to establish a regulated navigation area in Green Bay. Within the regulated navigation area the COTP may issue orders to control vessel traffic. Prior to issuing orders to vessel traffic the COTP will provide advance notice as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. This regulated navigation area would include the waters of Green Bay, bounded by a line between Peshtigo Point and Sherwood Point. Green Bay is an area that has many recreational ice users that are accustomed to Green Bay being free from vessel transits during the winter months. Vessels have requested to transit through Green Bay during the ice season at a frequency of 2 to 4 transits per week. The Coast Guard needs to proactively manage activity within Green Bay to ensure the safety of both commercial vessel traffic and recreational ice users.
The Coast Guard proposes to add a paragraph (c) and a paragraph (d) to 33 CFR 165.901 to accommodate the addition of two safety zones to the current regulation. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) establishes a safety zone in the Lake Erie Islands. The zone would be opened and closed by the Captain of the Port (COTP) after providing the public at least 72 hours of advance notice. This safety zone would span from the city of Huron, OH on the eastern side to Port Clinton, OH on its western side. The northern border of the safety zone would be the international border which is located between Kelly's Island and Pelee Island. No vessel would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances. This safety zone will protect recreational ice users from the hazards associated with vessels breaking or disturbing the ice within the zone.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) establishes a safety zone in Saginaw Bay. The zone would be opened and closed by the Captain of the Port (COTP) after providing the public at least 72 hours of advance notice. This safety zone would include the waters in Saginaw Bay, bounded by a line between Tawas Point and Port Austin Reef. No vessel would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances. This safety zone will protect recreational ice users from the hazards associated with vessels breaking or disturbing the ice within the zone.
Proposed paragraph (d) will include the information relevant to the enforcement of these safety zones. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 (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. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
The proposed amendments involve closure areas and a vessel management area, designed to be implemented only during winter months, as ice conditions dictate. As to the impact of the closure area on Lake Erie near the South Channel and the Erie Islands, OH, the Coast Guard notes that industry vessels have taken alternative routes bypassing the Erie Islands when recreational ice users are present. The Coast Guard anticipates the same practice when this area is closed. Further, regarding the closure area on the waters of Lake Huron in Saginaw Bay, Michigan, the Coast Guard anticipates closing the bay after giving due consideration to industry's need to traverse the area. Moreover, under certain circumstances, the Coast Guard may permit vessel traffic to transit the closure areas. Regarding the regulated navigation area in Green Bay, it is designed to regulate the conditions of vessel transit for safety. Overall, we expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal and that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under 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 amendments to navigation regulations and establishment of a safety zones. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The following are regulated navigation areas:
(1)
(ii) The waters of Lake Huron between Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, Michigan, bounded by a line east from position 45°52′12″ N., 84°43′00″ W.; to Mackinac Island at 45°52′12″ N., 84°39′00″ W.; and a line east from the mainland at 45°53′12″ N., 84°43′30″ W.; to the northern tangent of Mackinac Island at 45°53′12″ N., 84°38′48″ W.
(2)
(ii) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Green Bay from Rock Island Passage or Porte Des Morts Passage north to Escanaba Light at 45°44′48″ N., 087°02′14″ W.; south to the Fox River Entrance at 44°32′22″ N., 088°00′19″ W., to the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal from Sherwood Point Light at 44°53′34″ N., 087°26′00″ W.; to Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal Light at 44°47′42″ N., 087°18′48″ W.; and then to the point of beginning.
(b)
(2) Prior to the closing or opening of the regulated navigation areas, the COTP will give interested parties, including both shipping interests and island residents, not less than 72 hours notice of the action. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print and television), local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. No vessel may navigate in a regulated navigation area which has been closed by the COTP. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.13 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to authorize vessels to operate outside of issued orders.
(c) The following are safety zones:
(1)
(2)
(d)
(2) Prior to closing or opening these safety zones, the District Commander or respective COTP will give the public advance notice, not less than 72 hours prior to the closure. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print and television), local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 22, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 22, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 22, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock and fruit from quarantined areas to prevent the spread of citrus canker.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 20, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock and fruit from citrus canker quarantined areas, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Citrus canker is a plant disease that affects plant and plant parts, including fresh fruit of citrus and citrus relatives (family
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulations to prevent the interstate spread of citrus canker are contained in “Subpart—Citrus Canker” (7 CFR 301.75-1 through 301.75-17). The regulations restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from and through areas quarantined because of citrus canker and provide, among other things, conditions under which regulated nursery stock and fruit may be moved interstate. The interstate movement of regulated nursery stock and fruit from quarantined areas involves information collection activities, including compliance agreements, package marking, certificates, and limited permits.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of potatoes from Mexico.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 20, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of potatoes from Mexico, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483
Section 319.56-66 of the regulations provides the requirements for the importation of potatoes from Mexico into the United States. As a condition of entry, the potatoes have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach as described in the regulations. The regulations require the use of information collection activities, such as a bilateral workplan, grower registration, packinghouse registration, inspections with agricultural seals, surveys, and phytosanitary certificates.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, May 2, 2017, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) and Wednesday, May 3, 2017, from 8:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m. ET. During this time, members will further develop their policy proposals and work plan for their two-year term. Topics to be covered include advanced manufacturing, access to capital in underserved markets, inclusive entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education in schools and career development programs, and alignment of federal innovation and entrepreneurship programing.
Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, Room 1894.
Craig Buerstatte, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Room 78018, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; email:
NACIE, established by Section 25(c) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3720(c)), and managed by EDA's Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIE), is a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that provides advice directly to the Secretary of Commerce. NACIE's advice focuses on transformational policies and programs that aim to accelerate innovation and increase the rate at which research is translated into companies and jobs, including through entrepreneurship and the development of an increasingly skilled, globally competitive workforce. Comprised of successful entrepreneurs, innovators, angel investors, venture capitalists, and leaders from the nonprofit and academic sectors, NACIE has presented to the Secretary recommendations from throughout the research-to-jobs continuum regarding topics including improving access to capital, growing and connecting entrepreneurial ecosystems, increasing small business-driven research and development, and understanding the workforce of the future. In its advisory capacity, NACIE also serves as a vehicle for ongoing dialogue with the innovation, entrepreneurship, and workforce development communities.
The final agenda for the meeting will be posted on the NACIE Web site at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce (Commerce).
On October 14, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR tires”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and provided to interested parties an opportunity to comment on these preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes in the margin calculation regarding one mandatory respondent, Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. (“Xugong”). We also continue to find that the other mandatory respondent, Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. (“GTC”), is not eligible for separate rate status and, thus, is part of the PRC-wide entity. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results” section of this notice, below.
Effective April 21, 2017.
Amanda Mallott or Keith Haynes, 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) 482-6430 and (202) 482-5139, respectively.
On October 14, 2016, the Department published its
We received case briefs from Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“Petitioners”), the mandatory respondents Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. (“Xugong”)
The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached as Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and 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
As noted in the
In the
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be assigned to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference for not calculating an all-others rate using rates which are zero,
Based on an analysis of the comments received, we made certain calculation changes and revisions to the valuation of certain factors of production since the
In light of changes made since the
As a result of this administrative review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015:
Additionally, as in the
We intend to disclose the calculations performed regarding these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
For Xugong, the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For customers or importers of Xugong for which we do not have entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective 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 this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin identified in the “Final Results” section of this notice, above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate (or exporter-producer chain rate) published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 105.31 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that National Advanced Spectrum and Communications Test Network (NASCTN) will hold a public meeting on May 4, 2017 to inform the public about the NASCTN project “Impact of Long Term Evolution (LTE) signals on Global Positioning System (GPS) Devices”. At this meeting, the public will learn about this project, as described in the report released to the public on February 15, 2017, available at:
The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 4, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. To attend the meeting in person you must register in advance by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2017. In order to access the WebEx you must register in advance by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 3, 2017. For instructions on how to register to participate in the meeting, please see the
The meeting will be held at MITRE Campus, Building 1, 7525 Colshire Drive, McLean VA, 22102. Directions to the MITRE McLean Campus are available at:
For questions about this public meeting contact: Dr. Sheryl Genco, Communications Technology Laboratory, NIST by email at
NASCTN provides a neutral forum for addressing spectrum-sharing challenges to accelerate the deployment of wireless technologies among commercial and federal users. NASCTN was created in 2015 and is a joint effort among NIST, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the United States Department of Defense. NASCTN's mission is to provide robust test processes and validated measurement data necessary to develop, evaluate and deploy spectrum sharing technologies that can increase access to the spectrum by both Federal agencies and non-federal spectrum users. NASCTN conducts projects with private sector entities via Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA).
In May of 2016, the NASCTN team completed the draft test plan and distributed it to a cross-section of GPS manufacturers, Federal agencies, and spectrum regulators and released it publicly for comments to obtain technical feedback on the proposed method. Over a two-month period, NASCTN received 159 comments from 10 different organizations. The NASCTN test team reviewed the comments and developed a revised test plan in July of 2016 that addressed the technical issues raised in the comments. The draft test plan, the revised test plan, and the adjudicated comments from the review process are all publicly available on the NASCTN Web site at:
Over a three-month period, from August through October 2016, NASCTN performed the radiated measurements associated with this project at two facilities—a semi-anechoic chamber at National Technical Systems in Longmont, Colorado and at a fully-anechoic chamber at the NIST Broadband Interoperability Testbed facility in Boulder, Colorado, using the revised test plan.
NASCTN relied on technical staff from NIST and the U.S. Army's Electronic Proving Grounds to perform and validate the measurements and collect the data. The team was multi-disciplinary, including expertise in GPS devices and simulation, radiated radio-frequency measurements, timing measurements, microwave metrology, statistical analysis and data processing.
In total, NASCTN performed 1,476 hours of testing and collected over 19,000 data files for a variety of measurands, including carrier-to-noise-density ratio (C/N
Due to significant interest in these measurements by regulators for assessing LTE signals on performance of GPS devices, Federal agencies, and the GPS community, NASCTN is hosting a public meeting to provide an overview of the project, the test methodology and the test results. NASCTN will also answer questions on the project, the testing methodology and the test results. The final agenda for the public meeting will be posted on the NASCTN Web page, available at:
Seating at the public meeting may be limited, and attendance will be “first-come, first-served,” on a space-available basis.
The public meeting will also be accessible via WebEx for those who are unable to participate in person. If you wish to have access to the WebEx, you must register in advance of the meeting by sending an email with your first and last name, email address, phone number, and company affiliation provided in the message to Dr. Sheryl Genco at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council in conjunction with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 10, 2017, from 1 p.m. until 5:45 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meetings will be held at: The Westin Alexandria, 400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314, telephone: (703) 253-8600.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible).
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 51 Post-Data Workshop webinar for Gulf of Mexico gray snapper.
The SEDAR 51 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico gray snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, an Assessment Workshop and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 51 post-Data Workshop webinar will be held May 16, 2017, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., Eastern Time.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the post-Data Workshop webinar are as follows:
Panelists will present finalized data for review and recommendation.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will 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.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce).
Notice.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments for the performance evaluation of the Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see
You may submit comments on the reserves and coastal program NOAA intends to evaluate by any of the following methods:
Ralph Cantral, Evaluator, Policy, Planning and Communications, Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East West Highway N/OCM1, (240) 543-0729, or
Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) require NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved national estuarine research reserves. The process includes a public meeting, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. For the evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserves, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to its management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the Coastal Zone Management Act. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
Specific information on the periodic evaluation of reserves that are the subject of this notice are detailed below as follows:
You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:
Written comments must be received on or before June 21, 2017.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Vanessa Coates, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Natural History Unit, BBC Bristol, Whiteladies Road, United Kingdom BS8 2LR, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial photography on killer whales (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before May 22, 2017.
These documents are available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376.
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Sara Young or Carrie Hubard; (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to film killer whales at various locations outside of Seward, Alaska, over six days in May, and in Juneau, AK over six days at the end of July. In Seward, a maximum of 300 killer whales will be intentionally filmed while 100 Dall's porpoise, and 400 Pacific white-sided dolphins may be incidentally harassed and approached for filming. In Juneau, a maximum of 100 killer whales would be intentionally filmed. Filming would occur from cameras on board a vessel or by helicopter. Hydrophones would be used to record vocalizations. Footage would be used for an Alaska Live television series to showcase the gathering of wildlife in Alaska that occurs around the salmon runs. The permit would be valid through August 31, 2017.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a two day meeting of its Ad Hoc Red Snapper Private Recreational Advisory Panel (AP).
The meeting will convene on Monday, May 8, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday, May 9, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., CDT.
The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel, located at 300 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130; telephone: (504) 581-1300.
Dr. John Froeschke, Fishery Biologist-Statistician, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The charge of this AP is to provide recommendations to the Council on private recreational red snapper management measures which would (1) provide more quality access to the resource in federal waters, (2) reduce discards, and (3) improve fisheries data collection.
The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may register for Ad Hoc Red Snapper Private Recreational AP on May 8-9, 2017 at:
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issues this Notice on behalf of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to initiate the annual process to seek expressions of interest from individuals who would like to serve on the FirstNet Board. One of the 12 appointments of nonpermanent members to the FirstNet Board, expiring August 2019, is currently vacant. Additionally, four of the 12 appointments of nonpermanent members to the FirstNet Board expire in August 2017, creating a total of five available appointments to the FirstNet Board. NTIA issues this Notice to obtain expressions of interest in being selected by the Secretary to the FirstNet Board.
Expressions of interest must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before May 22, 2017.
Persons wishing to submit expressions of interest as described below should send that information to: Marsha MacBride, Associate Administrator of NTIA's Office of Public Safety Communications, by email to
Marsha MacBride, Associate Administrator, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4078, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5802; email:
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act) created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA and charged it with ensuring the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network, based on a single, national network architecture.
The FirstNet Board is composed of 15 voting members. The Act names the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as permanent members of the FirstNet Board. The Secretary of Commerce appoints the twelve nonpermanent members of the FirstNet Board.
• Susan Swenson (Chairwoman), Telecommunications/technology executive (Term expires: August 2019)
• Jeffrey Johnson (Vice Chairman), Fire Chief, retired; CEO Western Fire Chiefs Association; Former Chair, State Interoperability Council, State of Oregon (Term expires: August 2019)
• Chris Burbank, Chief of Police, Salt Lake City UT, retired (Term expires: August 2017)
• Neil E. Cox, Telecommunications/technology executive (Term expires: August 2018)
• James H. Douglas, Former Governor, Vermont (Term expires: August 2017)
• Edward Horowitz, Venture capital/technology executive (Term expires: August 2018)
• Kevin McGinnis, Chief/CEO, North East Mobile Health Services (Term expires: August 2018)
• Annise D. Parker, former Mayor of Houston, Texas (Term expires: August 2018)
• Ed Reynolds, Telecommunications executive, retired (Term expires: August 2017)
• Richard W. Stanek, Sheriff, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Term expires: August 2017)
• Teri Takai, Government information technology expert; former CIO, States of Michigan and California (Term expires: August 2019)
• Vacant (Term expires: August 2019)
FirstNet Board members are appointed as special government employees. FirstNet Board members are compensated at the daily rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule (approximately $161,900 per year).
FirstNet Board members must comply with certain federal conflict of interest statutes and ethics regulations, including some financial disclosure requirements. A FirstNet Board member will generally be prohibited from participating on any particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on his or her personal financial interests or on the interests of the appointee's spouse, minor children, or non-federal employer.
At the direction of the Secretary of Commerce, NTIA, in consultation with FirstNet, will conduct outreach to the public safety community, state and local organizations, and industry to solicit nominations for candidates to the Board who satisfy the statutory requirements for membership. In addition, by this Notice, the Secretary of Commerce, through NTIA, will accept expressions of interest until May 22, 2017 from any individual or organization that wishes to propose a candidate who satisfies the statutory requirements for membership on the FirstNet Board.
