Federal Register Vol. 82, No.86,
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 86 (May 5, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 86 (May 5, 2017)
| Page Range | 21107-21301 | |
| FR Document |
![21107
Rules and Regulations Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 86
Friday, May 5, 2017
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Regulatory Flexibility Act Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8424(d), 8432d,
contains regulatory documents having general 8432(j), 8433(e), 8435(c)(2), 8474(b)(5) and
applicability and legal effect, most of which I certify that this regulation will not 8474(c)(1).
are keyed to and codified in the Code of have a significant economic impact on
Federal Regulations, which is published under a substantial number of small entities. ■ 2. Amend § 1651.3 by revising
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. This regulation will affect Federal paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
civilian employees and spouse § 1651.3 Designation of beneficiary.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by beneficiaries who participate in the
the Superintendent of Documents. * * * * *
Thrift Savings Plan, which is a Federal (c) * * *
defined contribution retirement savings (3) Be signed and properly dated by
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT plan created under the Federal the participant and signed and properly
INVESTMENT BOARD Employees’ Retirement System Act of dated by one witness;
1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99–335, 100 (i) The participant must either sign
5 CFR Part 1651 Stat. 514, and which is administered by the form in the presence of the witness
the Agency. or acknowledge his or her signature on
Designation of Beneficiary the form to the witness;
Paperwork Reduction Act
(ii) All submitted and attached pages
AGENCY: Federal Retirement Thrift I certify that these regulations do not of the form must be signed and dated by
Investment Board. require additional reporting under the the participant;
ACTION: Final rule. criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act. (iii) All submitted and attached pages
of the form must be signed and dated by
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
SUMMARY: The Federal Retirement Thrift the same witness;
1995
Investment Board (Agency) is amending * * * * *
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates [FR Doc. 2017–09153 Filed 5–4–17; 8:45 am]
its death benefits regulations to modify
Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632,
the requirements necessary in order for BILLING CODE 6760–01–P
653, 1501–1571, the effects of this
a designation of beneficiary form to be
regulation on state, local, and tribal
valid.
governments and the private sector have DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DATES: This rule is effective May 15, been assessed. This regulation will not
2017. compel the expenditure in any one year National Institute of Food and
of $100 million or more by state, local, Agriculture
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
Austen Townsend at (202) 864–8647. or by the private sector. Therefore, a 7 CFR Part 3430
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The statement under section 1532 is not
RIN 0524–AA69
Agency administers the Thrift Savings required.
Plan (TSP), which was established by Submission to Congress and the Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-
the Federal Employees’ Retirement General Accounting Office formula Federal Assistance
System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Programs—General Award
Law 99–335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 810(a)(1)(A), the Administrative Provisions and Specific
provisions of FERSA are codified, as Agency submitted a report containing Administrative Provisions
amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and this rule and other required information
8401–79. The TSP is a tax-deferred to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of AGENCY: National Institute of Food and
retirement savings plan for Federal Representatives, and the Comptroller Agriculture, USDA.
civilian employees, members of the General of the United States before ACTION: Final rule with request for
uniformed services, and spouse publication of this rule in the Federal comments.
beneficiaries. The TSP is similar to cash Register. The rule is not a major rule as
SUMMARY: The National Institute of Food
or deferred arrangements established for defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
and Agriculture (NIFA) is publishing as
private-sector employees under section List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1651 a final rule, a set of general and specific
401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 administrative requirements applicable
U.S.C. 401(k)). Claims, Government employees,
Pensions, Retirement. to competitive and non-competitive
On March 30, 2017, the Agency non-formula programs. The purpose of
published a proposed rule with request Gregory T. Long, this final rule is to implement sections
for comments in the Federal Register Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (Pub. L.
(82 FR 15642, March 30, 2017). The Investment Board. 113–79 or the 2014 Farm Bill), making
proposed rule amended 5 CFR 1651.3(c) For the reasons stated in the it necessary to add a new section for
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
to require that all pages of a TSP preamble, the Agency amends 5 CFR centers of excellence by modifying
beneficiary designation form be signed chapter VI as follows: Subparts A, B, C and D of the general
and dated by the participant and only administrative provisions. Although this
one witness. The Agency received no PART 1651—DEATH BENEFITS final rule becomes effective on the date
substantive comments and, therefore, is of publication, NIFA is requesting
publishing the proposed rule as final ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1651 comments for a 30-day period as
without change. continues to read as follows: identified below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:00 May 04, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM 05MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_86/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-01 14:44:26
Document Modified: 2018-02-01 14:44:26
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 21272 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 21264 - Government in The Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 21267 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board | |
| 82 FR 21228 - Chemical Data Reporting; Requirements for Inorganic Byproduct Chemical Substances; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 21155 - Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2017 Annual Review | |
| 82 FR 21110 - Special Conditions: AMAC Aerospace Switzerland AG, Boeing Model 737-700 Airplane; Installation of a Therapeutic Oxygen System for Medical Use | |
| 82 FR 21296 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property Release at Greenwood County Airport, Greenwood, South Carolina | |
| 82 FR 21294 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evacuee Manifest and Promissory Note | |
| 82 FR 21240 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 21188 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Civil Rights Concerns in the State and Determine the Next Topic of Committee Study | |
| 82 FR 21204 - Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) Information To Be Verified for the 2018-2019 Award Year | |
| 82 FR 21260 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1028-0070; Consolidated Consumers' Report | |
| 82 FR 21228 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 82 FR 21295 - Annual Certification of Shrimp-Harvesting Nations | |
| 82 FR 21119 - Payment or Reimbursement for Certain Medical Expenses for Camp Lejeune Family Members | |
| 82 FR 21117 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District | |
| 82 FR 21153 - Safety Zone; Potomac River, Newburg, MD | |
| 82 FR 21118 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Harlem River, New York, NY | |
| 82 FR 21264 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 21270 - Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Rancho Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
| 82 FR 21268 - Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 | |
| 82 FR 21107 - Designation of Beneficiary | |
| 82 FR 21260 - Notice of Individual Special Recreation Permit Requirement and Cave Closures on Public Lands in Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties, Nevada | |
| 82 FR 21198 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
| 82 FR 21198 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition | |
| 82 FR 21239 - Request for the Technical Review of 4 Draft Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Value Profile Documents | |
| 82 FR 21252 - Notice of Final Issuance Adopting Administration for Native Americans (ANA) Program Policies and Procedures | |
| 82 FR 21255 - Announcement of Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 | |
| 82 FR 21202 - Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Dam Safety Modification Report, Bluestone Dam, Hinton, Summers County, WV | |
| 82 FR 21194 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 82 FR 21266 - Proposed Collection: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 21195 - Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 21192 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 21187 - Notice of Determination; Changes to the National Poultry Improvement Plan Program Standards | |
| 82 FR 21189 - Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, in Part; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 21186 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 21156 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron Conducting Long Range Strike Weapons System Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii | |
| 82 FR 21278 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 21301 - Amended: Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 21238 - Meeting of the Community Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) | |
| 82 FR 21188 - Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 21211 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to AGA Marvel From the Department of Energy Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures | |
| 82 FR 21235 - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Notice of Meetings | |
| 82 FR 21209 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of America Corporation (PAPRSA) From the Department of Energy Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures | |
| 82 FR 21213 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy | |
| 82 FR 21230 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 21230 - Notice of Termination; 10400 Sun Security Bank, Ellington, Missouri | |
| 82 FR 21297 - Ninety Eighth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning System Plenary | |
| 82 FR 21186 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
| 82 FR 21219 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 21223 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 21227 - Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint | |
| 82 FR 21215 - Caledonia Energy Partners, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 21223 - Alaska Gasline Development Corporation; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 21218 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 21224 - Spire STL Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Amendment to Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity | |
| 82 FR 21222 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 21219 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 21221 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 21226 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 21217 - Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 21214 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed B-System Project | |
| 82 FR 21216 - City of Watervliet; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 82 FR 21218 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 21216 - State Policies and Wholesale Markets Operated by ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 82 FR 21226 - Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Requesting Questions and Comments on Fiscal Year 2017 Other Federal Agency Cost Submissions | |
| 82 FR 21214 - South Central MCN LLC; Notice of Petition for Waiver | |
| 82 FR 21225 - ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Wisconsin South Expansion Project | |
| 82 FR 21275 - Submission for Review: Disabled Dependent Questionnaire, RI 30-10 | |
| 82 FR 21275 - Submission for Review: Request to Disability Annuitant for Information on Physical Condition and Employment, RI 30-1 | |
| 82 FR 21274 - Submission for Review: Report of Medical Examination of Person Electing Survivor Benefits, OPM 1530 | |
| 82 FR 21277 - Submission for Review: Verification of Adult Student Enrollment Status, RI 25-49 | |
| 82 FR 21276 - Submission for Review: Death Benefit Payment Rollover Election, RI 94-7 | |
| 82 FR 21235 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 21140 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2017 Recreational Fishing Seasons for Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico | |
| 82 FR 21276 - Submission for Review: Civil Service Retirement System Survivor Annuitant Express Pay Application for Death Benefits, RI 25-51 | |
| 82 FR 21277 - Submission for Review: Evidence To Prove Dependency of a Child, RI 25-37 | |
| 82 FR 21274 - Submission for Review: Initial Certification of Full-Time School Attendance, RI 25-41 | |
| 82 FR 21208 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, Federal Direct PLUS Loan Request for Supplemental Information | |
| 82 FR 21232 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Empire State Patient Safety Assurance Network PSO | |
| 82 FR 21233 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 21230 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 21232 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Healogics Patient Safety Institute | |
| 82 FR 21253 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Bureau of Primary Health Care Uniform Data System, OMB No. 0915-0193-Revision | |
| 82 FR 21254 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request Information Collection Request Title: National Health Service Corps Ambassador Portal OMB No. 0915-0388-Extension | |
| 82 FR 21291 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 21118 - Extension of Pharmacy Copayments for Medications | |
| 82 FR 21280 - Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to Alpha Architect Value Momentum Trend ETF Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation M | |
| 82 FR 21297 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 21201 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 21273 - Submission for OMB Emergency Review and 60-Day Notice for Comment for Existing Information Collection Requests | |
| 82 FR 21269 - Proposed Revisions to Conduct of Operations | |
| 82 FR 21258 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 21291 - Idaho Disaster #ID-00064 Declaration of Economic Injury | |
| 82 FR 21282 - ClearShares, LLC et al. | |
| 82 FR 21291 - Montana Disaster #MT-00099 Declaration of Economic Injury | |
| 82 FR 21241 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances-January Through March 2017 | |
| 82 FR 21288 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism | |
| 82 FR 21278 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Quote Mitigation | |
| 82 FR 21287 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to the CDS End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy | |
| 82 FR 21284 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Expand the Types of Entities That Are Eligible To Participate in Fixed Income Clearing Corporation as Sponsored Members and Make Other Changes | |
| 82 FR 21208 - State Energy Advisory Board | |
| 82 FR 21202 - National Security Education Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 21229 - Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or Manager | |
| 82 FR 21257 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 21257 - National Institute On Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 21256 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 21258 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 21298 - Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit | |
| 82 FR 21300 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Revision; Request for Comment; Uniform Interagency Transfer Agent Registration and Deregistration Forms | |
| 82 FR 21203 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind | |
| 82 FR 21261 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OCS Net Profit Share Payment Reporting-OMB Control Number 1012-0009; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 21197 - Call for Industrial Wireless Testbed Participation | |
| 82 FR 21107 - Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal Assistance Programs-General Award Administrative Provisions and Specific Administrative Provisions | |
| 82 FR 21142 - Airworthiness Directives; Aviat Aircraft Inc. Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 21144 - Airworthiness Directives; Technify Motors GmbH Reciprocating Engines | |
| 82 FR 21111 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 21123 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Correction | |
| 82 FR 21114 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 21116 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 21127 - Noncommercial Educational Station Fundraising for Third-Party Non-Profit Organizations | |
| 82 FR 21124 - National Television Multiple Ownership Rule | |
| 82 FR 21136 - Updates To Comply With the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and Other Technical Amendments | |
| 82 FR 21146 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Issue
Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Final rule.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Agency) is amending its death benefits regulations to modify the requirements necessary in order for a designation of beneficiary form to be valid.