All parties wishing to be considered should submit their full name, address, telephone number, email address, a current resume, and a statement of qualifications that references how the candidate satisfies the Act's expertise, representational, and geographic requirements for FirstNet Board membership, as described in this Notice, along with a statement describing why they want to serve on the FirstNet Board and affirming their ability and availability to take a regular and active role in the Board's work. The Secretary of Commerce will select FirstNet Board candidates based on the eligibility requirements in the Act and recommendations submitted by NTIA, in consultation with the FirstNet Board's Governance and Personnel Committee. NTIA will recommend candidates based on an assessment of their qualifications as well as their demonstrated ability to work in a collaborative way to achieve the goals and objectives of FirstNet as set forth in the Act. Board candidates will be vetted through the Department of Commerce and are subject to an appropriate background check for security clearance.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletion from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete a product from the Procurement List that was previously furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2017.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons
The following product is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Effective May 21, 2017.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 2/10/2017 (82 FR 10337-10338), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:
On 2/24/2017 (82 FR 11562), 3/10/2017 (82 FR 13312-13313) and 3/17/2017 (82 FR 14208), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Notice; request for comments.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) will submit the collection of information listed below to OMB for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This notice solicits comments on this collection of information.
Submit your written comments on the information collection on or before June 20, 2017.
Mail your comments on the requirement to Amy B. Jensen, Director Business Operations, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, VA 22202-4149; fax (703) 603-0655; or email
To request a copy of the applicable forms or explanatory material, contact Amy B. Jensen or Barry S. Lineback at the address in the above paragraph or through the above email address.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal agencies 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. The OMB control numbers for the current collections of information are 3037-0001 and 3037-0002. The OMB control number for the revised collection of information is 3037-0013.
The JWOD Act of 1971 (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) is the authorizing legislation for the AbilityOne Program. The AbilityOne Program creates employment and training opportunities for people who are blind or who have other significant disabilities. Its primary means of doing so is by requiring Government agencies to purchase certain products and services from nonprofit agencies (NPA) employing such individuals. The AbilityOne Program is administered by the Committee. Two national, independent NPAs designated by the Committee, National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and SourceAmerica, help State and private nonprofit agencies participate in the AbilityOne Program.
The implementing regulations for the JWOD Act, which are located at 41 CFR Chapter 51, provide the requirements, procedures, and standards for the AbilityOne Program. Section 51-4.3 of the regulations sets forth the standards that a nonprofit agency must meet to maintain qualification for participation in the AbilityOne Program. Under this section of the regulations, a nonprofit agency that wants to continue to participate in the AbilityOne Program must submit a completed copy of the appropriate (Annual Representations and Certifications for AbilityOne Qualified Nonprofit Agency (OMB number 3037-0013). This documentation helps the Committee determine whether the nonprofit agency is meeting the requirements of the AbilityOne Program.
This information collection request seeks approval for the Committee to collect the information required under 41 CFR 51-4.3 of the regulations as part of its process to evaluate nonprofit agency qualifications under 41 CFR 51-2,4(a)(2). Whenever the result of a nonprofit agency's request to the Committee for the addition of a new product or service to the Procurement List (PL) exceeds $500,000 in total contract value, the nonprofit agency will be required to complete a project specific representations and certification form to ensure that the
We invite comments concerning this renewal on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the renewal of the collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by “Renewal of Collection Pertaining to Real-Time Public Reporting and Block Trade” by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
John W. Dunfee, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5396; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to these information collections, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
The Commission notes that rather than the initial estimate of 40 SEFs, there currently are 25 SEFs either registered with the Commission or with registrations pending.
In addition to the above burden hours for compliance with part 43 obligations generally, the Commission determined that certain market participants would incur burden hours associated with the masking of the geographic detail of the underlying assets to a swap in the other commodity asset class, and with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a block trade or large notional off-facility swap.
The Commission initially estimated that market participants would incur an aggregate of 2,167 annual burden hours in connection with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a block trade.
The Commission initially estimated that market participants would incur an aggregate of 2,255 annual burden hours in connection with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a large notional off-facility swap.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Thursday, April 27, 2017, 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled AmeriCorps Application Instructions: State Commissions, State and National Competitive, Professional Corps, Indian Tribes, States and Territories without Commissions, and State and National Planning Grants for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling CNCS, Jill Graham, at 202-606-6905 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within May 22, 2017.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of Intent/NEPA Scoping meeting and public comment period.
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) plans to prepare a Feasibility Study with an integrated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate environmental impacts from reasonable project alternatives and to determine the potential for significant impacts related to reduce future flood risk in ways that support the long‐term resilience and
Send written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of issues to be evaluated within the EIS to Robert Smith, Project Biologist/NEPA Coordinator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Planning Division, Environmental, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10279-0090; Phone: (917) 790-8729; email:
Questions about the overall Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study should be directed to Mark Lulka, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Programs and Project Management Division, Civil Works Programs Branch, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2145, New York, NY 10279-0090; Phone: (917) 790-8205; email:
Scoping meetings will be held on May 2 and 3, 2017. For further information on these scoping meetings, please read the
As a result of Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, Congress passed Public Law 113-2, which authorized supplemental appropriations to Federal agencies for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy. The Corps is investigating measures to reduce future flood risk in ways that support the long‐term resilience and sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and surrounding communities, and reduce the economic costs and risks associated with flood and storm events. In support of this goal, the Corps completed the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NAACS), which identified nine high risk areas on the Atlantic Coast for further analysis based on preliminary findings. The Nassau County Back Bays area was identified as one of the nine areas of high risk, or Focus Areas, that warrants an in-depth investigation into potential coastal storm risk management measures.
During Hurricane Sandy, the study area communities were severely affected with large areas subjected to erosion, storm surge, and wave damage along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline, and flooding of communities within and surrounding Bays. Along the Atlantic Ocean, surge and waves inundated low lying areas, and contributed to the flooding along the shoreline of the interior of the Bays. Hurricane Sandy illustrated the need to re-evaluate the entire back-bay area as a system, when considering risk-management measures. Acknowledging the amount of analyses required to comprehensively reevaluate the study area considering the influence of the Atlantic Ocean shorefront conditions on the back-bay system, an EIS will be prepared. The EIS will build upon the extensive Atlantic shoreline alternatives analysis and environmental and technical studies and outreach conducted to date. The scope of analysis will be appropriate to the level of detail necessary for an EIS and will receive input from the public and reviewing agencies. The analysis will provide the basis for the alternatives to problems associated with storm surge and wave damage along the back-bays.
The study area includes all of the tidally influenced bays and estuaries located in and hydraulically connected to the south shore of Nassau County, New York, located on Long Island, NY, directly east of Queens County and west of Suffolk County for approximately 98 square miles.
As required by Council on Environmental Quality's Principles, Requirements and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies all reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action that meet the purpose and need will be considered in the EIS. These alternatives will include no action and a range of reasonable alternatives for managing flood risk within the Nassau County Back Bays Area. The measures to be evaluated will be the subject of additional public stakeholders and agency coordination. The result of this coordination early on in the process will identify any concerns, potential impacts, relevant effects of past actions and possible alternative actions which will aid in the Corps developing an EIS for the entire study area. This decision making approach will allow time to address agency policy issues and build consensus among cooperating agencies and the public.
The Corps has scheduled meeting to invite the public to come and comment on the scope of the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the draft EIS. The Nassau County Back Bay, NEPA Scoping Meeting will be held:
Each of the public meetings will begin with an informal open house followed by the formal presentation. Input will also be received through written comments, comments may be submitted during the scoping meetings, or via mail or email at any time.
The Corps is the lead federal agency and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation will be the nonfederal sponsor for the study and the preparation of the EIS and meeting the requirements of the NEPA and its Implementing Regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508). Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to Colonel David A. Caldwell, District Engineer (see
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Catalog of Federal
Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5158, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6039.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
This priority is:
Congress recognized in IDEA that “almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by . . . supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities” (section 601(c)(5)(H) of IDEA).
Technology can be the great equalizer in a classroom for students with disabilities. The use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, enhances instruction and access to the general education curriculum. Innovative technology tools, programs, and software can be used to promote engagement and enhance the learning experience (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011). Innovative technology tools and programs are especially helpful as educators work to engage and motivate students who struggle with the general education curriculum. Additionally, the development of newer technologies for, and their presence in, early childhood education is rapidly increasing. When media-rich content is integrated into the curriculum and supported with adult guidance, technology experiences for young children are associated with better language, literacy, and mathematics outcomes. Additionally, technology integration in early childhood settings has been linked to increased social awareness and collaborative behaviors, improved abstract reasoning and problem solving abilities, and enhanced visual-motor coordination (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012).
Technologies can support State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) by: (a) Improving student learning and engagement; (b) accommodating the special needs of students; (c) facilitating student and teacher access to digital content and resources; and (d) improving the quality of instruction through personalized learning and data (Duffey & Fox, 2012; Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levi, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). As stipulated in section 4109 of the Every Student Succeeds Act, technologies can be used to support LEAs and SEAs to increase student access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences.
Notwithstanding the potential benefits of using technology to improve learning outcomes, research suggests that implementation can be a significant challenge. For example, data from a survey of more than 1,000 kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) teachers, principals, and assistant principals indicated that simply providing teachers with technology does not ensure that it will be used (Grunwald & Associates, 2010). Additionally, Perlman and Redding (2011) found that in order to be used most effectively, technology must be implemented in ways that align with curricular and teacher goals and offer students opportunities to use these tools in their learning. Even as schools have started to deliver coursework online, and the number of students involved in online learning has grown, many of these online learning technologies have not been designed to be accessible to students with disabilities (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012). These findings demonstrate a need for products and resources that can assist educators to readily implement technology tools for students with disabilities.
In response to this need, Stepping-up Technology Implementation projects have built on technology development efforts by identifying, developing, and disseminating products and resources that promote the effective implementation
The purpose of this priority is to fund five cooperative agreements to: (a) Identify strategies needed to readily implement existing technology tools based on evidence that benefit students with disabilities; and (b) develop and disseminate products (See footnote 3;
To be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application requirements. Any project funded under this absolute priority must also meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
An applicant must include in its application—
(a) A project design supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice);
(b) A logic model (as defined in this notice) or conceptual framework that depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.
The following Web sites provide more information on logic models:
(c) A plan to implement the activities described in the
(d) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;
(e) Documentation that the technology tool is fully developed, is based on evidence, and addresses, at a minimum, the following principles of universal design:
(1) Multiple means of presentation so that students can approach information in more than one way (
(2) Multiple means of expression so that all students can demonstrate knowledge through options such as writing, online concept mapping, or speech-to-text programs, where appropriate; and
(3) Multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning (
(f) A plan for how the project will sustain the proposed technology tool or strategy, supported by evidence, after funding ends;
(g) A plan for recruiting and selecting
(1) Three development schools. Development schools are the sites in which iterative development
(2) Four pilot schools. Pilot schools are the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of the products and resources will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period; and
(3) Ten dissemination schools. Dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to (a) refine the products for use by teachers and (b) evaluate the performance of the tool. Dissemination schools will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than development or pilot schools. Also, at this stage (
(h) School site information (
(i) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative.
(2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.
(3) Two two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.
To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:
(a) Recruit a minimum of three development schools in one LEA and four pilot schools across at least two LEAs in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraph (g) of the
Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting.
(b) Identify and develop resources and products that, when used to support technology tool implementation, create accessible learning opportunities for all children, including children with disabilities, and will support the sustained implementation of the selected technology tool. Development of the products must be an iterative process beginning in a single development school and continuing through repeated cycles of development and refinement in the other development schools, followed by a
(1) An instrument or method for assessing—
(i) Whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes;
(ii) The school staff's current technology uses and needs, current technology investments, firewall issues, and the knowledge and availability of dedicated on-site technology personnel; and
(iii) The readiness of development and pilot sites to implement the technology tool. Any instruments and methods for assessing readiness may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides, and survey of teachers' interests.
(c) Provide ongoing professional development activities necessary for teachers to implement the technology tool with fidelity and to integrate it into the curriculum.
(d) Collect and analyze data on whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes for early childhood development, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness.
(e) Collect formative and summative data from the development and pilot schools to refine and evaluate the products.
(f) If the project is extended to a fifth year, provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than 10 dissemination schools that are not the same schools used as development or pilot schools.
(g) Collect summative data about the success of the products in supporting implementation of the technology tool in the dissemination schools; and
(h) By the end of the project period, provide—
(1) Information on the products and resources, as supported by the project evaluation, including any accessibility features, that will enable other schools to implement and sustain implementation of the technology tool;
(2) A plan for implementing the technology that includes relevant information (
(3) Information on how the technology tool achieved its intended outcomes related to early childhood (
(4) A plan for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying products beyond the schools directly involved in the project.
OSEP project officer(s) will provide coordination support among the projects. Each project funded under this priority must:
(a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to share and collaborate around implementation and specific project issues; and
(b) Provide information annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (
The following Web site provides more information about implementation research:
The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond 48 months to work with dissemination schools if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes (
(a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the last half of the third year of the project period;
(b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and
(c) Evidence of the degree to which the project's activities have contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for students with disabilities.
Under each competitive preference priority, no more than one application will be funded based solely on competitive preference points (
The priorities are:
To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must be designed to support teachers in providing access through technology to the general education curriculum aligned with State grade-level content standards or alternate academic achievement standards in mathematics and English language arts (K-12) for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Teachers of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities will be able to use the technology to differentiate grade-level instruction effectively and will be able to better track student progress toward grade-level proficiency. Applicants responding to the competitive preference priority must—
(a) Identify technology tools based on evidence needed to implement an English language arts or mathematics curriculum aligned with State grade-level content standards or alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities;
(b) Identify a curriculum and performance tracking tool for use by teachers for the purpose of assessing the outcomes of the technology's intended use on individualized instruction aligned to K-12 grade—level content standards, or alternate academic achievement standards, in English language arts and mathematics appropriate to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; and
(c) Develop and disseminate accessible products and resources (
To meet this competitive preference priority, applicants must include in the
An applicant addressing this competitive preference priority must identify no more than two study citations that meet this standard.
To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must provide technology to support instructors and students in juvenile correctional facilities that—
(a) Allows instructors to immediately assess a student's current grade-level ability when the student moves into a juvenile correctional facility without having the appropriate educational information (
(b) Equips instructors with tools and resources to enhance the classroom experience, such as flipped classrooms, blended learning, and other models and methods that would allow students to make educational gains in and outside of the classroom; and
(c) Expands the reach of correctional education services to provide more incarcerated individuals with the knowledge and skills needed to graduate.
These definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and the Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the
The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities:
(a)(1) Any Title I school that has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and that—
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that—
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
(b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both—
(i) The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group.
20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.
4.
(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of the proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
•
The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section, or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation competition, CFDA number 84.327S, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Educational
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
•
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327S), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327S), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a)
The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(1) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed, and the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or carried out by the proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and how the specific gaps or weaknesses will be addressed by the proposed project;
(iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increase knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies and the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study; and
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of children with disabilities.
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project.
(1) In determining the quality of the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability.
(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project reflect current knowledge from research and effective practice;
(ii) The extent to which the products and/or services are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to outcomes as intended by the proposed project;
(iii) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed, project, involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services;
(iv) The likely utility of the products and/or services that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings; and
(v) The extent to which the products and resources developed by the proposed project include accessible accessibility features, supporting the sustained implementation of the technology tool or strategy.
(c)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(1) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
(ii) The extent to which the proposed logic model or conceptual framework depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, reflects current knowledge from research and effective practice; supported by strong theory; a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed technology tool or strategy is fully-developed, evidence-based (as defined in this notice) and that can be implemented to improve early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college and career readiness; and
(v) The extent to which the proposed technology tool or strategy addresses the following principles of universal design: (a) Multiple means of representation so students can approach information in more than one way; (b) multiple means of expression so that all students can demonstrate and express what they know; and (c) multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning.
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(1) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section and to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments and qualifications of the project director and principal investigator, including relevant training and experience of key project personnel, project consultants or subcontractors are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(iii) The adequacy of the plan for recruiting and selecting:
(a) The three development schools (the sites in which iterative development of the implementation of technology tools and products will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with at least one development school in year one of the project period and two additional development schools in year two;
(b) Four pilot schools (the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of technology tools and products will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period; and
(c) Ten dissemination schools. The dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to conduct the final test of the effectiveness of the products and the final opportunity for the project to refine the products for use by teachers, but will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than the development and pilot schools;
(iv) The adequacy of the information (
(v) The adequacy of the plan to which the results and accompanying products of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies; and
(vi) The adequacy of the plan to sustain the technology after funding ends.
(e)
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(1) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project; and
(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project; and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(f)
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(1) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the context within which the project operates, and include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for the examination of the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation is linked to the proposed project's logic model is appropriate for the formative evaluation, describing how performance objectives in plan will ensure continuous performance feedback and improvement and assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes in the operation of the proposed project's activities.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
5.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
On April 17, 2017, a letter order was issued in Docket No. EL17-61-000 by the Director, Division of Electric Power—West, Office of Energy Market Regulation, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the proposed rate decrease of DATC Path 15, LLC may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-61-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-61-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that on April 14, 2017, pursuant to Rules 206 and 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212 and sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e, Renewable Energy Systems Americas and Invenergy Storage Development LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Respondent or PJM) alleging that PJM's unilateral change to its frequency regulation market was a discriminatory action taken against existing energy storage resources that participate in the market and resulted in financial harm to the Complainants, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served on the Respondent.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff 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:
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 15, 2017.
A.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board or Federal Reserve) incorrectly published in the
The Board invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the voluntary Survey of Terms of Lending (STL; FR 2028; OMB No. 7100-0061).
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval.
The survey data are used to assess conditions and to track developments in business credit markets. For instance, during the credit market turmoil that began in the second half of 2007 and early 2008, STL data showed a smaller increase in the spread of loan rates over banks' cost of funds than other indicators of business loan pricing suggested. Moreover, information about
The FR 2028A data have limitations for assessing conditions and analyzing developments in nonfarm business credit markets. For example, it was noted in the memorandum for renewing the STL in June 2015 that “The STL is an important source of individual loan data used by those concerned with lending to small businesses, for which banks are one of the primary sources of credit.”
The Federal Reserve System has conducted a study of alternative small business loan data sources to assess their usefulness for addressing policy questions on small business credit. The study identified and conducted an extensive analysis of 35 existing and potential new small business lending data collections. The data collections considered included, among others, collections undertaken by the Board of Governors, private sector surveys such as the National Federation of Independent Business member survey, and a Dodd-Frank Act mandated data collection by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The FR 2028D data collection is being proposed to address the gaps in existing and planned new surveys on small business lending. In addition, other Federal Reserve reports that have been developed in recent years provide information on large nonfarm business loans. As a result, the information used for assessing and analyzing developments in nonfarm business credit markets would be improved by combining the proposed FR 2028D data collection on the terms of small business loans with the existing reports on large business loans. For these reasons, the FR 2028A would be discontinued. The proposed final data collection for the FR 2028A would be for the May 2017 survey week.
The FR 2028S is completed by banks that file the FR 2028A or the FR 2028B.
The FR 2028D would collect quantitative and qualitative information that the Federal Reserve can use to monitor developments in the availability of credit to small businesses. Bank lending to small businesses is critical for employment and economic growth at the local, regional, and national levels because it is a primary source of funding for these businesses. The FR 2028D was motivated by the inability to answer basic policy questions raised by Federal Reserve policymakers on small business credit during the recent financial crisis and subsequent recovery. It would also contribute to a better understanding of the role of community banks in providing loans to small businesses and on small business access to credit in local communities. The survey would be timed to make reports on developments in small business lending available for the second FOMC meeting of each quarter. The data would also be available for Federal Reserve System economists and other staff to use for research purposes. To get a complete understanding of the availability, terms, and market conditions of bank lending to small and large nonfarm businesses, the Federal Reserve would combine the information gathered from the FR 2028D with other Federal Reserve data collections that gather information on large business loans.
The FR 2028D would improve the ability to assess and analyze developments in nonfarm small business credit markets and to answer policy questions in a timely manner. The proposed information to be collected is not available from existing or planned surveys conducted by either the private or public sectors. The survey would collect unique, quarterly quantitative and qualitative information on nonfarm small business lending that improves upon the information currently collected by the FR 2028A. The quantitative information is similar to the data in the FR 2028A, but the FR 2028D would collect quarterly amounts or average levels of the data items as opposed to individual loan information from a survey week. As a result, the quantitative information will be less costly to report and less impacted by idiosyncratic events. The qualitative questions will provide information on
The FR 2028D would also improve upon current information on outstanding loans collected on the Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report; FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051; OMB No. 7100-0036), which collects data on loans less than a certain dollar amount rather than on loans to small businesses. The Call Report data may result in information distortions about the availability of credit to small businesses because not all small loans are made to small businesses.
The FR 2028D would collect quantitative and qualitative information on loans to small businesses from a stratified sample of 398 banking institutions. The survey would be administered at a quarterly frequency and distributed during the second month of each quarter. Survey responses would be based on loan activity over the previous quarter. Quantitative information collected would include the aggregate number and dollar amount of outstanding loans and new loans extended by banks to small businesses each quarter, as well as line-of-credit drawdowns and the average interest rate and benchmark rate. Loans are separated into two categories: Term loans and lines of credit, with each category further separated into fixed rate and variable rate. Additionally, quantitative information on the number and dollar amount of small business loans with guarantees (Small Business Administration and other) would be collected, as well as information regarding loan maturity and the use of interest rate floors. The FR 2028D would also collect quantitative information on small business loan applications received and applications approved during the survey quarter, including information on applications from Low- and Moderate-Income tracts.
Qualitative information collected by the FR 2028D would include questions to gauge changes in lending terms, loan demand, and credit standards for small business loans during the survey period.
The replacement of the FR 2028A with the FR 2028D would result in a reduction of the burden by 2,873 hours.
The FR 2028B panel has an authorized size of 250 domestically chartered commercial banks. The panel of banks has been drawn from a random sample of banks stratified according to farm loan volumes since 1989. Since that time, the authorized size of the panel has been 250 banks, with 189 banks currently reporting. The number of respondents is less than the authorized size due to mergers among reporters and loss of respondents due to the voluntary nature of the panel. If the authorized size of the panel is reduced to 189, the standard errors for the data items would increase 17 percentage points. Moreover, the standard errors on the regional estimates, which are based on smaller samples, likely would be greatly increased. Consequently, the recommendation is not to change the authorized number of banks.
The proposed authorized panel for the FR 2028D panel is 398 domestically chartered commercial banks. The proposed size is based on obtaining survey results with a 95% confidence level and 5% standard error, allowing for a 10% nonresponse rate. The panel of banks would be a random sample of banks stratified according to the dollar volumes of commercial and industrial loans with original amounts of $1,000,000 or less.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 8, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 15, 2017.
1.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 77 K Street NE., 10th Floor Board Room, Washington, DC 20002.
82 FR 17991.
8:30 a.m., April 24, 2017.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Member Meeting, April 24, 2017, 9:00 a.m. (In-Person).
Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B).
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 20, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2017. The
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA conducts focus group interviews on a variety of topics involving FDA-regulated products, including drugs, biologics, devices, food, tobacco, and veterinary medicine.
Focus groups provide an important role in gathering information because they allow for a more in-depth understanding of patients' and consumers' attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative studies. Focus groups serve the narrowly defined need for direct and informal opinion on a specific topic and as a qualitative research tool have three major purposes:
• To obtain patient and consumer information that is useful for developing variables and measures for quantitative studies,
• to better understand patients' and consumers' attitudes and emotions in response to topics and concepts, and
• to further explore findings obtained from quantitative studies.
FDA will use focus group findings to test and refine their ideas, but will generally conduct further research before making important decisions such as adopting new policies and allocating or redirecting significant resources to support these policies.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, or his or her successor, the authorities vested in the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, under Sec. 1003(a), (c), and (d) of the 21st Century Cures Act to support the Opioid Grant Program. This authority excludes the authority to promulgate regulations and to submit reports to Congress.
These authorities may be re-delegated.
I have ratified and affirmed any actions taken by the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use or by any subordinates, which, in effect involved the exercise of these authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of this delegation. This delegation was effective upon date of signature.
Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes this rate in the
The current rate of 10%, as fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, is certified for the quarter ended March 31, 2017. This rate is based on the Interest Rates for Specific Legislation, “National Health Services Corps Scholarship Program (42 U.S.C. 254o(b)(1)(A))” and “National Research Service Award Program (42 U.S.C. 288(c)(4)(B)).” This interest rate will be applied to overdue debt until the Department of Health and Human Services publishes a revision.
Opioids were responsible for over 33,000 deaths in 2015; this alarming statistic is unacceptable. Through a sustained focus on people, patients, and partnerships, this crisis can be addressed across our nation.
Last month President Trump announced the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis. This Commission is tasked with studying the scope and effectiveness of the federal response to this crisis and providing recommendations to the President for improving it. As the Administration develops a comprehensive strategy to improve the federal response to combat opioids, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must ensure the Opioid State Targeted Response grants are aligned accordingly and put to the best use possible. Given the urgency of the issue, we understand the need to release the funding for the first year of this program immediately. However, the intentions of HHS for the second year are to develop funding allocations and policies that are the most clinically sound, effective and efficient.
In the interest of ensuring that these resources are applied in the best manner possible, I will be seeking input from the states/territories in the coming weeks and months. As funding from the first year is implemented and monitored, states/territories will be asked to identify best practices, lessons learned, and key strategies that can help HHS further target these funds in the subsequent year to best address this tragic issue.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 20, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0008 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2005-0024. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Daniel J. Sullivan, Acting Director, Office of Multifamily Productions, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-6130; email, at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Sullivan.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of additional public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Anna Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna Guido at
HUD will submit the proposed information collection package to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This notice solicits comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This evaluation is the second phase of a two-phase evaluation. Phase I evaluated the early implementation of the Section 811 PRA Program in the 12 states that were awarded the first round of PRA grants. The OMB Approval Number for Phase I is 2528-0309. HUD is now undertaking the second phase of the Section 811 PRA evaluation. The second phase will continue to evaluate the implementation of the Section 811 PRA Program, but will also assess the program's effectiveness and its impact on residents and will be limited to six states. The evaluation of the Section 811 PRA Program, including the assessment of its effectiveness compared to the traditional Section 811 PRAC Program, is mandated by the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010. This
Data collection for the second phase of the evaluation of the Section 811 PRA Program includes in-person surveys with residents assisted by the Section 811 PRA and PRAC programs and in-person interviews with staff from PRA program participating agencies (property owners or managers of properties where Section 811 PRA residents live, manager-level staff at organizations that provide supportive services to PRA residents, and manager-level staff at Public Housing Authorities that committed housing subsidies for the PRA program). The purpose of the interviews is to assess the implementation experience of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program and the program's impact on residents. Participation in the resident survey is voluntary for PRA and PRAC residents.
Based on the assumptions and table below we calculate the total annual cost burden for this information collection to be $10,252.44. For staff of participating agencies, we estimated their cost per response using the most recent (May 2015) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics median hourly wage for selected occupations classified by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. To estimate hourly wage rates for property owners and managers of properties where Section 811 residents live, we used the occupation code Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers (11-940), with a median hourly wage of $26.63. For managers of service providers of Section 811 residents, we used Medical and Health Services Managers (11-911), with a median hourly wage of $45.43. For Public Housing Authority managers, we used the Administrative Services Manager (11-310), with a median hourly wage of $41.40.
Section 811 PRA and PRAC households participating in the Section 811 evaluation will range in employment position and earnings, but national data indicate the population has very low incomes. According to 2016 HUD Picture of Subsidized Households Data (
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Cheryl Walker, Director, Home Valuation Policy Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of proposed rate adjustments.
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 request your comments on the proposed rate adjustments.
Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed rate adjustments on or before June 20, 2017.
All comments on the proposed rate adjustments must be in writing and addressed to: Yulan Jin, Chief, Division of Water and Power, Office of Trust Services, Mail Stop 4637-MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone (202) 219-0941.
For details about a particular irrigation project, please use the tables in the
The first table in this notice provides contact information for individuals who can give further information about the irrigation projects covered by this notice. The second table provides the current 2016 irrigation assessment rates, the proposed rates for Calendar Year (CY) 2017, and proposed rates for subsequent years where these rates are available.
In this notice:
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 irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet site for the Government Printing Office at
We are publishing this notice to inform you that we propose to adjust our irrigation assessment rates. This notice is published in accordance with the BIA's regulations governing its operation and maintenance of irrigation projects, found at 25 CFR part 171. This regulation provides for the establishment and publication of the proposed rates for annual irrigation assessments as well as related information about our irrigation projects.
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior 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.
We will put the rate adjustments into effect for the CY 2017 and subsequent years where applicable.
We calculate annual irrigation assessment rates in accordance with 25 CFR part 171.500 by estimating the annual costs of operation and maintenance at each of our irrigation projects and then dividing by the total assessable acres for that particular irrigation project. The result of this calculation for each project is stated in the rate table in this notice.
Consistent with 25 CFR part 171.500, these expenses include the following:
(a) Salary and benefits for the project engineer/manager and project employees under the project engineer/manager's management or control;
(b) Materials and supplies;
(c) Vehicle and equipment repairs;
(d) Equipment costs, including lease fees;
(e) Depreciation;
(f) Acquisition costs;
(g) Maintenance of a reserve fund available for contingencies or emergency costs needed for the reliable operation of the irrigation facility infrastructure;
(h) Maintenance of a vehicle and heavy equipment replacement fund;
(i) Systematic rehabilitation and replacement of project facilities;
(j) Carriage Agreements for the transfer of project water through irrigation facilities owned by others.
(k) Any water storage fees for non-BIA-owned reservoirs, as applicable,
(l) Contingencies for unknown costs and omitted budget items; and
(m) Other expenses we determine necessary to properly perform the activities and functions characteristic of an irrigation project.
We will mail or hand-deliver your bill notifying you (a) the amount you owe to the United States and (b) when such amount is due. If we mail your bill, we will consider it as being delivered no later than 5 business days after the day we mail it. You should pay your bill by the due date stated on the bill.
All responsible parties are required to provide the following information to the billing office associated with the irrigation project where you own or lease land within the project's assessable acreage or to the billing office associated with the irrigation project with which you have a carriage agreement:
(1) The full legal name of person or entity responsible for paying the bill;
(2) An adequate and correct address for mailing or hand delivering our bill; and
(3) The taxpayer identification number or social security number of the person or entity responsible for paying the bill.
Public Law 104-134, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, requires that we collect the taxpayer identification number or social security number before billing a responsible party and as a condition to servicing the account.
If you are late paying your bill because of your failure to furnish the required information listed above, you will be assessed interest and penalties as provided below, and your failure to provide the required information will not provide grounds for you to appeal your bill or any penalties assessed.
We can refuse to provide you irrigation service.
Yes. 25 CFR 171.545(a) states: “We will not provide you irrigation service until: (1) Your bill is paid; or (2) You make arrangement for payment pursuant to § 171.550 of this part.” If we do not receive your payment before the close of business on the 30th day after the due date stated on your bill, we will send you a past due notice. This past due notice will have additional information concerning your rights. We will consider your past due notice as delivered no later than 5 business days after the day we mail it. We follow the procedures provided in 31 CFR 901.2, “Demand for Payment,” when demanding payment of your past due bill.
Yes. We will assess you interest on the amount owed, using the rate of interest established annually by the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Treasury) to calculate what you will be assessed. You will not be assessed this charge until your bill is past due. However, if you allow your bill to become past due, interest will accrue from the original due date, not the past due date. Also, you will be charged an administrative fee of $12.50 for each time we try to collect your past due bill. If your bill becomes more than 90 days past due, you will be assessed a penalty charge of 6 percent per year, which will accrue from the date your bill initially became past due. Pursuant to 31 CFR 901.9, “Interest, penalties and administrative costs,” as a Federal agency, we are required to charge interest, penalties, and administrative costs in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717.
If you do not pay your bill or make payment arrangements to which we agree, we are required to send your past due bill to the Treasury for further action. Under the provisions of 31 CFR 901.1, “Aggressive agency collection activity,” Federal agencies should consider referring debts that are less than 180 days delinquent, and we must send any unpaid annual irrigation assessment bill to Treasury no later than 180 days after the original due date of the bill.
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 proposed rates for the CY 2017 and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the rate category notes the irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment.
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 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
These proposed rate adjustments do not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have “takings” implications under Executive Order 12630. The proposed 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 proposed 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 the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
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, is required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.
These proposed 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 (OMB), 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 proposed 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)).
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 Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The United States Forest Service (USFS) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend the duration of Public Land Order (PLO) No. 4145, as modified by PLO No. 7322, for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 4145, as modified by PLO No. 7322, withdrew approximately 32 acres of National Forest System lands in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest from location and entry under the United States mining laws. The purpose of the proposed extension is to continue to protect the recreational values of the USFS West Eagle Meadow Campground. The withdrawal created by PLO No. 4145, as modified by PLO No. 7322, will
Comments and public meeting requests must be received by July 20, 2017.