This rule is effective May 15, 2017.
Austen Townsend at (202) 864-8647.
The Agency administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees, members of the uniformed services, and spouse beneficiaries. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).
On March 30, 2017, the Agency published a proposed rule with request for comments in the
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal civilian employees and spouse beneficiaries who participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, which is a Federal defined contribution retirement savings plan created under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, and which is administered by the Agency.
I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 1532 is not required.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 810(a)(1)(A), the Agency submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of this rule in the
Claims, Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agency amends 5 CFR chapter VI as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8424(d), 8432d, 8432(j), 8433(e), 8435(c)(2), 8474(b)(5) and 8474(c)(1).
(c) * * *
(3) Be signed and properly dated by the participant and signed and properly dated by one witness;
(i) The participant must either sign the form in the presence of the witness or acknowledge his or her signature on the form to the witness;
(ii) All submitted and attached pages of the form must be signed and dated by the participant;
(iii) All submitted and attached pages of the form must be signed and dated by the same witness;
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Final rule with request for comments.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is publishing as a final rule, a set of general and specific administrative requirements applicable to competitive and non-competitive non-formula programs. The purpose of this final rule is to implement sections of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79 or the 2014 Farm Bill), making it necessary to add a new section for centers of excellence by modifying Subparts A, B, C and D of the general administrative provisions. Although this final rule becomes effective on the date of publication, NIFA is requesting comments for a 30-day period as identified below.
This final rule becomes effective on May 5, 2017. NIFA is accepting comments for 30 days until June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by centers of excellence, by any of the following methods:
Erin Daly, Senior Policy Advisor, Phone: 202-401-3319
This rulemaking is authorized by section 1470 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA), as amended, 7 U.S.C. 3316.
A primary function of NIFA is the fair, effective, and efficient administration of Federal assistance programs implementing agricultural research, education, and extension programs. The awards made under the above authority are subject to the NIFA assistance regulations at 7 CFR part 3430, Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Provisions. NIFA's development and publication of this regulation for its non-formula Federal assistance programs serves to enhance its accountability and to standardize procedures across the Federal assistance programs it administers while providing transparency to the public. NIFA published 7 CFR part 3430 with subparts A through F as a final rule on September 4, 2009 [74 FR 45736-45752].
These regulations apply to all Federal assistance programs administered by NIFA except for the formula grant programs identified in 7 CFR 3430.1(f), the Small Business Innovation Research programs with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3403, and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP), with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3431.
NIFA organized the regulation as follows: Subparts A through E provide administrative provisions for all competitive and noncompetitive non-formula Federal assistance programs. Subparts F and thereafter apply to specific NIFA programs.
NIFA is, to the extent practical, using the following subpart template for each program authority: (1) Applicability of regulations, (2) purpose, (3) definitions (those in addition to or different from § 3430.2), (4) eligibility, (5) project types and priorities, (6) funding restrictions, (7) matching requirements, and (8) duration of grant. Subparts F and thereafter contain the above seven components in this order. Additional sections may be added for a specific program if there are additional requirements or a need for additional rules for the program (
Through this rulemaking, NIFA is making additions to Subparts A—General Information, B—Pre-award: Solicitation and Application, C—Pre-award: Application Review and Evaluation and D—Award of the administrative provisions in order to add a new section for the centers of excellence identified in the 2014 Farm Bill.
While the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), specifically exempts rules that involve public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts from notice-and-comment requirements, NIFA is issuing this rule as final with request for comments. Accordingly, NIFA is allowing 30 days for the submission of comments.
If upon consideration of the comments received in response to this notice NIFA decides to amend the final rule, NIFA will issue a subsequent final rule that includes an explanation of any changes made in response to the comments.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Director of the NIFA certifies that this final regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final regulation will affect institutions of higher education receiving Federal funds under this program. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define institutions as “small entities” if they are for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below $5,000,000 or if they are institutions controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000. The rule does not involve regulatory and informational requirements regarding businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.
The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
This final regulation applies to the following Federal financial assistance programs administered by NIFA including CFDA No. 10.309, Specialty Crop Research Initiative; CFDA No. 10.307, Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative; CFDA No. 10.303, Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program; CFDA No. 10.310, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI); CFDA No. 10.311, Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program; CFDA No. 10.326, Capacity Building for Non-Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture; and CFDA No. 10.320, Sun Grant Program.
The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order No. 13132 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. The Department invites comments on how to make this final rule easier to understand.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural Research, Education, Extension; Federal assistance.
Accordingly, the Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, adopts the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 3430 which was published at 75 FR 54759 on September 9, 2010, as final with the following changes:
7 U.S.C. 3316; Pub. L. 106-107 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
(d)If applicants choose to address center of excellence criteria, they must do so in their project narrative, subject to any page limitations on that section of the application.
(e)
(i) State agricultural experiment stations;
(ii) Colleges and universities;
(iii) University research foundations;
(iv) Other research institutions and organizations;
(v) Federal agencies;
(vi) National laboratories;
(vii) Private organizations, foundations, or corporations;
(viii) Individuals; or
(ix) A group consisting of two or more of the entities described in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(2) Only standard grant and coordinated agricultural project (CAP) grant applicants may be considered for center of excellence designation.
(b)
(1) The ability of the center of excellence to ensure coordination and cost effectiveness by reducing unnecessarily duplicative efforts regarding research, teaching, and extension in the implementation of the proposed research and/or extension activity outlined in this application;
(2) In addition to any applicable matching requirements, the ability of the center of excellence to leverage available resources by using public- private partnerships among agricultural industry groups, institutions of higher education, and the Federal Government in the implementation of the proposed research and/or extension activity outlined in this application. Resources leveraged should be commensurate with the size of the award;
(3) The planned scope and capability of the center of excellence to implement teaching initiatives to increase awareness and effectively disseminate solutions to target audiences through extension activities in the implementation of the proposed research and/or extension activity outlined in this application; and
(4) The ability or capacity of the center of excellence to increase the economic returns to rural communities by identifying, attracting, and directing funds to high-priority agricultural issues in support of and as a result of the implementation of the proposed research and/or extension activity outlined in this application.
(5) Additionally, where practicable (not required), center of excellence applicants should describe proposed efforts to improve teaching capacity and infrastructure at colleges and universities (including land-grant colleges and universities, cooperating forestry schools, certified Non-Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA) (list of certified NLGCA is available at
(c)
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 737-700 airplane, as modified by AMAC Aerospace Switzerland AG (AMAC). This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is the installation of a therapeutic oxygen system for medical use. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on AMAC Aerospace Switzerland AG on May 5, 2017. We must receive your comments by June 19, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0341 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Bob Hettman, FAA, Propulsion and Mechanical Systems, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2683; facsimile 425-227-1320.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.
In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been previously subject to the public comment process with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On September 7, 2016, AMAC applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) for the installation of a supplemental therapeutic oxygen system, for medical use, in a Boeing Model 737-700 airplane configured by a separate STC with a business-cabin interior. This Boeing Model 737-700 airplane, as modified by AMAC, is a narrow-body, business-cabin interior, twin jet-engine powered airplane with seating for 15 passengers, 1 cabin crewmember, and four flightcrew members. The maximum takeoff weight is 171,000 pounds.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, AMAC must show that the Boeing Model 737-700 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A16WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 737-700 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
The Boeing Model 737-700 airplane, as changed, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
The installation of a supplemental therapeutic oxygen system, for medical use, in a private, not-for-hire, not-for-common-carriage airplane.