Comments and meeting requests should be sent to the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208-2965, Attention: Jacob Childers, OR 936.1. Records related to the application may be examined by contacting Mr. Childers at this address.
Jacob Childers, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6225, or Candice Polisky, USFS Pacific Northwest Region, 503-808-2479. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact either of the above individuals. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The USFS has filed an application requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend PLO No. 4145 (32 FR 214 (1967)), as modified by PLO No. 7322 (63 FR 13069 (1998)), for an additional 20-year term, subject to valid existing rights. In order to protect the recreational values of West Eagle Meadow Campground, PLO No. 4145, as modified, withdrew National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws.
The area described contains 32 acres in Union County.
The USFS would not need to acquire water rights to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal extension.
Records related to the application may be examined by contacting Jacob Childers at the address or phone number listed above.
For a period until July 20, 2017, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, State Director at the address indicated above.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address indicated above during regular business hours. Be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with this withdrawal extension application. All interested parties who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal extension application must submit a written request to the BLM State Director at the address indicated above by July 20, 2017. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the
This extension will be processed in accordance with 43 CFR 2310.4.
United States International Trade Commission.
April 21, 2017.
11:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with 19 CFR 201.35(d)(2)(i), the Commission hereby gives notice that the Commission has determined to change the time of the meeting of April 21, 2017, from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this change was not possible.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on September 1, 2016 (81 FR 60386) and determined on December 5, 2016 that it would conduct expedited reviews (81 FR 92854, December 20, 2016).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on April 17, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4680 (April 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On October 4, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, issued an Order to Show Cause to William H. Wyttenbach, M.D. (Respondent), of Fort Myers, Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BW1311997, on the ground that he “do[es] not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Florida, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with the” Agency. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f), 824(a)(3)).
As to the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered “as a practitioner in [s]chedules II-V,” pursuant to the above registration number, at the registered address of 16329 South Tamiami Trail, Units 5&6, Fort Myers, Florida.
As to the substantive basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective June 15, 2016, the Florida Board of Medicine “suspended [his] authority to practice medicine,” and that he is “without authority to handle controlled substances in Florida, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with” DEA.
On November 3, 2016, Respondent submitted a request for a hearing. The matter was placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to ALJ Charles Wm. Dorman. Thereafter, the ALJ issued an order which directed the Government to submit its evidence in support of the allegation and any motion for summary disposition on this ground by 2 p.m. on November 28, 2016.
On November 8, 2016, the Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition, which asserted that “on June 15, 2016, the State of Florida Board of Medicine suspended Respondent's state medical license.” Mot. at 2. As support for its Motion, the Government attached a June 15, 2015 Final Order issued by the Florida Board of Medicine which suspended Respondent's Florida medical license “until such time as he personally appears before the Board and demonstrates that his license to practice medicine in all jurisdictions is free from all encumbrances.” Appendix C, at 4. The Government also attached an affidavit by a DEA Diversion Investigator attesting to the authenticity of the Florida Board's Final Order,
Based on this evidence, the Government argued that Respondent is without authority to handle controlled substances in Florida and therefore, he does not meet the statutory definition of a practitioner. Motion, at 3-4 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21)). Invoking cases holding that revocation is warranted even when a registrant's state authority has been summarily suspended, the Government maintained that because possessing authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for maintaining a DEA registration and Respondent does not possess such authority, revocation of his registration is warranted.
On December 5, 2016, Respondent filed his Response to the Government's Motion. Therein, Respondent stated that he “agrees[ ] he has no authority to practice medicine in Florida and has not done so since June 4, 2015 and ongoing.” Response, at 1. Respondent asserted, however, that he does have an active and unrestricted medical license in Wyoming.
On review, the ALJ noted that under the CSA, “a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the jurisdiction in which [he] is registered” in order to maintain his registration. R.D. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)). The ALJ also noted that under agency precedent, revocation is warranted “where the practitioner lacks state authority, even if the practitioner has not had the opportunity to contest the charges” brought by the state board, “or if there is a possibility that the Respondent's state license will be reinstated in the future.”
On January 12, 2017, after the expiration of the time period for filing exceptions, the ALJ forwarded the record to my Office for final agency action. More than two months later, Respondent submitted a pleading titled as: “Motion To Reconsider And/Or Motion for Telephonic Hearing, And/Or Motion To Dismiss Administrative Revocation.”
I decline to consider Respondents' motions. To the extent Respondent seeks reconsideration, his motion is not ripe,
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. BW1311997, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at the registered location of Southwest Florida Medical, 16329 S. Tamiami Trail, Units 5 & 6, Fort Myers, Florida. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at Appendix A. This registration does not expire until May 31, 2018.
Respondent is also the holder of physician's license number ME 46329, issued by the Florida Board of Medicine.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
In his Opposition, Respondent raised three main arguments. First, while he acknowledged that his Florida license has been suspended, he maintained that he has an active and unrestricted medical license in Wyoming. This, however, is beside the point because he is registered in Florida and not Wyoming, and his ability to hold a registration in Florida is conditioned on his possessing authority under Florida law to dispense controlled substances.
Second, Respondent argues that the suspension of his Florida license was illegal and that he is suing the Florida Board for violating his right to Due Process. DEA, however, has no authority to adjudicate the validity of the decisions of state boards, which are deemed to be presumptively lawful for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act.
Finally, Respondent maintains that this proceeding violates his due process right to appeal a non-final order and that no alleged final order exists until he exhausts his appeals. Putting aside that the Board characterized its Order suspending his state license as a “Final Order,” Respondent offers no support for his theory that the Agency's action violates whatever right he has at this point under Florida law to challenge the Board's Final Order.
Because it is undisputed that based on the Florida Board's Final Order, Respondent's state license has been suspended and he “is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances” in Florida, the State in which he is registered with the Agency, he is not entitled to maintain his registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3);
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration No. BW1311997 issued to William H. Wyttenbach, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 28 CFR 0.100(b), I further order that any application of William H. Wyttenbach, M.D., to renew or modify the above registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective May 22, 2017.
On April 12, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this action under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). The United States' complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for the failure by the Municipality of Santa Isabel to comply with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrative order on consent issued under the SWDA which addresses the closure of the Municipality's landfill. The consent decree requires the Municipality to, among other things, close its landfill, implement a recycling program, and pay a $20,000 civil penalty.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $19.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $5.25.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Radiation Sampling and Exposure Records,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 22, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Radiation Sampling and Exposure Records information collection. More specifically, regulations 30 CFR 57.5040 requires a mine operator to calculate and record individual exposures to radon daughters on Form MSHA-4000-9, Record of Individual Exposure to Radon Daughters, The calculations are based on the results of weekly sampling required by 30 CFR 57.5037. The operator must maintain records and submit them annually to the MSHA. The sampling and recordkeeping requirement alerts the mine operator and the MSHA to possible failure in the radon daughter control system and permits timely appropriate corrective action. Data submitted to the MSHA is intended to establish a means by which
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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,
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations—Science and Technology Centers—Integrative Partnerships Site Visit (#1192).
May 14, 2017; 7:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA 02139.
Part-Open.
John Cozzens, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1115, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8910.
Site visit to assess the progress of the STC Award: 1231216 “A Center for Brains, Minds and Machines: the Science and the Technology of Intelligence”, and to provide advice and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the Center.
Site Team and NSF Staff meets to discuss Site Visit materials, review process and charge.
Presentations by Awardee Institution, faculty staff and students, to Site Team and NSF Staff; Discussions, question and answer sessions.
Complete written site visit report with preliminary recommendations.
The work being reviewed during closed portions of the site review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the project. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct transfer of license; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an order approving the direct transfer of the facility operating license for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 (BVPS-2), to FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen). The BVPS-2 is located in Beaver County, PA.
The order was issued on April 14, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0277 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:
•
•
•
Taylor A. Lamb, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7128; email:
The text of the order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or the applicant), acting as an agent for and on behalf of FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen), the Toledo Edison Company (TE), and the Ohio Edison Company (OE), requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) consent to the direct transfer of TE's 18.26 percent leased interest in Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 (BVPS-2) to FENGen, and OE's 21.66 percent leased interest in BVPS-2 to FENGen. TE and OE, with respect to their leased interests, and FENGen, are co-holders of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-73. The BVPS-2 facility is located in Beaver County, PA.
By application dated June 24, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated September 13, 2016; December 15, 2016; and March 16, 2017, the applicant requested on behalf of itself, FENGen, TE, and OE, pursuant to Section 50.80 of Title 10 of the
FENOC requested that the NRC approve the direct transfer of the leased interest in the facility operating license. The NRC published a
Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the NRC shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that FENGen is qualified to hold the license to the extent proposed to permit the transfer of Toledo Edison Company's and Ohio Edison Company's combined 39.92 percent leased interest in BVPS-2, and that the transfers of the license are otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC, pursuant thereto, subject to the conditions set forth below. The NRC staff has further found that:
• The application for the proposed license amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act), as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I.
• The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission.
• There is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the proposed license amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations.
• The issuance of the proposed license amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
• The issuance of the proposed amendment will be in accordance with 10 CFR part 51, and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated April 14, 2017.
Accordingly, pursuant to §§ 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Act; 42 USC §§ 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the NRC approves the application for the proposed direct license transfer, subject to the following condition:
It is further ordered that consistent with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), the NRC approves the license amendment that makes a change, as indicated in the Conforming License Amendment to License No. NPF-73. The NRC shall issue and make effective the amendment at the time the proposed direct transfer action is completed.
It is further ordered that after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed direct transfer action, the applicant shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of such receipt no later than 5 business days prior to the date of the closing of the direct transfer. Should the proposed direct transfer not be completed by April 14, 2018, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, the NRC may extend such date by order.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated June 24, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16182A155), as supplemented by letters dated September 13, 2016; December 15, 2016; and March 16, 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16257A235, ML16350A077, and ML17075A210, respectively), and the
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of April 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to delegation by the Commission,
This proceeding involves a license amendment application submitted by NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, for Seabrook Station, Unit 1, located in Seabrook, New Hampshire. In response to a notice filed in the
The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 14, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 14, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 14, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 14, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 14, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On February 17, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend Section B of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to create a new Category D and make other amendments to this section; and (ii) amend Section II of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule entitled “Multiply Listed Options Fees,”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Pricing Schedule: (i) At Section B to create an additional incentive to encourage market participants to send Customer Complex Order flow to Phlx; and (ii) at Section II to adopt certain surcharges for electronically-delivered Complex Orders so that the Exchange may pay increased Customer Rebates. Each of the proposed amendments is discussed in greater detail below.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program,” to amend Category C and add a new Category D to continue existing incentives to direct Customer Complex Order flow to the Exchange and create additional incentives. Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program consisting of the following five tiers that pay Customer rebates on three Categories, A,
A Phlx member qualifies for a certain rebate tier based on the percentage of total national customer volume in multiply-listed options that it transacts monthly on Phlx. The Exchange calculates Customer
The Exchange proposes to amend Category C by decreasing the Tier 2 rebate from $0.17 to $0.16 per contract and increasing the Tier 3 rebate from $0.17 to $0.18 per contract. The Category C rebates will continue to be paid on electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Options, but will no longer be paid on Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols, which are proposed to be subject to the proposed Category D rebate. For Category C, rebates will continue to be paid on Customer PIXL
The Exchange will create a new Category D rebate which will pay: No rebate for Tier 1; a $0.21 per contract rebate for Tier 2; a $0.22 rebate for Tier 3; a $0.26 rebate for Tier 4; and a $0.27 rebate for Tier 5. There [sic] rebates are per contract. The Category D Rebates will be paid to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols. Rebates will be paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. A Customer Complex PIXL Order that executes against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order will not be paid a rebate under any circumstances. The Category D Rebate
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Category D rebate which will be paid to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols. Rebates will be paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Section II symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order will not be paid a rebate under any circumstances. The Category D Rebate will not be paid when an electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order, including a Customer Complex PIXL Order, executes against another electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order. The Exchange will pay no Tier 1 Category D rebate. The Exchange will pay a $0.21 per contract Tier 2 Category D rebate. The Exchange will pay a $0.22 per contract Tier 3 Category D rebate. The Exchange will pay a $0.26 per contract Tier 4 Category D rebate. The Exchange will pay a $0.27 per contract Tier 5 Category D rebate. Today, rebates are not paid on NDX and MNX contracts in any Category, however NDX and MNX contracts count toward the volume requirements to qualify for a Customer Rebate Tier. This will be continue to be the case.
Today, the Exchange pays a $0.02 per contract Category A and B rebate and a $0.03 per contract Category C rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebate, provided the Specialist,
Today, the Exchange pays a $0.05 per contract Category C rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebates to members or member organizations or member or member organization affiliated under Common Ownership provided the member or member organization qualified for a Tier 1 or 2 MARS Payments in Section IV, Part E. The Exchange is proposing to expand this additional rebate to apply the $0.05 per contract rebate to Category D and also expand the applicable Tiers from 2 and 3 to Tiers 2, 3, 4 or 5 rebate tiers for both Category C and D rebates. Finally the Exchange is expanding the MARS qualification from Tiers 1 and 2 to any MARS Payments
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments will attract a greater amount of Customer Complex Order liquidity to Phlx. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more order flow to the marketplace and more trading opportunities.
The Exchange proposes to adopt certain surcharges for electronically-delivered Complex Orders in order that it may pay increased Customer Rebates. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more liquidity with which market participants may interact on Phlx. The Customer Rebates provide an additional incentive to encourage market participants to send Customer Complex Order flow to Phlx.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section II to assess a surcharge of $0.03 per contract on electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Penny Pilot Options, excluding SPY. The Exchange proposes to assess a surcharge of $0.10 per contract on electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot Options, excluding NDX and MNX.
The Exchange notes that an order that is received by the trading system first in time shall be considered an order adding liquidity and an order that trades against that order shall be considered an order removing liquidity.
The Exchange is amending the rule text to make clear that surcharges are not subject to the Monthly Market Maker Cap. Today, the Exchange assesses surcharges for BKX, NDX and MNX. Those charges are not included in the calculation of the Monthly Market
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to amend Section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program,” to amend Category C and add a new Category D is reasonable because today the Exchange pays a Customer Complex Order rebate on both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange will continue to pay rebates for both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options, but will amend the rebates paid for Non-Penny Pilot Options as proposed for Category D. The Exchange notes that today it assesses different fees for Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program,” to amend Category C and add a new Category D is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay Customer rebates to all qualifying market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
With respect to the Tier 2 Category C rebate, which is decreased from $0.17 to $0.16 per contract, and the Tier 3 Category C rebate, which is increased from $0.17 to $0.18 per contract, the Exchange believes that these proposed changes are reasonable because the Exchange currently pays the same $0.17 per contract rebate for these two tiers. The Exchange desires to pay a lower rebate for Tier 2, which requires National Customer Volume
With respect to the Tier 2 Category C rebate, which is decreased from $0.17 to $0.16 per contract, and the Tier 3 Category C rebate, which is increased from $0.17 to $0.18 per contract, the Exchange believes that these proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay Customer rebates to all qualifying market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
With respect to the proposed rebates for Category D, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to pay no rebate for Tier 1, which has a National Customer Volume requirement between 0.00%-0.60%, because no other Category pays a rebate for this level of volume. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to pay the proposed Tier 2 through 5 rebates,
With respect to the proposed rebates for Category D, the Exchange believes the proposed rebates are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay Customer rebates to all qualifying market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to no longer cap rebates on Customer PIXL Orders at 4,000 contracts per order leg for Complex PIXL Orders is reasonable because the Exchange will potentially attract a greater amount of Customer liquidity to the Exchange without a cap. Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to no longer cap rebates on Customer PIXL Orders at 4,000 contracts per order leg for Complex PIXL Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly not cap Category C rebates for any market participant.
The Exchange's proposal to structure the Category D rebate similar to the Category C rebate is reasonable because today, electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols, will be [sic] subject to the same terms. Rebates will continue to be paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Section II symbols that execute
The Exchange's proposal to structure the Category D rebate similar to the Category C rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly apply the Category D rebates to all market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to pay a $0.03 per contract Category D rebate, in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebates, provided the Specialist, Market Maker or Appointed MM has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap as defined in Section II, to: (1) A Specialist or Market Maker who is not under Common Ownership or is not a party of an Affiliated Entity; or (2) an OFP member or member organization affiliate under Common Ownership; or (3) an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity is reasonable. Today, market participants sending electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols are paid the $0.03 per contract rebate in addition to the Tier 2 and 3 rebate in Category C, provided the requirements are met. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to pay this additional rebate provide [sic] the requirements are met.
The Exchange's proposal to pay a $0.03 per contract Category D rebate, in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebates, provided the Specialist, Market Maker or Appointed MM has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap as defined in Section II, to: (1) A Specialist or Market Maker who is not under Common Ownership or is not a party of an Affiliated Entity; or (2) an OFP member or member organization affiliate under Common Ownership; or (3) an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity is equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange will uniformly pay the additional $0.03 rebate in addition to the Tier 2 and 3 Category D rebates to all qualifying market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the manner in which the Exchange pays the $0.05 per contract rebate on electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options is reasonable. Today, electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options are paid a $0.05 per contract rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebates to members or member organizations or member or member organization affiliated under Common Ownership, provided the member or member organization qualified for a Tier 1 or 2 MARS Payment in Section IV, Part E. The Exchange proposes, with respect to both Category C and D, to expand the applicable tiers from only Tiers 2 and 3 to Tiers 2, 3, 4 or 5. This is reasonable because it will allow additional market participants to take advantage of the additional rebate, provided the requirements are met. Also, the Exchange's proposal to expand the MARS qualification from Tiers 1 and 2 to any MARS Payments
The Exchange's proposal to amend the manner in which the Exchange pays the $0.05 per contract rebate on electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay the additional $0.05 rebate to the applicable expanded rebate tiers and MARS tiers provided the market participant qualifies. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a surcharge of $0.03 per contract on electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Penny Pilot Options, excluding SPY and a surcharge of $0.10 per contract on electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot Options, excluding NDX and MNX is reasonable. The Exchange is adopting these surcharges, which will be applied on transactions that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book, in order to help offset the increased rebates which are proposed to be given to Complex Orders in Section B. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to only assess this surcharge to those orders which remove liquidity from the market because the Exchange wants to continue to encourage market participation and price improvement for those participants that seek to add liquidity on Phlx. The Exchange believes that not assessing the surcharge on PIXL and SPY orders is reasonable. PIXL has its own pricing,
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a surcharge of $0.03 per contract on electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Penny Pilot Options, excluding SPY and a surcharge of $0.10 per contract on electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot Options, excluding NDX and MNX is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The surcharges will be applied uniformly to all market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text to make clear that surcharges are not subject to the Monthly Market Maker Cap is reasonable because today, the Exchange does not count surcharges for BKX, NDX and MNX toward the Monthly Market Maker Cap, only Options Transaction Charges.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text to make clear that surcharges are not subject to the Monthly Market Maker Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Specialists and Market Makers will be uniformly applied the cap. Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program,” to amend Category C and add a new Category D does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay Customer rebates to all qualifying market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
With respect to the Tier 2 Category C rebate, which is decreased from $0.17 to $0.16 per contract, and the Tier 3 Category C rebate, which is increased from $0.17 to $0.18 per contract, the Exchange believes that these proposed changes do not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay Customer rebates to all qualifying market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
With respect to the proposed rebates for Category D, the Exchange believes the proposed rebates do not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay Customer rebates to all qualifying market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to no longer cap rebates on Customer PIXL Orders at 4,000 contracts per order leg for Complex PIXL Orders does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly not cap Category C rebates for any market participant.
The Exchange proposal's to structure the Category D rebate similar to the Category C rebate does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly apply the Category D rebates to all market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to pay a $0.03 per contract Category D rebate addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebate, provided the Specialist, Market Maker or Appointed MM has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap as defined in Section II, to: (1) A Specialist or Market Maker who is not under Common Ownership or is not a party of an Affiliated Entity; or (2) an OFP member or member organization affiliate under Common Ownership; or (3) an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange will uniformly pay the additional $0.03 rebate in addition to the Tier 2 and 3 Category D rebates to all qualifying market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the manner in which the Exchange pays the $0.05 per contract rebate on electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay the additional $0.05 rebate to the applicable expanded rebate and MARS tiers, provided the market participant qualifies. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer Rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a surcharge of $0.03 per contract on electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Penny Pilot Options, excluding SPY and a surcharge of $0.10 per contract on electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot Options, excluding NDX and MNX does not impose on intra-market competition because the surcharges will be applied uniformly to all market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text to make clear that surcharges are not subject to the Monthly Market Maker Cap does not impose on intra-market competition because the all Specialists and Market Makers will be uniformly applied the cap. Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule.
The Exchange first proposes to eliminate the Away-Market Routing Intermediary fee. This fee is payable by a Routing Intermediary and only applicable for away-market routing from any PULSe workstation for which it serves as the Routing Intermediary. The fee is $0.02 per contract or share equivalent for the first million contracts or share equivalent executed in a month for executions on all away markets aggregated across all such PULSe workstations, and $0.03 per contract or share equivalent for each additional contract or share equivalent executed in the same month on all away markets.
The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the C2 Routing fee. The C2 Routing fee is payable by a TPH and only applicable for routing to C2 from non-TPH PULSe workstations made available by the TPH. The fee is $0.02
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Routing Intermediary Inactivity fee. The Routing Intermediary Inactivity fee would be charged to a Routing Intermediary in the calendar year after the year in which the Routing Intermediary was charged the Routing Intermediary Certification Fee. The fee is $5,000/year less the aggregate amount of Away-Market Routing Intermediary and C2 Routing fees charged to a Routing Intermediary during that calendar year (if Routing Intermediary was charged less than an aggregate of $5,000 in Away-Market Routing Intermediary and C2 Routing fees that year).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes eliminating the Away-Market Routing Intermediary fee, C2 Routing fee and Routing Intermediary Inactivity fee is reasonable because market participants who would otherwise be subject to those fees will no longer be assessed the fees. The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to the applicable market participants (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burdens on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change to eliminate certain PULSe fees applies to all applicable users of the PULSe workstation. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposed relates to use of an Exchange-provided order entry system. To the extent that any proposed change makes the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Exchange market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The Exchange initially filed the proposal on March 29, 2017 (SR-PEARL-2017-14). That filing was withdrawn and replaced with the current filing (SR-PEARL-2017-18).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to permit Exchange Market Makers
In order for the Exchange to implement this concept of appointment, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “Affiliate” contained in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule. The definition of “Affiliate” currently reads:
“Affiliate” means an affiliate of a Member of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A.
“Affiliate” means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed Market Maker). An “Appointed Market Maker” is a MIAX PEARL Market Maker (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with an EEM) that has been appointed by an EEM and an “Appointed EEM” is an EEM (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL Market Maker) that has been appointed by a MIAX PEARL Market Maker, pursuant to the following process. A MIAX PEARL Market Maker appoints an EEM and an EEM appoints a MIAX PEARL Market Maker, for the purposes of the Fee Schedule, by each completing and sending an executed Volume Aggregation Request Form by email to
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase opportunities for EEMs and Market Makers, who do not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL Market Maker or EEM, as the case may be, to potentially qualify for tiered pricing incentives on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to allow a MIAX PEARL Market Maker to designate an EEM as its “Appointed EEM” and for an EEM to designate a MIAX PEARL Market Maker
The Exchange currently offers tiers of rebates and fees as described in Section 1(a) of the Fee Schedule. Under the current tiers, Members that achieve certain volume criteria may qualify for reduced fees or enhanced rebates for various executions, including executions of Priority Customer
Under the Exchange's current Fee Schedule, a Member is permitted to aggregate volume with a Member's “Affiliates”, which are defined as firms that have at least 75% common ownership with the Member as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A.
The Exchange proposes that all MIAX PEARL Market Makers who do not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with an EEM (whether in the same broker-dealer or in a separate broker-dealer) would be able to appoint an EEM to aggregate its volume for purposes of reaching tier thresholds under the Fee Schedule, and conversely, all EEMs who do not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL Market Maker (whether in the same broker-dealer or in a separate broker-dealer) could appoint a MIAX PEARL Market Maker for the same purposes.
Thus, the proposed changes would enable Members that may not currently qualify for tiered pricing incentives to potentially avail themselves of such incentives, as well as to assist Members to potentially achieve a higher tier, thus qualifying for higher rebates or reduced transaction fees. The Exchange believes these proposed changes would incentivize Members to direct their order flow to the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage MIAX PEARL Market Makers to increase their participation on the Exchange, which would increase capital commitment and liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants.
As proposed, the Exchange will only recognize one such designation for each party once every 12 months (from the date of its most recent designation), which designation would remain in effect unless or until the parties informed the Exchange of its termination.
MIAX PEARL believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is
The Exchange believes that its proposed fees and rebates are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the proposal would be available to all MIAX PEARL Market Makers and EEMs (except for those MIAX PEARL Market Makers who otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with an EEM (and vice versa)), and the decision to be designated as an “Appointed EEM” or “Appointed Market Maker” is completely voluntary and Members may elect to accept this appointment or not. Excluding Members that have a corporate affiliation by common ownership from also appointing other Members as “Affiliates” is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because those Members are already eligible to aggregate volume and thus potentially qualify for tiered pricing incentives. In addition, the proposed changes would enable Members that are not able to achieve tiered pricing incentives to potentially avail themselves of such pricing as well as to assist Members that are currently able to achieve such tiers to potentially achieve a higher tier, thus qualifying for higher rebates or lower fees. The Exchange believes these proposed changes would incentivize Members to direct their order flow to the Exchange. Specifically, the proposed changes would enable any MIAX PEARL Market Maker (except for those MIAX PEARL Market Makers who otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with an EEM) to qualify its Appointed EEM for purposes of potential tiered pricing incentives. Moreover, the proposed change would allow any EEM (except for those EEMs who otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX Market Maker), by virtue of designating an Appointed Market Maker, to establish an execution relationship with a MIAX Market Maker that may potentially provide greater liquidity to trade with its own volume, including Priority Customer volume. The Exchange believes these proposed changes would incentivize Appointed EEMs with an Appointed Market Maker to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which would result in an increase in orders routed to the Exchange which in turn would benefit all market participants by expanding liquidity and providing more trading opportunities on the Exchange. Similarly, the Exchange believes these proposed changes would incentivize Appointed Market Makers with an Appointed EEM to increase their participation on the Exchange, which would increase capital commitment and liquidity and decrease spreads on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that, similar to volume-based tiers offered by the Exchange, the benefits of the proposal extend to all market participants based on the increased quality of liquidity on the Exchange, including those market participants that opt not to become an Appointed EEM or Appointed Market Maker.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable and equitably allocated because it is beneficial to all Exchange participants based on the fact that it enables parties to rely upon each other's transaction volumes executed on the Exchange, and potentially increase such volumes. In turn, as above, the potential increase in order flow, capital commitment and resulting liquidity on the Exchange would benefit all market participants by expanding liquidity, providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The proposal is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would only recognize one such designation for each party once every 12 months (from the date of its most recent designation), which requirement would impose a measure of exclusivity while allowing both parties to rely upon each other's transaction volumes executed on the Exchange, and potentially increase such volumes, again, to the benefit of all market participants. Finally, the Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory and facilitates trading as it may encourage an increase in orders routed to the Exchange, which would expand liquidity and provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads to the benefit of all market participants, even to those market participants that are either currently affiliated by virtue of their common ownership or that opt not to become an Appointed EEM or Appointed Market Maker under this proposal. Other exchanges have adopted similar concepts.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments to its fee schedule will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are pro-competitive as they would increase opportunities for MIAX PEARL Market Makers and EEMs (who do not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with an EEM, and MIAX PEARL Market Maker, respectively) to potentially qualify for tiered pricing incentives on the Exchange, which may increase intermarket and intramarket competition by incentivizing participants to direct their orders to the Exchange thereby increasing the volume of contracts traded on the Exchange. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange would benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to proposal [sic] to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program,” Section II, entitled “Multiply Listed Options Fees,”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program,” Section II, entitled “Multiply Listed Options Fees,” and Section IV, Part B entitled “FLEX Transaction Fees” to remove references to MNX.
The Exchange is delisting MNX on Phlx on April 7, 2017. As a result of delisting MNX, the Exchange is removing references from its Pricing Schedule to specific pricing for MNX. No market participant would be able to trade an option overlying MNX on Phlx once it is delisted.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to remove references from its Pricing Schedule to specific pricing for MNX is reasonable because the Exchange is delisting MNX on Phlx on April 7, 2017 and the specific pricing for MNX would not be applicable.
The Exchange's proposal to remove references from its Pricing Schedule to specific pricing for MNX is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because no market participant would be able to trade an option overlying MNX on Phlx once it is delisted.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange believes that its proposed rebates and fees continue to remain competitive in SPY and Multiply Listed Options. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange's proposal to remove references from its Pricing Schedule to specific pricing for MNX does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because no market participant would be able to trade an option overlying MNX on Phlx once it is delisted.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange is eliminating certain fees relating to the PULSe workstation. By way of background, the PULSe workstation is a front-end order entry system designed for use with respect to orders that may be sent to the trading systems of the Exchange. Exchange Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) may also make workstations available to their customers, which may include TPHs, non-broker dealer public customers and non-TPH broker dealers.
The Exchange first proposes to eliminate the Away-Market Routing Intermediary fee. This fee is payable by a Routing Intermediary and only applicable for away-market routing from any PULSe workstation for which it serves as the Routing Intermediary. The fee is $0.02 per contract or share equivalent for the first million contracts or share equivalent executed in a month for executions on all away markets aggregated across all such PULSe workstations, and $0.03 per contract or share equivalent for each additional contract or share equivalent executed in the same month on all away markets.
The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the CBOE Routing fee. The CBOE Routing fee is payable by a TPH and only applicable for routing to CBOE from non-TPH PULSe workstations made available by the TPH. The fee is $0.02 per contract or share equivalent for the first 1 million contracts or share equivalent executed in a month on CBOE that originate from non-TPH PULSe workstations made available by the TPH, and $0.03 per contract or share equivalent for each additional contract or share equivalent executed on CBOE in the same month from the non-TPH PULSe workstations made available by the TPH.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Routing Intermediary Inactivity fee. The Routing Intermediary Inactivity fee would be charged to a Routing Intermediary in the calendar year after the year in which the Routing Intermediary was charged the Routing Intermediary Certification Fee. The fee is $5,000/year less the aggregate amount of Away-Market Routing Intermediary and CBOE Routing fees charged to a Routing Intermediary during that calendar year (if Routing Intermediary was charged less than an aggregate of $5,000 in Away-Market Routing Intermediary and CBOE Routing fees that year). As the Exchange is eliminating both the Away-Market Routing Intermediary and CBOE Routing fees and the inactivity fee is based in part on the amount of those fees assessed, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the inactivity fee as well.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes eliminating the Away-Market Routing Intermediary fee, the CBOE Routing fee and the Routing Intermediary Inactivity fee is reasonable because market participants who would otherwise be subject to those fees will no longer be assessed
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burdens on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change to eliminate certain PULSe fees applies to all applicable users of the Pulse [sic] workstation. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposed relates to use of an Exchange-provided order entry system. To the extent that any proposed change makes the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Exchange market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018 to limit the availability of credits provided for removing non-displayed liquidity.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to limit the credits provided for removing liquidity on BX under Rule 7018(a).
The Exchange excludes liquidity removing Orders that execute against resting Orders with Midpoint pegging from receiving a credit because the member received the benefit of receiving price improvement from executing against an Order that is priced better than the NBBO. Moreover, the member receiving the price improvement did not undertake any additional risk to receive the benefit, but was rather a beneficiary of the midpoint liquidity. For similar reasons, the Exchange is proposing to expand the applicability of the zero credit tier to include a liquidity removing Order that is price improved by other resting orders with Non-display prices. Thus, in addition to Orders with Midpoint Pegging, other Orders that may have a non-display price are: Price to Comply Orders,
As an example, if the NBBO is $10 × $10.02, with Market A showing a bid of 100 shares at $10, Market B showing an offer of 100 shares at $10.02 and the Exchange displaying a best bid of $9.99 and offer of $10.03, a member that enters an Order with a Non-display attribute to buy 100 shares at $10.01 would not have a marketable Order and would post to the Exchange book as a Non-displayed Order at $10.01. If a second member enters an Order to sell 100 shares at $10, the Order would execute against the Non-displayed Order to buy at $10.01 resting on the Exchange Book. Such an execution would represent price improvement to the second member without taking on any additional risk or market-improving behavior. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that it is necessary also to pay a rebate to encourage the submission of such Orders. Rather, the execution of such Orders will be free of charge.