AMAC has applied to modify a private business jet, a Boeing 737-700 airplane, to include an oxygen supply for a dedicated medical-oxygen system. The gaseous passenger-oxygen system will be modified to include additional supply cylinders and several therapeutic oxygen outlets located throughout the airplane cabin. Each therapeutic outlet will provide a constant flow of oxygen at either 2 or 4 liters per minute.
The flightcrew controls the flow of therapeutic oxygen at all times during flight. Therapeutic oxygen systems have been previously certified and were generally considered an extension of the passenger-oxygen system for the purpose of defining the applicable regulations. As a result, the applicable regulations included those that applied to oxygen systems in general, or supplemental oxygen systems.
Section 25.1445 includes standards for oxygen-distribution systems when oxygen is supplied to crew and passengers. If a common source of supply is used, § 25.1445(a)(2) requires a means to separately reserve the minimum supply required for the flightcrew. This requirement was originally added to Civil Air Regulation (CAR) 4b.831 at amendment 4b-13, effective September 21, 1949, and was included in § 25.1445 when the regulations were codified.
The regulation is intended to protect the flightcrew by ensuring that an adequate supply of oxygen is available to complete a descent and land following a loss of cabin pressure. When the regulation was written, the only passenger-oxygen system designs were supplemental-oxygen systems intended to protect passengers from hypoxia in the event of cabin decompression. Present designs of passenger-oxygen systems do not include design features that allow the crew to offer oxygen to passengers during flight.
Furthermore, the potential hazard that can exist when the oxygen content of an enclosed area becomes too high because of system leaks, malfunction, or damage from external sources, make it necessary to ensure that adequate safety standards are applied to the design and installation of the oxygen system. These potential hazards also necessitate development and application of appropriate additional design and installation standards.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 737-700 airplane. Should AMAC apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate no. A16WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of this feature on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 737-700 airplanes as modified by AMAC Aerospace Switzerland AG.
The distribution system for the therapeutic-oxygen system must be designed and installed to meet requirements similar to § 25.1445(a) as follows:
When oxygen is supplied to passengers for both supplemental and therapeutic purposes, the distribution system must be designed for either—
1. A source of supplemental supply for protection from hypoxia following a loss of cabin pressure, and a separate source for therapeutic purposes, or
2. A common source of supply, with means to separately reserve the minimum supply required by the passengers for supplemental use following a loss of cabin pressure.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-15-03 for all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx turbofan engine models. AD 2015-15-03 precluded the use of certain electronic engine control (EEC) full authority digital engine control (FADEC) software on GEnx turbofan engines. This AD requires removing a specific part and replacing it with a part eligible for installation and specifying the EEC FADEC software version for the affected GEnx turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by GE implementing final design changes that remove the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 9, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-15-03, Amendment 39-18212 (80 FR 42707, July 20, 2015), (“AD 2015-15-03”). AD 2015-15-03 applied to all GE GEnx turbofan engine models. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Boeing Company and GE requested that we amend paragraph (f) to clarify which software versions are prohibited from being installed. They stated that the listed software versions do not contain the highest level of ice crystal icing (ICI) accommodation.
We agree. We revised this AD because the listed software versions do not contain the highest level of ICI accommodation features. Also, the change requested makes the prohibition statement consistent with the AD removal requirements.
The Boeing Company requested that we add compliance to this AD as a terminating action to AD 2013-24-01, Amendment 39-17675 (78 FR 70851, November 27, 2013), (“AD 2013-24-01”) since it removes the unsafe condition.
We partially agree. We agree that complying with this AD is terminating action for certain requirements of AD 2013-24-01. Therefore, we added a new terminating action paragraph (h) of this AD. Since complying with this AD is terminating action to certain requirements of AD 2013-24-01, we disagree that complying with this AD is terminating action for all requirements of AD 2013-24-01.
The Boeing Company requests that 747-8 and 747-8F aircraft with GEnx-2B engines that are operating with software, version C075, be granted a relaxation of the requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2013-24-01. They stated that an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) exists that grants a relaxation of the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2013-24-01 as long as the aircraft engines have the required software versions.
We disagree. Although Transport Airplane Directorate issued aircraft level AD 2013-24-01 and granted an AMOC, those are interim actions. Complying with this AD is required to remove the unsafe condition and is terminating action to certain requirements of AD 2013-24-01. We did not change this AD.
GE requested that we revise the definition of an engine shop visit. They suggested that we add “Workscopes involving only externals, including transfer gearbox (TGB) and accessory gearbox (AGB) do not constitute an engine shop visit for the purpose of this AD.”
We disagree. The definition of a shop visit as “the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges” is a standard industry definition. Workscopes involving the TGB/AGB, or externals, do not separate major mating engine case flanges and do not constitute an engine shop visit for the purpose of this AD. We did not change this AD.
Cathay Pacific Airways Limited requested that we clarify which parts may be installed into the engine.
We disagree. The FAA does not intend to specify which parts may be installed into the engine, only those parts that may not be installed into the engine. Specifying which parts are eligible for installation may inadvertently prohibit new parts that are introduced from being installed into the engine. We did not change this AD.
The Air Line Pilots Association expressed agreement with this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that the changes we made as the result of the comments we received:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic
We reviewed GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0241 R00, dated March 16, 2016 that describes removal and installation procedures of fan hub stator assembly booster outlet guide vane; GE GEnx-2B SB 73-0041 R00, dated July 2, 2015 that describes reprogramming procedures for EEC FADEC software, version C075; and GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0044 R00, dated July 1, 2015 that describes reprograming procedures for EEC FADEC software, version B185.
We estimate that this AD affects 130 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take about 1 hour per engine to comply with the software installation required by this AD. We also estimate that 32 engines would require hardware replacement, which would take about 60 hours per engine. Required parts cost about $390,000 per engine. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $12,654,250.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 9, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2015-15-03, Amendment 39-18212 (80 FR 42707, July 20, 2015). This AD also affects AD 2013-24-01, Amendment 39-17675 (78 FR 70851, November 27, 2013).
This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B turbofan engines.
This AD was prompted by GE implementing final design changes that remove the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine failure, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Thirty days after the effective date of this AD, do not operate any GE GEnx-1B engine with electronic engine control (EEC) full authority digital engine control (FADEC) software, version B180 or earlier, installed.
(2) Thirty days after the effective date of this AD, do not operate any GE GEnx-2B engine with EEC FADEC software, version C068 or earlier, installed.
(3) At the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, remove from service all GE GEnx-2B67, -2B67B, and -2B67/P fan hub stator assembly booster outlet guide vanes, part number B1316-00720, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
After removing any software, version B180 or earlier, for the GE GEnx-1B engines; or software, version C068 or earlier, for the GE GEnx-2B engines, do not operate those engines with any software, version B180 or C068, or earlier.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except for the following situations which do not constitute an engine shop visit:
(1) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(2) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of replacing the fan or propulsor without subsequent maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
Compliance with this AD, for all engines installed on a specific airplane, is a terminating action to AD 2013-24-01 for that specific airplane, since it removes the unsafe condition on that specific airplane.
(1) For GEnx-1B engines:
(i) Compliance with paragraphs (e)(1) and (f) of this AD, for all engines on an airplane, is an approved terminating action for that airplane for paragraphs (g) and (i) of AD 2013-24-01.
(ii) Note that paragraph (j) of AD 2013-24-01, which contains post-event inspection requirements, remains in force.
(2) For GEnx-2B engines:
(i) Compliance with paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), and (f) of this AD, for all engines on an airplane, is an approved terminating action for that airplane for paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2013-24-01.
(ii) Note that paragraph (j) of AD 2013-24-01, which contains post-event inspection requirements, remains in force.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0241 R00, dated March 16, 2016; GE GEnx-2B SB 73-0041 R00, dated July 2, 2015; and GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0044 R00, dated July 1, 2015 can be obtained from GE, using the contact information in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 5, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Registe as of May 5, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 5, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 5, 2017.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race scheduled to take place on Hambrooks Bay and Choptank River, Cambridge, MD, during May 13-14, 2017. This date is a change to those listed for the annually scheduled event, as indicated in U.S. Coast Guard regulations, because the event sponsor changed the scheduled date of this annual power boat race. During the enforcement period, the Coast Guard patrol commander or designated marine event patrol may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters during the event.
The regulation at 33 CFR 100.501, Table to 100.501 (b.) 21, Cambridge Classic Power Boat Race will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on May 13 and May 14, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (WWM Division); telephone 410-576-2674, email
The Coast Guard was notified by the Cambridge Power Boat Racing Association, Inc. on January 21, 2017 through submission of a marine event application and during a March 28, 2017 pre-event meeting with the sponsor that, due to a scheduling change, a change of dates is necessary to the dates previously published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for this annually scheduled marine event, as listed in the Table to 33 CFR 100.501. The date of the annual power boat race is changed to May 13, 2017 and May 14, 2017. The Coast Guard will enforce the regulated area in 33 CFR 100.501 from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on May 13, 2017, and 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on May 14, 2017, for the Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. As specified in § 100.501(c), during the enforcement period, the Coast Guard patrol commander or designated marine event patrol may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.501(f) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.
The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the 125th Street (Triborough) Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 1.3, at New York, NY. This modified deviation extends the period the bridge may remain in the closed-to-navigation position and is necessary to facilitate rehabilitation of the mechanical and electrical components of the bridge.
This modified deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. May 16, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. June 19, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2016-1038 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email
On December 22, 2016, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Harlem River, New York, New York” in the
The 125th Street Bridge, mile 1.3, across the Harlem River, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 54 feet at mean high water and 59 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.789(b)(1).