Last, the Exchange is proposing to make conforming changes to two credits under Rule 7018(a) that currently exclude orders that receive price improvement and execute against an order with Midpoint pegging from the eligibility criteria of the credit. Specifically, under the $0.0016 and $0.0015 per executed share credits of Rule 7018(a) the Exchange is proposing to replace references to orders that receive price improvement and execute against an order with Midpoint pegging to make it clear that orders with a Non-Displayed price are excluded from the rule. Thus, the exclusion under these two credits will continue to remain consistent with the proposed amended zero credit tier.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that offering Orders that remove liquidity and receive price improvement at no cost is reasonable because the execution of such Orders is free of charge. Generally, the Exchange offers reduced transaction fees and credits in return for market-improving behavior. The Exchange determined to not provide a credit to members for Orders that remove liquidity when the Order receives price improvement by executing against a Mid-point Order, since the member removing liquidity is benefitting from the price improvement. Likewise, the Exchange is expanding the existing credit tier to include all Orders with a Non-Displayed price that provide price improvement.
The Exchange believes that offering Orders that remove liquidity and receive price improvement at no cost is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because such Orders invariably receive price improvement of at least $0.005 per share, and therefore do not need an additional rebate of $0.0006 to $0.0016 to encourage their submission to the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the change is not unfairly discriminatory because the price improvement provided to these Orders provides a rational basis for treating them differently from other Orders that access liquidity at the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their Order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any
In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed and credits available to members for execution of securities in securities of all three Tapes do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The proposed expansion of the zero credit tier is not a burden on competition because the Exchange has limited resources to apply as credits and such resources must be applied in a manner that the Exchange believes will best improve market quality thereon. The Exchange believes that providing credits to members that are already receiving price improvement is not the most efficient allocation of such limited resources, since such Orders do not need to be incentivized. As a consequence, the Exchange believes that offering such executions at no cost will not place a burden on competition, but rather will allow the Exchange to apply its limited resources to other areas wherein it can promote market-improving behavior by its participants. Thus, the proposed changes have the potential to make the Exchange a more attractive trading venue, and consequently may promote competition among markets. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing Order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-020 and should be submitted on or before May 12, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CHX proposes to amend Articles 1 and 9 of the Rules of the Exchange (“CHX Rules”) to conform to an amendment to Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1(a)
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 Article 1, Rule 2(e) and Article 9, Rule 7 to conform to an amendment to Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1(a)
In 1993, the Commission adopted Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1(a),
On September 28, 2016, the SEC proposed amendments to Rule 15c6-1(a) to shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2 on the basis that the shorter settlement cycle would reduce the risks that arise from the value and number of unsettled securities transactions prior to completion of settlement, including credit, market and liquidity risk faced by U.S. market participants.
In light of this action by the SEC, the Exchange proposes to amend CHX Rules to reflect “regular way” settlement as occurring on T+2.
The Exchange proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(e) and Article 9, Rule 7 to reflect a T+2 settlement cycle. Except for changes reflecting the shortened settlement period, the Exchange does not propose any other amendments to the CHX Rules.
Current Article 1, Rule 2(e)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “Regular Way Settlement” means a transaction for delivery on the third full business day following the day of the contract. The Exchange proposes an amendment to change “third full business day” to “second full business day.”
Current Article 1, Rule 2(e)(2)(C) provides that “Seller's Option” means transaction for delivery within the time specified in the option, which time shall not be less than four (4) full business days nor more than 60 days following the day of the contract; except that the Exchange may provide otherwise in specific issues of stocks or classes of stocks. The Exchange proposes an amendment to change “four (4) full business days” to “three (3) full business days.”
Current Article 9, Rule 7(a) provides, in pertinent part, that transactions in stocks, except as provided below, shall be ex-dividend or ex-rights two full business days immediately preceding the date of record fixed by the corporation for the determination of stockholders entitled to receive such dividends or rights, except: (1) When such record date occurs upon a holiday or half-holiday, transactions in the stock shall be ex-dividend or ex-rights three full business days immediately preceding the record date. The Exchange proposes amendments to change “two full business days” to “business day” under Rule 7(a) and “three full business days” to “two full business days” under Rule 7(a)(1).
Current Article 9, Rule 7(b) provides, in pertinent part, that transactions in securities which have subscription warrants attached (except those made for “cash”) shall be ex-warrants on the second full business day preceding the date of expiration of the warrants, except: (1) When the day of expiration occurs on a holiday or Sunday, said transactions shall be ex-warrants on the third full business day preceding said day of expiration. The Exchange proposes amendments to change “second full business day” to “business day” under Rule 7(b) and “third full business day” to “second full business day” under Rule 7(b)(1).
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to make the proposed rule change operative on September 5, 2017, which is the compliance date for the amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) set by the SEC.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports the industry-led initiative to shorten the settlement cycle to two business days. Moreover, the proposed rule change is consistent with the SEC's amendment to Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1(a) to require standard settlement no later than T+2. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide the regulatory certainty to facilitate the industry-led move to a T+2 settlement cycle. Further, the Exchange believes that, by shortening the time period for settlement of most securities transactions, the proposed rule change would protect investors and the public
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 change is not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather facilitate the industry's transition to a T+2 regular way settlement cycle. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will serve to promote clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. Moreover, the proposed rule change is consistent with the SEC's amendment to Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1(a) to require standard settlement no later than T+2. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes do not impose any burdens on the industry in addition to those necessary to implement amendments to Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1(a) as described and enumerated in the SEC Proposing Release.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) proposes to amend its MDX fees schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The
The Exchange proposes to make a number of changes to the Fees Schedule of the Exchange's affiliate Market Data Express, LLC (“MDX”). The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend fees for the Best Bid and Offer (“BBO”) data feed. This data feed is made available by MDX.
The BBO Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes the following information: (i) Outstanding quotes and standing orders at the best available price level on each side of the market; (ii) executed trades time, size, and price; (iii) totals of customer versus non-customer contracts at the BBO; (iv) all-or-none contingency orders priced better than or equal to the BBO; (v) expected opening price and expected opening size; (vi) end-of-day summaries by product, including open, high, low, and closing price during the trading session; (vi) recap messages any time there is a change in the open, high, low or last sale price of a listed option; (vii) Complex Order Book (“COB”) information; and (viii) product IDs and codes for all listed options contracts. The quote and last sale data contained in the BBO data feed is identical to the data sent to the Options Price Reporting Authority for redistribution to the public.
Fees for the BBO data feed are payable by all “Customers.” A “Customer” is any person, company or other entity that, pursuant to a market data agreement with MDX, is entitled to receive data, either directly from MDX or through an authorized redistributor (
In March 2017, the Exchange adopted a fee of $100 per month, per Approved Third-Party Device, for Floor Broker Users accessing the BBO data feed on the Exchange floor.
Floor Brokers use the BBO Data Feed primarily to comply with customer priority obligations, such as those outlined in CBOE Rule 6.45 (as mentioned above, the BBO data includes customer contracts at the BBO). Floor Brokers who receive the BBO data feed via Approved Third Party Device are not considered “Customers” of MDX to whom the BBO Data Fee applies (unless the Floor Broker has a separate market data agreement in place with MDX) and accordingly are not charged the BBO Data Fee. Additionally, a third-party vendor of an Approved Third-Party Device is not a Customer unless it has a market data agreement in place with MDX.
In addition to Floor Broker User Fees, the Exchange assesses User fees payable for external Display Only Service users (Devices or user IDs of Display Only Service users who receive data from a Customer and are not employees or natural person independent contractors of the Customer, the Customer's affiliates or an authorized service facilitator). For the purpose of Display Only Service users, a “Device” means any computer, workstation or other item of equipment, fixed or portable, that receives, accesses and/or displays data in visual, audible or other form.
The Exchange is proposing Floor Broker User fees be subject to a monthly cap of $1000 per Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) firm. The cap will limit the amount of Floor Broker User fees a TPH firm will pay in a calendar month to $1000 in the event said TPH firm accesses the BBO data feed through more than 10 Approved Third-Party Devices. As Floor Broker Users are using the BBO data primarily to meet their priority obligations (and not for proprietary trading purposes), the Exchange believes it is appropriate to limit the amount of Floor Broker User fees to be assessed to a TPH firm.
By way of example, if a TPH firm accesses the BBO data feed through 14 Approved Third-Party Devices, said TPH firm would currently be assessed Floor Broker User fees of $1400 per month (14 Approved Third-Party Devices × $100 per Approved Third-Party Device = $1400). Under the proposed cap, the same TPH firm accessing the BBO data feed through 14 Approved Third-Party Devices would be assessed Floor Broker User fees of $1000 per month (14 Approved Third-Party Devices × $100 per Approved Third-Party Device (subject to a monthly cap of $1000 per TPH firm) = $1000).
The Exchange is proposing a number of additional updates to the MDX fee schedule to clarify certain items as they relate to Floor Broker User fees or User fees for Display Only Users. First, the Exchange is specifying that a Floor Broker User, as defined below, is not a Customer unless it has a market data agreement in place with MDX. In addition, the Exchange is changing the name of “User fees” payable for external Display Only Service Users to “Display Only User fees” in order to reduce confusion with the BBO Data fee or Floor Broker User fees. Finally, the Exchange is deleting language on the MDX schedule stating that “Floor Broker Users may directly interact with the CBOE Hybrid Order Handling System and view and manipulate data using their Approved Third-Party Devices, but not save, copy, export or transfer the data or any results of a manipulation to any other computer hardware, software or media, except for printing it to paper or other non-magnetic media”. The Exchange believes that, as outlined above, “Floor Broker Users” and “Approved Third-Party Devices” are adequately defined elsewhere in the MDX fee schedule. The Exchange does not believe the deleted language is necessary to further clarify or limit what a Floor Broker User may or may not do with the BBO data it receives via Approved Third-Party Device.
In addition to the clarifications above, the Exchange is adding language to the MDX schedule to explain the reporting process used to determine applicable Display Only User fees and Floor Broker User fees. With regard to the Display Only User fees, the proposed language states, “Customers who distribute BBO Data to external users via a Display Only service must report to MDX the number of authorized external devices that
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed Floor Broker User fee cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all TPH firms using Approved Third-Party Devices on the Exchange trading floor. Furthermore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to cap Floor Broker User Fees because Floor Broker Users generally use the data for the limited purpose of meeting their order priority obligations (as opposed to using the data for proprietary trading activity).
The Exchange believes the additional updates to the MDX fee schedule related to further defining Floor Broker users and the reporting obligations of Customers and third-party vendors of Approved Third Party Devices are designed to add clarity and reduce confusion related to the BBO Data Feed and will therefore lead to the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its TPHs and other persons using its facilities.
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 fee cap on Floor Broker User Fees will not have an impact on intramarket competition as it will apply to all TPH firms equally who use more than 10 Approved Third-Party Devices. The other clarifications made to the fee schedule related to further defining Floor Broker users and the reporting obligations of Customers and third-party vendors of Approved Third Party Devices will not have an impact on intramarket competition as they are non-substantive and only designed to add clarity to the fee schedule and reduce confusion among TPHs and other persons accessing the BBO data feed.
Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee cap will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposed change only affects trading on the Exchange's trading floor. To the extent that the proposed changes make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Oregon, dated 04/11/2017.
Effective 04/11/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. Telephone: (202) 205-6098.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 151060.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Oregon, Washington.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of termination of the class waiver to the nonmanufacturer rule for rubber gloves.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is terminating a class waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR) for “Gloves, rubber (
This action is effective May 8, 2017.
Roman Ivey, Program Analyst, by telephone at 202-401-1420; or by email at
Section 8(a)(17) and 46 of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17) and 657, and SBA's implementing regulations require that recipients of Federal supply contracts (except those valued between $3,500 and $150,000) set aside for small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), women-owned small business (WOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), or participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR). 13 CFR 121.406(b). Sections 8(a)(17)(B)(iv)(II) and 46(a)(4)(B) of the Act authorize SBA to waive the NMR for a “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market.
As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1204(a)(7), SBA will periodically review existing class waivers to the NMR in order to determine whether small business manufacturers or processors have become available to participate in the Federal market. Upon receipt of information that such a small business manufacturer or processor exists, the SBA will announce its intent to terminate the NMR waiver for a class of products. 13 CFR 121.1204(a)(7)(ii). Unless public comment reveals that no small business manufacturer exists for the class of products in question, SBA will publish a final Notice of Termination in the
On October 27, 2016, SBA received a request to terminate the current class waiver to the NMR for “Gloves, rubber (
As a result of this NMR class waiver termination, under a small business set-aside, small business dealers are no longer able to provide the product of an other than small manufacturer on contracts of those types for “Gloves, rubber (
Therefore, SBA is retracting the NMR class waiver previously granted for Rubber Gloves, identified under PSC 9320 and NAICS code 339113.
More information on the NMR and Class Waivers can be found at
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a new computer matching program that we are currently conducting with VA/VBA.
The deadline to submit comments on the proposed matching program is 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. The matching program will be effective on May 11, 2017 and will expire on November 10, 2018.
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869, writing to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, or email at
Interested parties may submit general questions about the matching program to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, by any of the means shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for persons applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such persons.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
This agreement is executed in compliance with section 1106 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1306), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, and the regulations and guidance promulgated thereunder.
The legal authorities for us to conduct this computer matching are sections 806(b), 1144, and 1631(e)(1)(B) and (f) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1006(b), 1320b-14, and 1383(e)(1)(B) and (f)).
The legal authority for VA to disclose information under this agreement is section 1631(f) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(f)), which requires Federal agencies to provide such information as the Commissioner of Social Security needs for purposes of determining eligibility for or amount of benefits, or verifying other information with respect thereto.
This computer matching agreement sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which VA/VBA will provide us with information necessary to: (1) Identify certain Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Special Veterans Benefit (SVB) recipients under Title XVI and Title VIII of the Social Security Act (Act), respectively, who receive VA-administered benefits; (2) determine the eligibility or amount of payment for SSI and SVB recipients; and (3) identify the income of individuals who may be eligible for Medicare cost-sharing assistance through the Medicare Savings Programs as part of the agency's Medicare outreach efforts.
The individuals whose information is involved in this matching program are those individuals who are receiving VA compensation or pension benefits and SSI or SVB benefits.
VA will provide us with electronic files containing compensation and pension payment data. We will match the VA data with our SSI/SVB payment information. We will conduct the match using the Social Security number, name, date of birth, and VA claim number on both the VA file and the Supplemental Security Record.
VA will provide us with electronic files containing compensation and pension payment data from its system of records (SOR) entitled the “Compensation, Pension, Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Records—VA” (58VA21/22/28), republished with updated name at 74 FR 14865 (April 1, 2009) and last amended at 77 FR 42593 (July 19, 2012). Routine use 20 of 58VA21/22/28 permits disclosure of the subject records for matching purposes.
We will match the VA data with SSI/SVB payment information maintained in our SOR entitled “Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits” (60-0103), last published at 71 FR 1830 (January 11, 2006).
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to June 20, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, by mail to PPT Forms Officer, U.S. Department of State, CA/PPT/S/L 44132 Mercure Cir, P.O. Box 1227 Sterling, VA 20166-1227, or
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name is submitted in conjunction with an application for a U.S. passport. It collects information that the Department uses to establish that an applicant for a U.S. passport has adopted a new name without formal court proceedings or by marriage and has publicly and exclusively used the adopted name over a period of time (at least five years).
When needed, the Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name is completed at the time a U.S. citizen applies for a U.S. passport.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the minor modifications approved for a previously
August 16, 2016, to March 31, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists previously approved projects, receiving approval of minor modifications, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR 806.18 for the time period specified above:
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
March 1-31, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and § 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the approved by rule projects rescinded by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
March 1-31, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, being rescinded for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Availability.
The FAA, Eastern Service Area is issuing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the Categorical Exclusion/Record of Decision (CATEX/ROD) for the Newark Liberty International Airport EWR RNAV (GPS) X Runway 29 (RWY 29) procedure. The FAA reviewed the action and determined it to be categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.
Mr. Ryan W. Almasy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337, (404) 305-5601 or
The EWR RNAV (GPS) X RWY 29 procedure at Newark Liberty International Airport will be used as an overflow procedure when EWR is landing RWY 4Left/Right and is anticipated to be used only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., by approximately 1,700 aircraft annually. This is approximately 3 percent of total landing operation on RWY 29. The FAA reviewed the action and determined it to be categorically excluded from further environmental documentation according to FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The applicable categorical exclusion is § 5-6.5(q.).
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 omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before May 11, 2017.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0180 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 Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA renews the Flatbed Carrier Safety Group's (FCSG) exemption which allows the securement of metal coils on a flatbed vehicle, in a sided vehicle, or in an intermodal container loaded with eyes crosswise, grouped in rows, in which the coils are loaded to contact each other in the longitudinal direction. Motor carriers may continue to use the pre-January 1, 2004, cargo securement regulations for the transportation of groups of metal coils with eyes crosswise, as this loading configuration is not currently covered under the Agency's commodity-specific rules for securing metal coils in 49 CFR 393.120. The Agency has concluded that granting this exemption renewal will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
This decision is effective April 21, 2017. Comments on the decision must be received on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2010-0177 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-0676, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a five-year period (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(2)) if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption” (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1); see also 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)). FCSG has requested a five-year extension for the exemption from 49 CFR 393.120 to allow motor carriers to comply with the pre-January 1, 2004, cargo securement regulations (then at 49 CFR 393.100(c)) for the transportation of groups of metal coils with eyes crosswise. The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
FCSG applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.120 in 2010 to allow motor carriers to comply with the pre-January 1, 2004, cargo securement regulations for the transportation of groups of metal coils with eyes crosswise. FMCSA granted the exemption on April 14, 2011 (76 FR 20867) and renewed it on June 11, 2013 (78 FR 35087), and again on June 4, 2015 (80 FR 31956). The renewal outlined in this notice extends the exemption from April 13, 2017, through April 13, 2022, and requests public comment.
FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing that compliance with the pre-January 1, 2004 cargo securement regulations for the transportation of groups of metal coils with eyes crosswise, in accordance with the conditions of the original exemption, has resulted in any degradation in safety. The Agency believes that extending the exemption for a period of five years will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption because the metal coils are grouped and secured together in the longitudinal direction,
The exemption is renewed subject to the following requirements, provided motor carriers using the exemption continue to meet the aggregate working load limits of 49 CFR 393.106(d).
(1) Only the foremost and rearmost coils must be secured with timbers having a nominal cross section of 4 x 4 inches or more and a length which is at least 75 percent of the width of the coil or row of coils, tightly placed against both the front and rear sides of the row of coils and restrained to prevent movement of the coils in the forward and rearward directions; and
(2) The first and last coils in a row of coils must be secured with a tiedown assembly restricting against forward and rearward motion, respectively. Each additional coil in the row of coils must be secured to the trailer using a tiedown assembly.
The exemption will be valid for five years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
FMCSA requests comments from parties with data concerning the safety record of motor carriers transporting groups of metal coils with eyes crosswise, in accordance with the conditions of the exemption. The Agency will evaluate adverse evidence submitted during the comment period and at any time during the 5-year period of the exemption. If safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(1), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the FCSG exemption.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 41 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0033 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 41 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Bates, 53, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bates understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bates meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Beach, 24, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Beach understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Beach meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Bonnema, 74, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bonnema understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bonnema meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Brooks, 66, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brooks understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
Mr. Burgess, 30, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burgess understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burgess meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Kansas.
Mr. Carter, 71, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carter understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable proliferative. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Clayton, 73, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Clayton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clayton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nevada.
Mr. Cleland, 49, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cleland understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cleland meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Alabama.
Mr. Creswell, 49, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Creswell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Creswell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Dinger, 50, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dinger understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dinger meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Fobian, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fobian understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fobian meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Garmon, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Garmon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Garmon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Golden, 57, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function
Mr. Hansard, 59, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hansard understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hansard meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Harris, 51, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harris understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harris meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.
Mr. Jones, 57, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jones understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jones meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Kirkland, 49, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kirkland understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kirkland meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Laselle, 63, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Laselle understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Laselle meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Alaska.
Mr. Lischka, 38, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lischka understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lischka meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Longo, 65, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Longo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Longo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Mattix, 66, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mattix understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mattix meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Utah.
Mr. McClurg, 37, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McClurg understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McClurg meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. McLaughlin, 61, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McLaughlin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McLaughlin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Paschall, 55, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Paschall understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Paschall meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Kentucky.
Mr. Poller, 61, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Poller understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Poller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Powell, 66, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Powell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Powell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico.
Mr. Rindels, 35, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rindels understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rindels meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Sobolik, 22, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sobolik understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sobolik meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oklahoma.
Mr. Story, 52, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Story understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Story meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Maryland.
Mr. Stovall, 26, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist
Mr. Summers, 22, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Summers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Summers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Tate, 38, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tate understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tate meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Terrill, 48, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Terrill understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Terrill meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. Thomas, 58, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thomas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Tyson, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tyson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tyson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Varner, 73, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Varner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Varner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Washington, 55, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Washington understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Washington meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Mississippi.
Mr. Westbrook, 54, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Westbrook understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Westbrook meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Whitney, 35, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Whitney understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Whitney meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska.
Mr. Wright, 50, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wright understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wright meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Zimmer, 44, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Zimmer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zimmer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 82 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0372; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0024; FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0297; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 82 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 82 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement (65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57267; 68 FR 10301; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19596; 69 FR 62741; 69 FR 64806; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 16886; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 62147; 72 FR 1056; 72 FR 5489; 72 FR 11426; 72 FR 12665; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 18726; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 76440; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 8842; 74 FR 9329; 74
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and are discussed below:
As of May 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 43 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 68 FR 10301; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19596; 69 FR 64806; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 16886; 70 FR 16887; 72 FR 1056; 72 FR 5489; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 18726; 72 FR 25831; 73 FR 76440; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 8842; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 11991; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 15586; 74 FR 21427; 75 FR 25917; 75 FR 39727; 75 FR 80887; 76 FR 7894; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 12216; 76 FR 15361; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 20078; 76 FR 21796; 77 FR 52388; 77 FR 70534; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 10251; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 14410; 78 FR 16761; 78 FR 16762; 78 FR 18667; 78 FR 20379; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 22602; 79 FR 27681; 79 FR 38649; 79 FR 51642; 79 FR 63211; 80 FR 2471; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 6162; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 12254; 80 FR 12547; 80 FR 14220; 80 FR 14223; 80 FR 15863; 80 FR 16500; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18693; 80 FR 20562; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 33011):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0372; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0297; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305. Their exemptions are effective as of May 7, 2017, and will expire on May 7, 2019.
As of May 13, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 15586; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR 77942; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 28125; 77 FR 36338; 78 FR 18667; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 24300; 80 FR 18696):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0024. Their exemptions are effective as of May 13, 2017, and will expire on May 13, 2019.
As of May 19, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR 18824; 76 FR 29024; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 22602; 79 FR 24298; 80 FR 20558):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2013-0022. Their exemptions are effective as of May 19, 2017, and will expire on May 19, 2019.
As of May 20, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR 16912; 78 FR 29431; 80 FR 20559):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0024. Their exemptions are effective as of May 20, 2017, and will expire on May 20, 2019.
As of May 27, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0305. Their exemptions are effective as of May 27, 2017, and will expire on May 27, 2019.
As of May 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 46016; 67 RF 57267; 68 FR 13360; 69 FR 62741; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 62147; 72 FR 12665; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624; 73 FR 61925; 74 FR 9329; 74 FR 15586; 74 FR 19270; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 17483; 76 FR 18824; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 29024; 78 FR 16762; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 26106; 79 FR 24298; 80 FR 26320):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0057. Their exemptions are effective as of May 31, 2017, and will expire on May 31, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 82 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S) has requested an exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD) requirements in 49 CFR part 395 as applied to its drivers of customer/government-owned vehicles used intermittently to perform passenger transportation. The G4S request is limited to operations involving customer/government-owned equipment. G4S states that this exemption, if granted, would have no adverse impact on the safety of their operations, as its drivers would continue to remain subject to the HOS regulations and would complete paper records of duty status (RODS), when applicable. FMCSA requests public comment on G4S's application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2017-0120 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2017-0120), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
G4S states that it is an international security solutions group, with operations in more than 100 countries and more than 54,000 employees in North America alone. G4S offers its customers a suite of products and services, including risk consulting and investigations, systems integration, security software and technology, and security professionals. A component of G4S's operations is detainee and prisoner transport. Government agencies across the country, including the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and state/county police departments, contract G4S to safely and securely transport prisoners, offenders, and illegal aliens. In order to perform these transportation services, G4S is registered with the FMCSA as a for-hire motor carrier. While the company maintains a relatively small fleet of vehicles, a significant portion of its transportation services are performed by G4S employees in customer/government-owned equipment (
G4S is aware of the upcoming ELD mandate and fully supports the Agency's efforts to curb fatigued driving. Moreover, the company has already started the process of selecting and installing compliant ELDs in its own fleet of vehicles. G4S, however, believes an exemption is in order for instances when its drivers operate customer/government-owned equipment to perform passenger transportation services.
In these instances, it is the customer, not G4S that owns and maintains the vehicles. For its part, G4S provides qualified drivers to operate the vehicles and is explicitly precluded, often by contract, from making any modifications to or installing any equipment in the vehicles. In numerous cases, G4S drivers operate different customer-owned vehicles each and every trip—depending on which vehicles the customer makes available—making it that more impracticable to install any type of equipment in the vehicles. As the vehicles are different each trip, it is possible, and even probable, that any ELD equipment G4S might choose to employ for its own fleet of vehicles would not be compatible with the customer-owned vehicles, and the company's drivers would not be aware of that fact until it came time to operate the equipment on a given day.
According to G4S, in some cases, these customer-owned vehicles may have been manufactured prior to the model year 2000—excluding them from the ELD mandate—but again, G4S drivers would not necessarily be privy to that fact until it came time to operate the vehicle. It is also possible that in some instances G4S's drivers may not operate the equipment beyond a 100 air-mile radius of their normal work reporting location and may, therefore, fall under the short-haul exemption, but that also is not always the case.
In these ways, G4S claims that its operations are indistinguishable from driveaway-towaway operations, which, are excluded from the ELD mandate. In these instances, neither the carriers nor the drivers own the vehicles being driven, nor are they authorized to make any modifications to those vehicles. Similarly, in both cases, the vehicles at issue may only be operated by the carrier's drivers for single trip.
The only distinction between G4S's operations and those of traditional driveaway-towaway companies is that the customer/government-owned equipment operated by G4S's drivers is not the commodity being moved. Although this is a distinction that precludes G4S from taking advantage of the driveaway-towaway exemption, it is not one that would, from a safety perspective, warrant ELDs in G4S's case any more so than driveaway-towaway companies. In fact, the company perceives no adverse impact to safety if the FMCSA were to grant this exemption request, particularly in light of the existing driveaway-towaway exemption. On the other hand, if the request was to be denied by FMCSA, G4S stands to potentially lose its customer contracts with several government agencies which, as explained, often contractually prohibit the company from installing any equipment in their vehicles.
For these reasons, G4S respectfully requests an exemption form the ELD mandate for the operation of customer/
A copy of G4S's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and comment request.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces FRA is forwarding for renewal the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and its expected burden. On December 21, 2016, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2017.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll free.)
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On December 21, 2016, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Many of ARI's comments focus on the substantive merits of the Railworthiness Directive and Revised Railworthiness Directive (collectively RWD or Directive unless stated otherwise) this ICR pertains to and FRA's authority to issue the RWD. Because these comments are outside the scope of the PRA burden analyzed in this notice, and because the RWD is currently the subject of a legal action brought by ARI, FRA cannot respond to those comments in this notice. Consistent with the PRA, however, FRA is addressing each of ARI's comments on the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burdens of the information collection activities associated with the RWD.
In its comments, ARI expresses the view “FRA dramatically underestimates the burdens created by the information collection activities required by the Directive.” Specifically, ARI alleges FRA's burden estimates are too low in the following eight instances:
(1) To identify the 14,800 tank cars subject to the Directive, FRA estimated the total annual burden as 80 hours, but ARI estimates 900 hours because “the time calculated to respond to 100 lessees at 4 hours each is 400 hours, plus FRA failed to account for 500 hours ARI already has invested in supporting customer requests for information on the application of the Directive to their cars”;
(2) To visually inspect the 14,800 tank cars prior to each loaded trip, FRA estimated the total annual burden as 7,400 hours, but ARI estimates 98,667 hours. ARI estimates an average of 20 railcar loadings and 20 minutes for each inspection and the associated documentation requirements;
(3) To inspect and test the sump and bottom outlet valve (BOV) skid groove attachment welds and maintain record results for over 2,200 tank cars, FRA estimates the total annual burden hours as 6,600 hours, but ARI estimates 53,200 hours based on the assumption that each inspection and test will take 26.5 hours;
(4) FRA estimated no total annual burden hours for removal of tank linings to perform visual inspections on 0 percent of the cars to be inspected. ARI estimates 2 hours per car or an additional 1,320 total annual burden hours;
(5) To train and test tank car mechanics who are not qualified on non-destructive testing (NDT) procedures and record qualification, FRA estimated the total annual burden as 132 hours, but ARI estimates 640 hours. ARI asserts FRA did not take into account the need to train 100 inspectors, develop the NDT procedures, or prepare specimens and training procedures;
(6) For tank car notification to all parties of the terms of the Directive and inspection/testing schedule, FRA estimated the total annual burden as 100 hours, but ARI estimates 8,800 hours. ARI notes that “FRA estimates only 100 notices at one hour each while ARI assumes this task requires the development of over 2,200 plans at 4 hours per car to get each car to a shop, develop a freight plan, shop schedule, and out-of-service time”;
(7) For reports of inspection, test, and repair to FRA, ARI states FRA estimated the total annual burden hours as 3,300 hours, but ARI estimates 6,600 hours. (FRA notes that, in its approved Emergency Clearance submission to OMB, it previously estimated this burden at 33,600 hours, not the erroneous 3,300 hours in its 60-day December 21, 2016,
(8) For tank car facility requests to tank car owners for written permission and approval of qualification and maintenance programs, FRA estimated the total annual burden as 7 hours, but ARI estimates 660 hours for 330 cars (15%) which will require owner's approval and instructions prior to repair which will require 2 hours per car.