Although the waterway is transited by commercial tugs, barges and recreational vessels, there have been no requests for bridge openings in the past two years. The Coast Guard notified known companies of the commercial vessels that transit the area, the NYPD, and the FDNY; there were no objections to this temporary deviation modification.
Under this temporary deviation modification, the 125th Street Bridge may remain in the closed position from May 16, 2017 to June 19, 2017. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Resolution of interim final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) notifies the public that an interim final rule freezing medication copayments for veterans in priority groups 2 through 8, published on December 7, 2016, was superseded by a final rule amending its regulations concerning copayments that published on December 12, 2016. The interim final rule received no public comments.
Bridget Souza, Office of Community Care (10D), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 382-2537. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On December 7, 2016, VA published an interim final rule, RIN 2900-AP87—Copayments for Medications in 2017 (AP87), at 81 FR 88120, extending the medication copayment freeze through February 26, 2017. We did so in anticipation of publishing a separate final rule, RIN 2900-AP35—Copayments for Medications Beginning January 1, 2017 (AP35), which published December 12, 2016, at 81 FR 89390, implementing a tiered medication copayment regime with an effective date of February 27, 2017. Failure to extend the medication copayment freeze with the interim final rule would have subjected affected veterans to a short term, but significant, increase in the amount of medication copayments based on the prescription drug component of the Medical Consumer Price Index (CPI-P) per 38 CFR 17.110(b)(1)(iii). In addition, affected veterans in priority groups 2 through 6 would have been subject to an increase in the annual cap on the total amount of copayments.
The interim final rule, AP87, provided a 60-day period during which the public could submit comments. The comment period closed on February 6, 2017, and we received no comments.
As previously mentioned, on December 12, 2016, VA published a final rule, AP35, at 81 FR 89390. This final rule established a tiered
This resolution contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 28, 2017, for publication.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as final an interim final rule addressing payment or reimbursement of certain medical expenses for family members of Camp Lejeune veterans. Under this rule, VA reimburses family members, or pays providers, for medical expenses incurred as a result of certain illnesses and conditions that may be associated with contaminants present in the base water supply at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (Camp Lejeune), North Carolina, from August 1, 1953, to December 31, 1987. Payment or reimbursement is made within the limitations set forth in statute and Camp Lejeune family members receive hospital care and medical services that are consistent with the manner in which we provide hospital care and medical services to Camp Lejeune veterans. The statutory authority has since been amended to also include certain veterans' family members who resided at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for no less than 30 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987. This final rule will reflect that statutory change and will address public comments received in response to the interim final rule.
Karyn Barrett, Director, Program Administration Directorate, Chief Business Office Purchased Care (10NB3), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (303) 331-7500. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On September 24, 2014, VA published an interim final rule to implement 38 U.S.C. 1787, which was created by section 102 of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Public Law 112-154 (the Act). 79 FR 57415-57421, Sept. 24, 2014. The Act requires VA to reimburse family members of Camp Lejeune veterans, or pay providers, when they have exhausted all claims and remedies against a third party for payment of medical care for any of the 15 specified illnesses and conditions. We received a total of 14 comments. One commenter fully supported the interim final rule and did not suggest any changes to it. Several comments related to provisions of 38 CFR 17.400, the regulation governing hospital care and medical services for Camp Lejeune veterans and coverage for certain illnesses or conditions. That regulation was the subject of a separate rulemaking. See 81 FR 46603-46606 (July 18, 2016). Three comments expressed general dissatisfaction with the interim final rule but neither opposed a specific provision of the regulation nor suggested how the regulation should be changed. As a result, these comments do not address any matter to which VA can respond and so will not be addressed here.
All of the issues raised by other commenters that criticized at least one portion of the rule can be grouped together by similar topic, and we have organized our discussion of the comments accordingly.
Several commenters referenced medical conditions that are not listed in the definition of covered illness or condition in 38 CFR 17.400(b). One commenter suggested that the reimbursement provisions of § 17.410 should apply to all illnesses or defects that science has shown were caused by exposure to the chemicals in the Camp Lejeune water supply. However, 38 U.S.C. 1787 limits payment or reimbursement for hospital care and medical services for Camp Lejeune family members to the 15 covered illnesses and conditions specified in 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(F). VA does not have the authority to expand the payment or reimbursement provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1787 beyond those specified in the statute. We therefore make no changes in the final rule.
One commenter expressed concern that the regulation identified the 15 statutory covered illnesses and conditions but also noted the reference, found in the preamble to the interim final rule, 79 FR at 57417, to VA's intent to consider any newly available science. The comment suggests that newly available science might identify other illnesses or conditions caused by exposure to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune and thus expand the list of covered illnesses and conditions. However, as stated in the interim final rule, 79 FR at 57417, any such science
One commenter suggested that the two-year filing requirement of § 17.410(d)(1)(i) was too short. This commenter noted the possibility that family members may not have had access to medical care to determine whether an illness was related to Camp Lejeune residency. This comment suggests the existence of a requirement to demonstrate a causal relationship between an illness or condition and residence at Camp Lejeune. However, under § 17.410(d)(3), a family member will be eligible for payment or reimbursement for certain hospital care and medical services for a covered illness or condition unless VA makes a clinical finding, in accordance with VA clinical guidelines, that the illness or condition resulted from a cause other than the family member's residence at Camp Lejeune. The commenter also stated that a “large segment” of family members might not know of the contamination today. The United States Marine Corps has taken steps over the past few years to publicize the issue of contaminants in the water at Camp Lejeune, and is making a continuing effort to contact individuals who were stationed there during the relevant time period and provide pertinent information. VA believes the two-year time frame provides an adequate period for affected family members to obtain and submit supporting evidence. Moreover, the two-year limit in paragraph (d)(1)(i) is consistent with VA's review of applications for retroactive copayment exemptions made by Camp Lejeune veterans under § 17.400(d).
Another commenter criticized the limitation of claims to expenses incurred after March 26, 2013. However, 38 U.S.C. 1787(b)(1) covers family members' claims only to the extent and in the amount provided in advance in appropriations for such purpose. Because March 26, 2013, is the date on which VA received appropriations to pay family members' claims, VA does not have the authority to pay claims for hospital care and medical services received before that date.
One commenter found “unacceptable” the information required of family members' treating physicians under § 17.410(d)(2). This commenter suggested that VA needs to locate qualified occupational physicians and pay for expert opinions as part of the family members' treatment “rather than strictly as part of a VA claim denial process.” The commenter also criticized the application of VA clinical guidelines by VA physicians as applied to the opinions of family members' personal physicians regarding their patients' illnesses or conditions on the basis that VA clinicians were “people who have never examined the patient.” This comment misinterprets the intent of § 17.410(d)(2) and (d)(3), which do not establish a means for VA to rebut the diagnosis of a family member's physician. This is not an adversarial process in which VA requires the family member to undergo an independent medical examination, followed by an administrative weighing of the evidence to establish causation. The process is more analogous to submitting a claim for reimbursement to a health insurer. Because VA is not going to be conducting clinical examinations, paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) establish a process whereby we rely on the clinical determinations made by family members' treating physicians who have conducted such examinations. VA will use this information to reach the clinical determinations described in § 17.410(d)(3). The rule provides that a family member will be eligible for payment or reimbursement for certain hospital care and medical services for a covered illness or condition unless VA makes a clinical finding, in accordance with VA clinical guidelines, that the illness or condition resulted from a cause other than the family member's residence at Camp Lejeune. This is consistent with the statute at 38 U.S.C. 1787(a). The statute requires VA to apply clinical guidelines to determine, per 38 U.S.C. 1787(b)(2), whether the illness or condition resulted from a cause other than the residence of the family member at Camp Lejeune during a covered period.
The commenter also stated that VA would always be liable for full payment or reimbursement because most health care insurance policies contain exclusions and exceptions for poisonings, chemical or occupational exposure. The statute at 38 U.S.C. 1787(b)(3) authorizes VA to provide payment or reimbursement for hospital care or medical services provided to a family member only after the family member or the health care provider has exhausted without success all claims and remedies reasonably available to the family member or provider against a third party for payment of such care or services, including with respect to health-plan contracts. The regulation at § 17.410(d)(5) is consistent with the statute, providing that VA is the payer of last resort after all other claims and remedies have been exhausted. The purpose of 38 U.S.C. 1787 is to ensure that the family member receives reimbursement for monies spent on, or the provider receives payment for, treatment of illnesses or conditions that are now covered, and that the family member has no residual financial liability for that treatment. We make no change based on this comment.
After passage of the Act (Pub.L. 112-154), Congress subsequently passed Public Law 113-235, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (“the Consolidated Act”), which President Obama signed into law on December 16, 2014. Division I, Title II, sec. 243 of the law amended 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(F) by striking “January 1, 1957,” and inserting “August 1, 1953.” This added a new cohort of veterans to the group who are eligible for care pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(F), namely, veterans who served on active duty in the Armed Forces at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for not fewer than 30 days during the period from August 1, 1953, to December 31, 1956 (the “1953 cohort”). Consequently, this amendment expanded eligibility for payment and reimbursement for certain health care to qualifying family members of Camp Lejeune veterans in the 1953 cohort.
Pursuant to the Consolidated Act, VA amends § 17.410 in this final rule to account for the change in the date that begins the period of eligibility for Camp Lejeune veterans to receive VA hospital care and medical services. First, we amend the definition of “Camp Lejeune family member” in § 17.410(b) by deleting “January 1, 1957” and adding in its place “August 1, 1953.” In addition, because the amendment is not retroactive, we amend § 17.410(d)(1) to clarify that the family members of the 1953 cohort are not eligible for payment or reimbursement for hospital care and medical services received before December 16, 2014, the effective date of the Consolidated Act. More specifically, we amend § 17.410(d)(1) by making a clarifying change to paragraph (d)(1)(i), adding a new paragraph (d)(1)(ii), and re-designating existing paragraph (d)(1)(ii) as paragraph (d)(1)(iii). Section 17.410(d)(1)(i) addresses retroactive payment or reimbursement for hospital and medical services to the Camp
We also make a technical amendment to § 17.410(d)(2), which required a Camp Lejeune family member's physician to certify that the claimed hospital care or medical services were provided for an illness or condition “listed in § 17.400(d)(1).” Section 17.400 has since been amended to remove the list of covered illnesses and conditions from paragraph (d)(1) of that section and add the list as the definition of “covered illness or condition” in paragraph (b) of that section. 81 FR at 46603. Accordingly, we revise § 17.410(d)(2) to reference the definition of “covered illness or condition” in § 17.400(b).
One commenter stated that the comment period provided was too short and should be extended. The Administrative Procedures Act requires federal agencies to provide the public with adequate notice of a proposed rule followed by a meaningful opportunity to comment on the rule's content. 5 U.S.C. 553. The requirement to provide the public with adequate notice of a proposed rule is generally achieved through the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Based on the rationale set forth in the interim final rule and in this document, VA is adopting the provisions of the interim final rule as a final rule with changes as noted above.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds under 38 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that there is good cause to publish a portion of this final rule without prior opportunity for public comment, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that there is good cause to publish this portion of the rule with an immediate effective date. This rulemaking amends § 17.410 to incorporate a provision mandated by Congress. See Public Law 113-235. Notice and public comment is unnecessary because it could not result in any change to this provision. Further, since the public law became effective on its date of enactment, VA believes it is impracticable and contrary to law and the public interest to delay this rule for the purpose of soliciting advance public comment or to have a delayed effective date. In addition, through this rulemaking VA adopts as final an interim final rule for which we provided notice and opportunity for the public to comment. Substantive comments received in the interim final rule have been addressed in this rulemaking.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3507) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi).
This final rule will impose the following amended information collection requirements. Section 17.410(c) of title 38, CFR, requires an individual applying for benefits associated with hospital care and medical services for Camp Lejeune family members to submit an application to VA. VA Form 10068, “Camp Lejeune Family Member Program Application” is used for that purpose. Section 17.410(d)(1) requires a Camp Lejeune family member or provider of care or services to submit a timely claim for payment or reimbursement. Section 17.410(d)(2) requires the provider of a Camp Lejeune family member to certify that a Camp Lejeune family member has been diagnosed with one of the 15 required illnesses or conditions. Section 17.410 requires VA to maintain timely information about the Camp Lejeune family member in order to correctly identify the individual in VA's system, and to submit any information or reimbursements. OMB approved these new information collection requirements associated with the interim final rule on an emergency basis and assigned OMB control number 2900-0822. Pursuant to the Consolidated Act, VA amends these forms to require applicants to certify that they resided at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. The information collection is pending OMB approval. Notice of OMB approval for this information collection will be
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-12. This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by OMB as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the program affected by this rule are 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 24, 2017, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and Dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 38 CFR part 17 which was published at 79 FR 57415 on September 24, 2014, is adopted as final with the following change:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
Section 17.38 also issued under 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1701, 1705, 1710, 1710A, 1721, 1722, 1782, and 1786.
Section 17.169 also issued under 38 U.S.C. 1712C.
Sections 17.380 and 17.412 are also issued under sec. 260, Public Law 114-223, 130 Stat. 857.
Section 17.410 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 1787.
Section 17.415 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 7301, 7304, 7402, and 7403.
Sections 17.640 and 17.647 are also issued under sec. 4, Public Law 114-2, 129 Stat. 30.
Sections 17.641 through 17.646 are also issued under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and sec. 4, Public Law 114-2, 129 Stat. 30.
(a)
(b)
(i) Resided at Camp Lejeune (or was in utero while his or her mother either resided at Camp Lejeune or served at Camp Lejeune under § 17.400(b)) for at least 30 (consecutive or nonconsecutive) days during the period beginning on August 1, 1953, and ending on December 31, 1987; and
(ii) Meets one of the following criteria:
(A) Is related to a Camp Lejeune veteran by birth;
(B) Was married to a Camp Lejeune veteran; or
(C) Was a legal dependent of a Camp Lejeune veteran.
(c)
(d)
(1) The Camp Lejeune family member or provider of care or services has submitted a timely claim for payment or reimbursement, which means:
(i) In the case of a Camp Lejeune family member who resided at Camp Lejeune between January 1, 1957, and December 31, 1987, for hospital care and medical services received prior to the date an application for benefits is filed per paragraph (c) of this section, the hospital care and medical services must have been provided on or after March 26, 2013, but no more than 2 years prior to the date that VA receives the application. The claim for payment or reimbursement must be received by VA no more than 60 days after VA approves the application;
(ii) In the case of a Camp Lejeune family member who resided at Camp Lejeune between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1956, for hospital care and medical services received prior to the date an application for benefits is filed per paragraph (c) of this section, the hospital care and medical services must have been provided on or after December 16, 2014, but no more than 2 years prior to the date that VA receives the application. The claim for payment or reimbursement must be received by VA no more than 60 days after VA approves the application;
(iii) For hospital care and medical services provided on or after the date an application for benefits is filed per paragraph (c) of this section, the claim for payment or reimbursement must be received by VA no more than 2 years after the later of either the date of discharge from a hospital or the date that medical services were rendered;
(2) The Camp Lejeune family member's treating physician certifies that the claimed hospital care or medical services were provided for a covered illness or condition as defined in § 17.400(b), and provides information about any co-morbidities, risk factors, or other exposures that may have contributed to the illness or condition;
(3) VA makes the clinical finding, under VA clinical practice guidelines, that the illness or condition did not result from a cause other than the residence of the family member at Camp Lejeune;
(4) VA would be authorized to provide the claimed hospital care or medical services to a veteran under VA's medical benefits package in § 17.38;
(5) The Camp Lejeune family member or hospital care or medical service provider has exhausted without success all claims and remedies reasonably available to the family member or provider against a third party, including health-plan contracts; and
(6) Funds were appropriated to implement 38 U.S.C. 1787 in a sufficient amount to permit payment or reimbursement.
(e)
(1) If a third party is partially liable for the claimed hospital care or medical services, then VA will pay or reimburse the lesser of the amount for which the Camp Lejeune family member remains personally liable or the amount for which VA would pay for such care under §§ 17.55 and 17.56.
(2) If VA is the sole payer for hospital care and medical services, then VA will pay or reimburse in accordance with §§ 17.55 and 17.56, as applicable.
(The information collection requirements have been submitted to OMB and are pending OMB approval.)
Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA).
Final rule; correcting amendment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule approving a New Hampshire's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions that addressed infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
This rule is effective May 5, 2017.
Ida E. McDonnell, Manager, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone number (617) 918-1653, fax number (617) 918-0653, email
EPA issued a final rule in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
In final rule FR Doc. 2016-15623, published in the issue of Friday, July 8, 2016 (81 FR 44542), make the following correction:
On page 44553, in the third column, remove amendatory instruction 3.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
An
Effective June 5, 2017.
Brendan Holland, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau,
This is a summary of the Commission's
1.
2. Eleven years later, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the Commission to increase the national audience reach cap from 25 percent to 35 percent. Subsequently, the Commission reaffirmed the 35 percent national cap in its
3. Following adoption of the
4. Prior to the enactment of the CAA, several parties had appealed the Commission's
5. On June 13, 2009, the Commission completed the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting for full-power stations. While UHF channels were inferior for purposes of broadcasting in analog, the DTV transition affirmed the Commission's longstanding belief that digital broadcasting would eliminate the technical disparity between UHF and VHF signals. In fact, experience has confirmed that UHF channels are equal, if not superior, to VHF channels for the transmission of digital television signals. Therefore, in 2013, the Commission adopted a
6. In a
7.
8. Petitioners and their supporters assert that the Commission should not have eliminated the UHF discount without adducing further evidence that the action would be in the public interest. The Petitioners argue that in eliminating the discount the Commission actually harmed the public interest by increasing the competitive disparity between broadcasters and other video programming distributors. CBS and Sinclair also point to a lack of evidence that the public interest would be harmed by retaining the UHF discount. NAB argues that, by eliminating the UHF discount in isolation, the Commission was not able to determine whether the change promotes the public interest purposes of the cap itself.
9. The history of the UHF discount and national audience reach cap demonstrates that, with the exception of the
10. While the Commission determined in the
11. Contrary to ACA's claims that consideration of the discount without consideration of the cap was appropriate, the Commission erred by eliminating the discount and thus substantially tightening the cap without considering whether the cap should be raised to mitigate the regulatory impact of eliminating the UHF discount. While it is true that the UHF discount no longer has a sound technical basis following the DTV transition, the Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for eliminating the discount without conducting a broader review of the cap, which it deferred indefinitely. Reliance on the self-imposed narrow scope of the
12. This error is problematic because the Commission has acknowledged, both in the record of this proceeding and in the most recent quadrennial media ownership review, the greatly increased options for consumers in the selection and viewing of video programming since Congress directed the Commission to modify the cap in 2004. The
13.
14. The Petition, while reiterating some arguments made in response to the
15.
16. This
17.
18. This
19. The
20. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted in this
21.
22. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,384. Of this total, 1,275 stations (or about 92 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on February 24, 2017, and therefore these
23. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. The estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.
24. The FRFA accompanying the
25. The
26.
27.
28.
29.