After careful consideration of ARI's comments and estimates, FRA reviewed its own estimates and either validated its initial estimates or adjusted its estimates in light of ARI's comments. As a result, FRA now estimates a total annual burden for this ICR in excess of the 68,953 hours originally approved by OMB on October 18, 2016, in FRA's
(1) To identify the railroad tank cars subject to the RWD, FRA stands by its original estimate of 20 identifications/reports—one report for each of the estimated 20 tank car owners/100 lessees (5 lessees per tank car owner are included/incorporated in each identification/report)—and 80 hours (4 hours per identification/report). FRA believes ARI's estimate of 900 hours is excessive because tank cars built to the ARI or ACF Industries, LLC (ACF) 300 stub sill design and subject to the Directive are easily identifiable based upon their certificates of construction which all tank car owners are required to retain;
(2) To visually inspect the tank cars prior to each loaded move, FRA has revised its previous estimate of 7,400 total annual burden hours to 14,529 total burden hours. FRA believes the number of annual load moves is 6 and each visual inspection/record takes approximately 10 minutes to complete, while ARI estimates there are 20 annual load moves per year and each visual inspection/record takes 20 minutes to complete. To arrive at its total burden of 98,667 hours, ARI more than triples the number of annual load moves (20 moves instead of 6 moves) and doubles the time to complete each visual inspection/record (20 minutes instead of 10 minutes). FRA subject matter experts state the number of annual load moves is well under 10 and completing the required visual inspection/record is not a time consuming process and should take significantly less than 20 minutes;
(3) To inspect and test the sump and BOV skid groove attachment welds and maintain record results, FRA has revised its estimate to reflect the 2,175 cars subject to this requirement (15 percent of the estimated fleet of 14,500 cars subject to the Directive)
(4) For removal of the tank lining as part of the visual inspection/testing/repair requirement, FRA believes it will be necessary to remove the tank lining in 435 tank cars to conduct the inspections and tests this RWD requires (20% of the 2,175 cars to be inspected under this RWD (again, 2,175 is 15% of the estimated total fleet subject to the RWD)). In its comments, ARI estimates it will be necessary to remove the tank lining in 660 cars (approximately 30 percent of the cars required to be inspected under this RWD). FRA also estimates this process will take an average of 2 hours per car to complete. FRA's revised burden total amounts to 870 hours while ARI's total burden is 1,320 hours. FRA believes this estimate is closer to the actual burden, as supported by the experience of its subject matter experts;
(5) To train and test tank car mechanics who are not qualified on NDT procedures and record qualification, FRA has revised its original estimate of the total number of individuals who will need such training to 90. FRA now estimates it will take approximately 2 hours to train each person (for a total annual burden hours of 180 hours). ARI estimates 100 individuals will be trained and it will take approximately 6.4 hours to complete each person's training (for a total annual burden of 640 hours). FRA and ARI are in the same vicinity concerning the number of individuals to be trained, but disagree on the average time to complete the necessary training. FRA has doubled its original average time estimate and believes two hours is more than adequate to complete this requirement;
(6) For tank car notification to all parties of the terms of the Directive and inspection/testing schedule, FRA is maintaining its estimate of 100 notifications to the affected parties (
(7) For reports of inspection, test, and repair information to FRA, FRA already accounted for this burden in its earlier 19-hour estimate in (3) above for inspection, testing, repair, and corresponding records that totaled 41,325 hours. ARI estimated this burden at 53,200 hours as explained in (3) above, but then includes an additional burden here of 6,600 hours. Thus, ARI has mistakenly double-counted this burden;
(8) For tank car facility requests to tank car owners for written permission and approval of qualification and maintenance programs, FRA stands by its original total annual burden estimate of 7 hours (20 written requests plus 20 written permissions at 10 minutes each). FRA believes ARI's estimate of 660 hours misinterprets the requirement. ARI includes a written permission by the tank car owner for 330 cars (15% of 2,220 cars) rather than for the qualification and maintenance program operated by the tank car facility. FRA does not believe it will take triple the time (60 minutes as opposed to 20 minutes) to complete each written request and triple the time to complete each written permission (again 60 minutes as opposed to 20 minutes). Thus, FRA is maintaining its original estimate for this requirement;
(9) For reports by tank car facilities to tank car owners of all work performed and all observed damage, deterioration, failed components, or noncompliant parts under 49 CFR 180.513, FRA estimates there will be 2,175 repair reports/records and it will take approximately 12 hours to complete each weld defect repair and associated report/record for a total annual burden of 26,100 hours. ARI did not state its estimate for this requirement in its comment. Nevertheless, based on its stated total burden of 176,092 hours, it appears ARI estimated a total of 2,200 reports would be completed with an average time of 2.411 hours to complete each repair report/record (for a total of 5,305 hours). FRA believes ARI underestimated the time necessary to complete repairs for weld defects and the corresponding report/record and, thus, the true burden. FRA is once again relying on the experience and knowledge of its subject matter experts; and
(10) Finally, regarding the new exemption provision in the Revised Directive, FRA estimates 10 tank car owners will request exemptions from all
Overall, FRA's modified estimates amount to 83,440 hours. For the reasons outlined above, FRA believes this revised total is more accurate and more reasonable than its original estimates
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the ICR and its expected burden. FRA is submitting this renewal request for clearance by OMB as the PRA requires.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Request for Applicants for Appointment/Reappointment to the National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC).
NHTSA and its partners at the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Homeland Security (DHS) are soliciting applications for appointment or reappointment to DOT's NEMSAC. The purpose of NEMSAC, a nationally recognized council of emergency medical services representatives and consumers, is to advise and consult with DOT and the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS) on matters relating to emergency medical services (EMS). More information on NEMSAC, including its previous recommendations, its charter, and its current membership is available at
Application packages as described below must be received by NHTSA on or before June 16, 2017.
If you wish to apply for membership, your application package should be submitted by:
•
•
•
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Emergency Medical Services, Attn: Susan McHenry, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Any person needing accessibility accommodations should contact Susan McHenry at (202) 366-6540.
The Designated Federal Officer, Jon Krohmer, Director, Office of Emergency Medical Services at (202) 366-9966; or Susan McHenry at (202) 366-6540 or via email at
Notice of this call for applications is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The NEMSAC is authorized under Section 31108 of the Moving Ahead with Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is hereby soliciting nominations for members of the NEMSAC. The Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with HHS and DHS, will appoint 25 Council members on or around July 21, 2017. Members will be selected with a view toward achieving a varied and balanced perspective on emergency medical services. The Council will be composed of non-Federal experts representing
Council members serve for a term of 2 years and may be reappointed for one additional successive term. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Council are elected annually from among the selected members, and the Council is expected to meet approximately three times per year or as necessary in Washington, DC. Members serve in a “representative” capacity on NEMSAC and not as Special Government Employees. Members are unpaid; however, the NHTSA Office of EMS sponsors the associated costs for members to travel to Washington, DC.
(1) A cover letter addressed to the Designated Federal Officer, Jon Krohmer, that includes:
a. The applicant's full name, title, home address, phone number, and email address;
b. Under the heading “SECTOR(S) OF EMS” a listing of which sectors of EMS the applicant is applying to represent from the list of 24 above; and
c. An explanation of why the applicant is applying to be a NEMSAC member and how their experience and/or education qualifies them to represent each sector for which they are applying to represent;
(2) A resume or curriculum vitae;
(3) A short biography of the applicant including professional and academic credentials not to exceed 150 words;
(4) Up to four (4) letters of support or recommendation from a company, union, trade association, non-profit organization or individual on letterhead containing a brief description why the applicant should be considered for appointment; and
(5) An affirmative statement that the applicant is not a federally registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that if appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a Council member if the applicant becomes a federally registered lobbyist;
Please do not send company, trade association, or organization brochures or any other information. Should more information be needed, DOT staff will contact the applicant, obtain information from their past affiliations, or obtain information from publicly available sources, such as the Internet.
It is preferred that application packages be emailed to
44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2017.
Comments should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Michael Kuppersmith, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel (NCC-0010), (202) 366-5263, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The information collection submission describes the nature of the information
OMB
Requesters are not required to keep copies of any records or reports submitted to us. As a result, the cost imposed to keep records would be zero hours and zero costs.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number NHTSA-2017-0001 using any of the following methods:
Mary T. Byrd, Contracting Officer's Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NPD-320), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-466, Washington, DC 20590. Mary T. Byrd's phone number is 202-366-5595, and her email address is
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on the following proposed collection of information:
A maximum of 20,394 KnowledgePanel panelists would be contacted via email to obtain 6,000 completed surveys. Of the 20,394 panelists contacted, it is estimated that approximately 50% or 10,197 potential respondents would log into the web portal to complete the screener instrument. It is estimated that 95% of those who complete the one minute screener (about 9,687) would be eligible for participation in the survey. Eligible panelists include U.S. residents aged 16 years or older who have driven or ridden in a motor vehicle (defined as a “car, van, truck, taxi or ride-sharing service”) within the past year. Eligible participants would be sampled to obtain a sufficient number who report not wearing seat belts all of the time. Of the 6,316 sampled eligible, it is estimated that 95% or 6,000 would complete the full 19 minute survey. The total estimated burden for this data collection is 2,070 hours.
Seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45% among drivers and front-seat passenger car occupants and by 60% among drivers and front-seat light truck occupants across all crash types—yet, not everyone uses a seat belt on every trip. According to the latest National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), seat belt use in the United States was 90% in 2016. Although a high percentage of people were observed wearing seat belts through NOPUS, among passenger vehicle occupants killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2015, only 51% were wearing a seat belt. Thus, there is still room to save lives by getting more people to wear seat belts. In order to develop programs with potential to reach those who do not wear seat belts, we need to know as much as we can about this group. Currently, we know a lot about the demographic correlates of seat belt use (
Throughout the project, the privacy of all participants would be protected. Access to the survey would be controlled using a password-protected email account and web portal. Surveys would be self-administered and only accessible for a designated period. These measures protect respondent responses from being compromised.
Personally-identifiable information, such as the postal address of sample members, would be kept separate from the data collected and would be stored in restricted folders on secure password protected servers that are only accessible to study staff who need to access such information. In addition, all data collected from respondents would be reported in aggregate, and identifying information would not be used in any reports resulting from this data collection effort. Rigorous de-identification procedures would be used during summary and feedback stages to prevent respondents from being identified through reconstructive means.
44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on 11 information collections pertaining to hazardous materials transportation for which PHMSA intends to request renewal from the Office of Management and Budget.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 20, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number PHMSA-2017-0018 (Notice No. 2017-01) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed to Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8 (d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies information collection requests that PHMSA will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and extension. These information collections are contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules published since the information collections were last approved. The following information is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of the information collection, including former title if a change is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity and will publish a notice in the
PHMSA requests comments on the following 11 information collections:
1.
2.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The information collected under these application procedures is used in the review process by PHMSA in determining the merits of the petitions for rulemakings and for reconsideration of rulemakings, as well as applications for special permits, preemption determinations, and waivers of preemption to the HMR. The procedures governing these petitions for rulemaking and for reconsideration of rulemakings are covered in subpart B of part 106. Applications for special permits, preemption, determinations, and waivers of preemption are covered under subparts B and C of part 107. Rulemaking procedures enable PHMSA to determine if a rule change is necessary, is consistent with public interest, and maintains a level of safety equal to or superior to that of current regulations. Special permit procedures provide the information required for analytical purposes to determine if the requested relief provides for a comparable level of safety as provided by the HMR. Preemption procedures provide information for PHMSA to determine whether a requirement of a State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe is preempted under 49 U.S.C. 5125, or regulations issued thereunder, or whether a waiver of preemption should be issued.
3.
4.
5.
(1)
(2)
(3)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
There are several approval provisions contained in the HMR and associated procedural regulations. Responses to
11.
(1) Approvals of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Tank Car Committee: An approval is required from the AAR Tank Car Committee for a tank car to be used for a commodity other than those specified in part 173 and on the certificate of construction. This information is used to ascertain whether a commodity is suitable for transportation in a tank car. AAR approval is also required for an application for approval of designs, materials and construction, conversion or alteration of tank car tanks constructed to a specification in part 179, or an application for construction of tank cars to any new specification. This information is used to ensure that the design, construction, or modification of a tank car or the construction of a tank car to a new specification is performed in accordance with the applicable requirements.
(2) Progress Reports: Each owner of a tank car that is required to be modified to meet certain requirements specified in § 173.31 must submit a progress report to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). FRA uses this information to ensure that all affected tank cars are modified before the regulatory compliance date.
(3) FRA Approvals: An approval is required from FRA to transport a bulk packaging (such as a portable tank, IM portable tank, intermediate bulk container, cargo tank, or multi-unit tank car tank) containing a hazardous material in container-on-flat-car or trailer-on-flat-car service other than as authorized by § 174.63. FRA uses this information to ensure that the bulk package is properly secured using an adequate restraint system during transportation. An FRA approval is also required for the movement of any tank car that does not conform to the applicable requirements in the HMR. These latter movements are currently being reported under the information collection for special permit applications.
(4) Manufacturer Reports and Certificate of Construction: These documents are prepared by tank car manufacturers and used by owners, users, and FRA personnel to verify that rail tank cars conform to the applicable specification.
(5) Quality Assurance Program: Facilities that build, repair, and ensure the structural integrity of tank cars are required to develop and implement a quality assurance program. This information is used by the facility and DOT compliance personnel to ensure that each tank car is constructed or repaired in accordance with the applicable requirements.
(6) Inspection Reports: A written report must be prepared and retained for each tank car that is inspected and tested in accordance with § 180.509 of the HMR. Rail carriers, users, and FRA use this information to ensure that rail tank cars are properly maintained and in safe condition for transporting hazardous materials.
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of availability; Request for comments.
The Board of Trustees of the Teamsters Local 805 Pension and Retirement Fund (Local 805 Pension Fund), a multiemployer pension plan, has submitted an application to reduce benefits under the plan in accordance with the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014. The purpose of this notice is to announce that the application submitted by the Board of Trustees of the Local 805 Pension Fund has been published on the Treasury Web site, and to request public comments on the application from interested parties, including participants and beneficiaries, employee organizations, and contributing employers of the Local 805 Pension Fund.
Comments must be received by June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Comments may also be mailed to the Department of the Treasury, MPRA Office, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 1224, Washington, DC 20220. Attn: Eric Berger. Comments sent via facsimile and email will not be accepted.
For information regarding the application from the Local 805 Pension Fund, please contact Treasury at (202) 622-1534 (not a toll-free number).
The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) amended the Internal
On March 22, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Local 805 Pension Fund submitted an application for approval to reduce benefits under the plan. As required by MPRA, that application has been published on Treasury's Web site at
Comments are requested from interested parties, including participants and beneficiaries, employee organizations, and contributing employers of the Local 805 Pension Fund. Consideration will be given to any comments that are timely received by Treasury.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on May 4, 2017 on “China's Information Controls, Global Media Influence, and Cyber Warfare Strategy”.
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 4, 2017, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:20 p.m.
TBD, Washington, DC. A detailed agenda for the hearing will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Leslie Tisdale, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, that the National Research Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, June 7, 2017, in Conference Room 530 at 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. This meeting is open to the public.
The agenda will include a brief by the Advisory Committee Management Office (ACMO), Air Force Health Study Update, Office of Research and Development (ORD) Strategy review, Big Data update, discussions on personnel and workload, and Service updates. No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Members of the public wanting to attend may contact Melissa Cooper, Designated Federal Officer, ORD (10P9), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 461-6044, or by email at
Because the meeting is being held in a government building, a photo I.D. must be presented at the Guard's Desk as a part of the clearance process. Due to security protocols, and in order to prevent delays in clearance processing, you should allow an additional 30 minutes before the meeting begins. Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Melissa Cooper at the phone number or email address noted above.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Form 21P-4703 is an agreement of the responsibilities of the fiduciary. When completed by VA and signed by the federal fiduciary, it constitutes a legally binding contract.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
By direction of the Secretary.
(a) “Buy American Laws” means all statutes, regulations, rules, and Executive Orders relating to Federal procurement or Federal grants—including those that refer to “Buy America” or “Buy American”—that require, or provide a preference for, the purchase or acquisition of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States, including iron, steel, and manufactured goods.
(b) “Produced in the United States” means, for iron and steel products, that all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States.
(c) “Petition beneficiaries” means aliens petitioned for by employers to become nonimmigrant visa holders with temporary work authorization under the H-1B visa program.
(d) “Waivers” means exemptions from or waivers of Buy American Laws, or the procedures and conditions used by an executive department or agency (agency) in granting exemptions from or waivers of Buy American Laws.
(e) “Workers in the United States” and “United States workers” shall both be defined as provided at section 212(n)(4)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(4)(E)).
(a)
(b)
(b) Within 150 days of the date of this order, the heads of all agencies shall:
(c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor, the United States Trade Representative, and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, shall issue guidance to agencies about how to make the assessments and to develop the policies required by subsection (b) of this section.
(d) Within 150 days of the date of this order, the heads of all agencies shall submit findings made pursuant to the assessments required by subsection (b) of this section to the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(e) Within 150 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative shall assess the impacts of all United States free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement on the operation of Buy American Laws, including their impacts on the implementation of domestic procurement preferences.
(f) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the United States Trade Representative, shall submit to the President a report on Buy American that includes findings from subsections (b), (d), and (e) of this section. This report shall be submitted within 220 days of the date of this order and shall include specific recommendations to strengthen implementation of Buy American Laws, including domestic procurement preference policies and programs. Subsequent reports on implementation of Buy American Laws shall be submitted by each agency head annually to the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, on November 15, 2018, 2019, and 2020, and in subsequent years as directed by the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the President an annual report based on these submissions beginning January 15, 2019.
(b) To the extent permitted by law, determination of public interest waivers shall be made by the head of the agency with the authority over the Federal financial assistance award or Federal procurement under consideration.
(c) To the extent permitted by law, before granting a public interest waiver, the relevant agency shall take appropriate account of whether a significant portion of the cost advantage of a foreign-sourced product is the result of the use of dumped steel, iron, or manufactured goods or the use of injuriously subsidized steel, iron, or manufactured goods, and it shall integrate any findings into its waiver determination as appropriate.
(b) In order to promote the proper functioning of the H-1B visa program, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as soon as practicable, suggest reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
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 |