Television; Radio.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communication Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
(e)
(2) * * *
(i)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission revises its rules to allow noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations to conduct limited on-air fundraising activities that interrupt regular programming for the benefit of third-party non-profit organizations. Permitting NCE stations to conduct third-party fundraising on a limited basis will serve the public interest by enabling NCE stations to support charities and other non-profit organizations in their fundraising efforts for worthy causes without undermining the noncommercial nature of NCE stations or their primary function of serving their communities of license through educational programming.
Effective July 5, 2017, except for the amendments to §§ 73.503(e)(1), 73.621(f)(1), and 73.3527(e)(14), which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and will become effective after the Commission publishes
For additional information, contact Kathy Berthot,
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. In this
2. Under Section 399B of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 399B, NCE stations are prohibited from broadcasting “advertisements,” defined as any message or other programming material which is broadcast or otherwise transmitted in exchange for any remuneration, and which is intended—
(1) to promote any service, facility, or product offered by any person who is engaged in such offering for profit;
(2) to express the views of any person with respect to any matter of public importance or interest; or
(3) to support or oppose any candidate for political office.
Further, pursuant to §§ 73.503(d) and 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules, an NCE station may not conduct fundraising activities that substantially alter or suspend regular programming and are designed to benefit any entity other than the station itself. “Regular programming” includes programming that “the public broadcaster ordinarily carries, but does not encompass those fundraising activities that suspend or alter their normal programming fare.” The third-party fundraising restrictions reflect the concern that “educational stations are licensed to provide a noncommercial broadcast service, not to serve as a fund-raising operation for other entities by broadcasting material that is `akin to regular advertising.' ”
3. The Commission has granted waivers of §§ 73.503(d) and 73.621(e) in extraordinary circumstances. For example, in 1992, the former Mass Media Bureau granted a waiver of §§ 73.503(d) and 73.621(e) to the licensee of an NCE radio station and an NCE television station in West Palm Beach, Florida, following Hurricane Andrew. The stations proposed to broadcast a two-hour simulcast along with four area commercial television stations to raise funds and donations and provide information for the hurricane relief effort. The staff granted the waiver in recognition of the catastrophic events that had occurred, the stations' unique ability to serve the area affected by the disaster, and the limited length of the program. The Commission also has granted waivers to permit fundraising for other singular catastrophic events, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the January 2005 tsunami in Southeast Asia, and the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti. More recently, the Commission established informal procedures through which NCE licensees could request Commission approval to conduct fundraising to aid the Moore, Oklahoma area tornado relief efforts, noting that it has granted waivers of § 73.503(d) for “fundraising appeals to support relief efforts following disasters of particular uniqueness or magnitude” and that such waivers “have been issued for a specific fundraising program or programs, or for sustained station appeals for periods which generally do not exceed several days.” In contrast, Commission staff has denied waiver requests where the proposed fundraising occurred annually to address ongoing needs and was not limited to a specific one-time problem.
4. In June 2011, a working group including Commission staff, scholars, and consultants released the
5. On April 25, 2012, in response to the recommendations in the
6. We relax the third-party fundraising restrictions to allow NCE stations to conduct limited on-air fundraising activities that interrupt regular programming for the benefit of third-party non-profit organizations. Such relief will provide NCE stations greater flexibility to undertake fundraising for third-party non-profit organizations. Under the current rules, program-length fundraising for third-party non-profit organizations is prohibited (even if regularly scheduled) because such programming is considered to suspend “regular programming.” Under the rules we adopt today, NCE stations will be able to conduct fundraising activities that alter or suspend regular programming—including program-length fundraising activities—at their discretion, as long as the fundraising programs do not exceed the one-percent cap discussed below. We conclude that providing NCE stations the flexibility to engage in limited fundraising for charities and other third-party non-profit organizations will benefit the public interest. Third-party fundraising programs may enhance the educational nature of NCE stations by educating the public about the social needs and charitable causes supported by non-profit organizations. For example, a fundraising program for a breast cancer charity could help to educate the station's audience about early detection and support services, and a fundraising program for a child poverty relief organization could serve to educate the stations' listeners about the needs of children around the world who suffer in extreme poverty. Non-profit organizations may be better able to address their charitable missions with the financial support received from the NCE stations' audiences. Some of this financial support may directly benefit NCE stations' local communities. Third-party fundraising may also help to lessen the financial burden on governmental entities that address social needs through appropriations from public funds.
7. We further conclude that allowing NCE stations to conduct limited third-party fundraising will not undermine the noncommercial broadcasting service, as suggested by some commenters. The longstanding third-party fundraising restrictions reflect concerns that any promotional or fundraising activities by NCE stations must not adversely affect the educational programming mission or noncommercial character of these stations. Nevertheless, we conclude that a blanket prohibition on third-party fundraising that interrupts regular programming is no longer necessary to preserve NCE stations' noncommercial nature and ensure that NCE stations remain focused on their primary function of providing educational programming to their communities of license. The Commission's experience in granting waivers to allow NCE stations to conduct fundraising for disaster relief efforts has demonstrated that NCE stations can conduct limited third-party fundraising without compromising their noncommercial nature and the valuable program service they provide to the public. The public has responded enthusiastically to these disaster relief fundraising activities, and there is no evidence in the record before us that these fundraising activities have altered the public's perception of noncommercial broadcasting. Accordingly, we find that it is appropriate to allow NCE stations to conduct third-party fundraising on a limited basis.
8. We disagree with assertions that the success of the existing waiver process demonstrates that changes to the rules are unnecessary. As discussed above, we have determined that the public interest will be served by relaxing our third-party fundraising restrictions to allow NCE stations to conduct limited third-party fundraising activities unrelated to relief efforts for singular catastrophic events. The waiver process is intended to provide relief in extraordinary circumstances, and is not suitable for the more routine third-party fundraising activities that we address in this proceeding. We likewise reject proposals that we expand the existing waiver process to allow NCE stations to seek waivers to conduct third-party fundraising activities that are not connected to specific disasters. We think that it would impose an unnecessary burden on both NCE licensees and Commission staff to require NCE licensees to seek waivers each time they want to conduct such routine third-party fundraising.
9. We are also not persuaded by arguments that relaxing the third-party fundraising restrictions will adversely affect the noncommercial broadcasting service by reducing the amount of airtime dedicated to educational, instructional, and cultural programming; lessening the appeal of NCE stations to their audiences; or jeopardizing fundraising for NCE stations' own operations. First and foremost, we emphasize that the choice to conduct third-party fundraising will be entirely voluntary on the part of NCE stations. NCE stations that do not wish to engage in third-party fundraising are not required to do so. Thus, NCE stations concerned that airing third-party fundraising programs will jeopardize fundraising for their own operations can simply choose not to engage in such third-party fundraising. Additionally, we have determined that third-party fundraising programs may enhance the educational nature of NCE stations in some situations by raising public awareness about social needs and charitable causes supported by non-profit organizations. Further, as we explain below, we are limiting the amount of time that NCE stations can spend on third-party fundraising that interrupts regular programming to one percent of their total annual airtime. We believe that the one-percent annual limit strikes the proper balance between providing NCE stations some flexibility to support their fundraising missions and ensuring that their third-party fundraising activities do not take away from their primary function of providing noncommercial, educational programming to their local communities.
10. We disagree with assertions that third-party fundraising will change the public's perception of noncommercial broadcasting by causing the public to view the “business” of NCE stations as charitable fundraising, which could harm all NCE stations, even those that do not change their on-air practices. NCE stations that choose to engage in third-party fundraising will continue to spend the vast majority of their time—
11. Some commenters assert that relaxation of the third-party fundraising restrictions will subject NCE stations to undue pressure from affiliated or influential parties—such as universities, colleges, and other institutions that hold the stations' licenses, politically powerful persons, and foundations that provide underwriting contributions to stations—that may seek to use the station to raise funds for their own discrete interests, or cause NCE stations to be inundated with fundraising requests from local non-profits. To the extent that these commenters raise concerns that a university, college, or other institutional licensee may apply pressure to its licensed station to engage in third-party fundraising, we note that NCE stations can take steps to preempt unwanted fundraising requests from licensees and other non-profit organizations by, for example, announcing publicly their reasons for not airing routine third-party fundraising drives.
12.
13. We limit the class of entities for which NCE stations may conduct third-party fundraising to entities that are recognized as tax exempt, non-profit organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). Section 501(c)(3) exempts from federal income taxes corporations, foundations, or other organizations that are organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, educational, or certain other purposes, where no part of the net earnings of the organization inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. NRB and other commenters overwhelmingly support limiting eligibility for third-party fundraising to Section 501(c)(3) organizations. We agree with commenters that this limitation will provide NCE stations certainty that third-party organizations that benefit from on-air fundraising are
14. Two commenters suggest that NCE stations should be allowed to undertake fundraising for any organization that has qualified as a
15. Moreover, unlike non-profit organizations certified under other sections of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 501(c)(3) organizations are strictly prohibited from supporting or opposing candidates for political office and are subject to limits on lobbying. Thus, limiting eligible beneficiaries to Section 501(c)(3) organizations dovetails well with Section 399B's prohibition on paid political advertising on NCE stations. This prohibition reflects Congress's concern that paid political advertising could alter the unique noncommercial, educational nature of public broadcasting. We are similarly concerned that allowing NCE stations to raise funds for non-profit organizations that support or oppose political candidates or spend a substantial part of their time engaged in lobbying activities could alter the noncommercial, educational nature of NCE stations. We are also concerned that an NCE station's audience may perceive the station's efforts to raise funds for such an organization as a tacit endorsement of that organization's views, which could alter the public's perception of noncommercial broadcasting. Therefore, we conclude that it is appropriate to limit the eligible beneficiaries of third-party fundraising to Section 501(c)(3) organizations.
16. We will not limit eligible beneficiaries of third-party fundraising to local non-profit organizations. The Commission sought comment in the
17. We also decline to limit eligible beneficiaries of an NCE station's third-party fundraising to non-profit organizations that are unaffiliated with the station. The
18. We will allow NCE broadcasters to spend up to one percent of their total annual airtime conducting third-party fundraising. NRB asserts that a one-percent annual limit provides adequate flexibility to NCE stations, explaining that NCE licensees “will be reluctant to frustrate their audiences with excessive or demanding appeals for third-party non-profits, particularly when their own stations rely on donations from their [audiences] in order to operate.” We agree with NRB and other commenters that a one-percent annual limit will strike an appropriate balance between allowing NCE stations the flexibility to support the fundraising efforts of third-party non-profit organizations and ensuring that third-party fundraising does not undermine the noncommercial nature of the participating stations and divert them from their primary function of providing educational programming to their communities of license. A one-percent annual limit—which equates to approximately 88 hours annually or 1.7 hours weekly for stations on the air 24 hours a day—will afford NCE stations flexibility to conduct third-party fundraising, while also ensuring that NCE stations do not frustrate their audiences with excessive fundraising appeals or divert stations from primary mission of providing educational programming to their communities. We reject proposals that we adopt a ten-percent annual limit on third-party fundraising, or leave it entirely up to NCE stations to decide how much of their airtime to devote to third-party fundraising. We share NPR's concern that a ten-percent annual limit would represent a significant portion of a station's annual program schedule and could further erode the distinction between NCE stations and their commercial counterparts.
19. We recognize that an NCE station's total annual airtime may vary slightly from year to year and that it may be difficult for some stations to determine in advance precisely how many hours they will operate in a given year. Therefore, as suggested by NRB, we will allow NCE stations that engage in third-party fundraising to use the prior year's total airtime for purposes of determining how many hours constitute one percent of their total annual airtime. For example, an NCE station that wishes to devote one percent of its airtime in 2017 to third-party fundraising may use its total annual airtime for 2016 in calculating the one percent cap. Furthermore, with respect to NCE stations that multicast programming on two or more separate channels, we will apply the one-percent annual limit separately to each individual programming stream. Thus, an NCE station with three programming streams may spend up to one percent of the total annual airtime of each stream airing third-party fundraising programming on that stream. We will not, however, allow NCE stations with multiple programming streams to aggregate their total hours of programming from all of their streams and allocate their fundraising activity between and among streams or on a single program stream at their discretion, as proposed by one commenter. As discussed above, we believe that the one-percent annual limit is important to ensuring that third-party fundraising activities do not undermine the noncommercial character of NCE stations, and including more fundraising on a particular stream would undermine that goal.
20. We will retain our long-standing waiver process to permit NCE stations to conduct time-limited on-air fundraising for specific disasters and other singular catastrophic events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, as suggested by commenters. Since such events occur only rarely, it will not burden Commission staff to retain the existing waiver process for such events for all NCE stations, both exempt and non-exempt. This will enable CPB-funded stations that are exempt from the new rule to conduct third-party fundraising for disaster relief efforts by seeking a waiver as they have done in the past. Non-exempt stations may use the same long-standing process if they wish to conduct third-party fundraising beyond their one-percent annual limit, but the standard will remain the same. This approach will ensure that if a disaster occurs after a non-exempt station reaches its one-percent annual limit, the station would still be able to seek a waiver to raise funds on-air to support these efforts.
21. We decline to adopt any general limits on the duration of a specific fundraising program or on a discrete fundraising effort. We think it is unlikely that NCE licensees will risk alienating their audiences by interrupting their regular programming for an extended duration to conduct third-party fundraising. Thus, we find it is unnecessary to adopt durational limits on such fundraising programs.
22. We require NCE stations that interrupt regular programming to conduct third-party fundraising to air audience disclosures that clearly state that the fundraiser is not for the benefit of the station itself and identify the non-profit organization intended to benefit from the fundraising. Most commenters that address this issue support an audience disclosure requirement, acknowledging that it will decrease the likelihood of confusion on the part of station audiences as to whether the fundraising is intended to benefit the station or another entity and as to the identity of the entity for which the fundraising is being conducted. Commenters offer a range of suggestions as to the details and frequency of the audience disclosures. We adopt NRB's proposed approach and require that NCE stations make disclosures at the beginning and the end of the fundraising program and at least once during each hour of the program. We will not require NCE stations to use any particular language in the disclosure, but the disclosure must clearly state that the fundraiser is not for the benefit of
23. One commenter opposes the audience disclosure requirement, arguing that it “would seem obvious that any appeal for funds . . . will reveal the identity of the party soliciting the donation.” We disagree. Given that NCE stations frequently conduct fundraising to support their own operations and programming, we believe that audience confusion could arise, particularly where there is an affiliation between an NCE station and the non-profit organization for which the fundraising is being conducted. Accordingly, we conclude that an audience disclosure requirement is warranted to ensure that the beneficiary of the fundraising is clearly identified and avoid the potential for audience confusion. We further find that this audience disclosure requirement will not impose a significant burden on NCE stations as it simply requires a statement that the fundraising is not for the stations and identification of the organization that will receive the funds.
24. We allow NCE stations to accept reimbursement of expenses incurred in conducting third-party fundraising activities or airing third-party fundraising programs. Expenses for which reimbursement may be accepted include expenses incurred by an NCE station in producing third-party programming and the station's operating costs in connection with the broadcast of third-party fundraising programming. This is consistent with Section 399B(b)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 399B(b)(1), which allows “public broadcast station[s] . . . to engage in the offering of services, facilities, or products in exchange for remuneration,” except that such stations may not make their facilities available for the broadcast of any advertisements. We decline, however, to allow NCE stations to receive “additional consideration” in exchange for conducting or airing third-party fundraising programs. Allowing NCE stations to receive additional consideration for third-party fundraising activities could create the perception that NCE stations are engaging in commercial activity and airing programming akin to advertising, thus undermining their noncommercial, educational mission. It also could mislead fundraising contributors, who might assume that their donations are being used exclusively to advance the mission of the fundraiser. Finally, as acknowledged by NRB, our rules permit an NCE station to broadcast programming furnished by third parties only “if no other consideration than the furnishing of the program and the costs incidental to its production and broadcast are received by the licensee.” We decline NRB's request to create a distinction between “
25. We do not require NCE stations that participate in third-party fundraising that interrupts regular programming to submit reports to the Commission detailing their fundraising activities, but will instead require such stations to include appropriate information on their fundraising activities in their public inspection files. Specifically, we require NCE stations that conduct third-party fundraising to place in their public files, on a quarterly basis, the following information for each third-party fundraising program or activity: The date, time, and duration of the fundraiser; the type of fundraising activity; the name of the non-profit organization benefitted by the fundraiser; a brief description of the specific cause or project, if any, supported by the fundraiser; and, to the extent that the NCE station participated in tallying or receiving any funds for the non-profit group, an approximation of the total funds raised. NCE stations that do not conduct any third-party fundraising in a given quarter will not be required to include any fundraising information in their public file for that quarter. A number of commenters raised concerns that a reporting requirement would impose unnecessary burdens on NCE licensees. NRB and other commenters support a public file requirement. We conclude that the more modest approach we adopt here will provide transparency regarding NCE stations' third-party fundraising activities to the stations' audiences, while minimizing any burdens on NCE stations. We also conclude that it is unnecessary to require NCE licensees to certify compliance with the annual limit and other restrictions on third-party fundraising in their license renewal applications.
26. Additionally, we do not require NCE stations to locally produce all third-party fundraising programs and conduct all third-party fundraising activities themselves, including collecting and distributing the funds to the non-profit entity. We agree with commenters who argue that requiring NCE stations to locally produce third-party fundraising programs may be unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient. Further, we are not convinced that requiring local production of third-party fundraising activities is necessary to promote localism. As EMF points out, fundraising is not inherently local, but instead can have a regional, national, or worldwide message and still serve the needs of local communities. We also note that NCE stations are permitted under the Commission's rules to air programming that is not locally produced. Indeed, the Commission has consistently found that non-locally produced programming can serve the needs of a community. Moreover, we are unpersuaded by NPR's argument that allowing outside entities to independently produce fundraising appeals and handle the collection of funds could “fuel the perception that the station lacks editorial independence and that its airtime is being leased to the highest bidder.” As noted above, NCE stations are already permitted to air non-locally produced programming, and NPR does not suggest that the broadcast of such programming has created a perception that NCE stations lack editorial independence. We do not believe that allowing NCE stations to use up to one percent of their total annual airtime for non-locally produced third-party fundraising will cause the public to lose confidence in the stations' editorial independence.
27. Finally, we will not require NCE stations that want to participate in third-party fundraising to affirmatively “opt in” by filing a letter or notification with the Commission. We conclude that there would be little benefit to non-profit organizations from opt-in notifications, as such organizations are more likely to seek out fundraising partners based on existing relationships with NCE stations than by perusing notifications filed with the Commission.
28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
29. Pursuant to §§ 73.503(d) and 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules, a noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast station may not conduct fundraising activities that substantially alter or suspend regular programming and are designed to benefit any entity other than the station itself. “Regular programming” includes programming that “the public broadcaster ordinarily carries, but does not encompass those fundraising activities that suspend or alter their normal programming fare.” The third-party fundraising restrictions reflect the concern that “educational stations are licensed to provide a noncommercial broadcast service, not to serve as a fund-raising operation for other entities by broadcasting material that is `akin to regular advertising.' ” The
30. The
31. The rules adopted in the
• Authorize NCE stations to conduct third-party fundraising that interrupts regular programming;
• Include an exemption from the rule authorizing NCE stations to conduct third-party fundraising which provides that no NCE station that receives funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) shall have the authority to conduct third-party fundraising;
• Limit the non-profit organizations that are eligible beneficiaries of third-party fundraising to entities that are recognized as tax exempt, non-profit organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code;
• Authorize NCE stations to spend up to one percent of their total annual airtime conducting third-party fundraising;
• Require NCE stations that conduct third-party fundraising to air audience disclosures, at the beginning and ending of the fundraising programming and at least once during each hour of the program, that clearly state that the fundraiser is not for the benefit of the station itself and specifically identify the non-profit organization that is the intended beneficiary of the fundraising;
• Authorize NCE stations to accept reimbursement of expenses incurred in conducting third-party fundraising activities or airing third-party fundraising programs, but prohibit NCE stations from receiving “additional consideration” in exchange for conducting or airing third-party fundraising programs; and
• Require NCE stations that conduct third-party fundraising to include certain information relating to their fundraising activities in their public files.
32. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA. One commenter raised concerns that the reporting requirements proposed in the NPRM could impose unnecessary burdens on small NCE licensees.
33. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
34. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
35.
36. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,384. Of this total, 1,264 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on February 24, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed NCE television stations to be 394. Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
37. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.
38.
39. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of June 2, 2016, about 11,386 (or about 99.9 percent) of 11,395 commercial radio stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial radio stations to be 11,415. We note that the Commission has also estimated the number of licensed NCE radio stations to be 4,101. Nevertheless, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. We also note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
40. In addition, to be determined a “small business,” an entity may not be dominant in its field of operation. We further note, that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on these bases, thus our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
41.
42. The
43. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
44. The
45. The Commission will send a copy of the
46. This
47. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Kathy Berthot,
48. Accordingly,
49.
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
(d) * * *
(e) A noncommercial educational FM broadcast station may interrupt regular programming to conduct fundraising activities on behalf of a third-party non-profit organization, provided that all such fundraising activities conducted during any given year do not exceed one percent of the station's total annual airtime. A station may use the prior year's total airtime for purposes of determining how many hours constitute one percent of its total annual airtime. With respect to stations that multicast programming on two or more separate channels, the one-percent annual limit will apply separately to each individual programming stream. For purposes of this paragraph, a non-profit organization is an entity that qualifies as a non-profit organization under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3).
(1)
(2)
(3)
Commission interpretation on this rule, including the acceptable form of acknowledgements, may be found in the
(e) * * *
Commission interpretation of this rule, including the acceptable form of acknowledgements, may be found in the
(f) A noncommercial educational television station may interrupt regular programming to conduct fundraising activities on behalf of a third-party non-profit organization, provided that all such fundraising activities conducted during any given year do not exceed one percent of the station's total annual airtime. A station may use the prior year's total airtime for purposes of determining how many hours constitute one percent of its total annual airtime. With respect to stations that multicast programming on two or more separate channels, the one-percent annual limit will apply separately to each individual programming stream. For purposes of this paragraph, a non-profit organization is an entity that qualifies as a non-profit organization under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e) * * *
(14)
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule updates the Department of Transportation's regulations prescribing procedures for the public availability of information to conform these procedures with amendments to the Freedom of Information Act enacted by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. This rule also removes a reference to the Surface Transportation Board, as it has been made a separate agency, outside of the Department, under the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015. Finally, this rule makes a technical amendment to the Department's submitter notice process to include a reference to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's updated procedures related to the submission of confidential business information.
This final rule is effective June 5, 2017.
Claire McKenna, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, at
This document may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at
The United States Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is issuing this final rule to update the Department's regulations prescribing procedures for the public availability of information to conform these procedures with recent amendments to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) enacted in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185. This rule also makes technical amendments to 49 CFR part 7.
The rule revises the definition of “reading room records” in section 7.2 to remove the discussion of the locations of reading room records. The location of reading room records is already provided in section 7.12(b), therefore, this is not a substantive change. As required by the section 2 of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, this rule also revises the description of “Frequently Requested Records” in section 7.12(a)(4) to include records requested three or more times under FOIA. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 no longer requires that agencies maintain physical locations for the reading rooms. The rule revises the description of reading room locations in section 7.12(b) to indicate that DOT may continue to maintain physical reading rooms (although not required) and, if it does, those locations will be listed on the Department's FOIA Web site (
In section 7.23, the rule amends subparagraph (c)(5) to state that Exemption 5's deliberative process privilege applies only to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records are requested, and the rule adds a new paragraph (d) to
Several additions have been made to section 7.31 in Subpart D, “Time Limits,” to align with changes required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, including requirements that DOT notify FOIA requesters of the availability of assistance or dispute resolution services from DOT's FOIA Public Liaisons or the Office of Government Information Services. This rule also extends the amount of time requesters have to file an administrative appeal from 45 days to 90 days from the date of DOT's initial determination. Finally, the rule amends section 7.34 in subpart D, “Fees”, to prohibit the Department from charging requesters for the time spent searching for responsive records if the agency misses a deadline. The Department may continue to charge for search time if there are unusual circumstances and the Department responds within thirty days of the date of the request (and has notified the requester of the unusual circumstances). The Department may also continue to charge for search time if: (1) There are unusual circumstances, (2) the requester has been so notified, (3) more than 5000 pages are necessary in the response, and (4) the agency communicates or makes at least three good faith attempts to address the scope with the requester in an attempt to narrow the request. If a court determines that exceptional circumstances exist, the agency's failure to comply with time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by court order.
In addition to the changes to the Department's regulations required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, this final rule makes several other technical amendments needed as the result of legislative or regulatory action since the Department's last update to its regulations at 49 CFR part 7, in 2014. First, the Department is updating any reference to the Department's web address to replace “dot” with “transportation” to reflect a change in the Department's web address. Next, this rule removes the reference to the Surface Transportation Board in Section 7.2, “Definitions.” The Surface Transportation Board was previously part of DOT, but was made a separate, independent agency, in December 2015, under the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-110). Finally, this rule amends Section 7.29 to include a reference to information submitted to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration under 49 CFR 389.9. Section 7.29 sets forth the procedures the Department follows when it receives a request for information submitted to the Department that may contain confidential business information; however, these procedures do not apply when confidential business information is submitted to the Department through other regulatory procedures, such as 49 CFR 389.9, that include the opportunity for the submitter to identify the information as confidential and the Department to make a determination about the confidential nature of the information.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), the normal notice and comment procedure does not apply if the agency finds that it would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This rule amends 49 CFR part 7 to make minor technical amendments, and revisions directly and expressly mandated by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. Additional changes are merely technical amendments that conform the Department's regulations with recent changes made by regulation or legislation. These changes to part 7 do not involve the exercise of agency discretion. Therefore, the Department finds that notice and comment for this rule is unnecessary due to the technical nature of the revisions and the lack of agency discretion. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
The Department has determined this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The Department anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal.
The Department has found under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary for this rule; therefore, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) do not apply.
Section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 is applicable to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Joe Solomey, Senior Counsel for Enforcement Programs, (202) 366-2934.
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995) as it will not result in the expenditure by State, local, tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and the Department determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on the States. The Department also determined this action will not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs do not apply to this program.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for NEPA that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: Those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement; those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Assessment; and those that are categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). The changes in this rule are part of agency procedures, and therefore establishing the changes does not require preparation of a NEPA analysis or document. Agency NEPA procedures are generally procedural guidance to assist agencies in the fulfillment of agency responsibilities under NEPA, but are not the agency's final determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a particular proposed action. The requirements for establishing agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3.
This action was also analyzed under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT Order 5610.2(a), 91 FR 27534 (May 10, 2012) (available online at
At the time the Department applies the NEPA implementing procedures in 23 CFR part 771, the Department would have an independent obligation to conduct an evaluation of the proposed action under the applicable EJ orders and guidance to determine whether the proposed action has the potential for EJ effects. The Department has evaluated the environmental justice effects of this rule in accordance with the E.O. and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.
The Department has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and found this final rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.
The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The Department analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, which requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. It was determined this final rule is not economically significant, thus no analysis of the impacts on children is required. There is also no anticipation that this action could present an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.
The Department has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and determined the action will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibility between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (
The Department has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Department determined this rule is not a significant energy action under that order because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this
Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the DOT amends 49 CFR part 7 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 322; E.O. 12600; E.O. 13392
(a) * * *
(4) Copies of all records, regardless of form or format, that have been released to any person under subpart C of this part and that:
(i) Because of the nature of their subject matter, DOT determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; or
(ii) Have been requested three or more times.
(b)
The revision and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested;
(d)
(1) DOT reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(2) Disclosure is prohibited by law or otherwise exempted from disclosure under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(f)
(a) A request for a record under this subpart may be submitted via paper, facsimile, or electronic mail to the FOIA Requester Service Center designated for the DOT component where the records are located, at the electronic mail addresses or facsimile numbers identified at
(c) Requests for records under this part, and FOIA inquiries generally, may be made by accessing the DOT Home Page on the Internet (
(d) * * *
(3) Information submitted to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and addressed in 49 CFR 389.9.
(a) * * *
(3) DOT notifies the requester of DOT's initial determination. If DOT decides to grant the request in full or in part, DOT makes the record (or the granted part) available as promptly as possible and provides the requester with written notification of DOT's determination, the reasons for the determination, and the right of the requester to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison. If DOT denies the request in full or in part, because the record (or the denied part) is subject to an exemption, is not within DOT's custody and control, or was not located following a reasonable search, DOT notifies the requester of the denial in writing and includes in the notice the reason for the determination, the right of the requester to appeal the determination, the name and title of each individual responsible for the initial determination to deny the request, and the requester's right to seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services. The denial letter includes an estimate of the volume of records or information withheld, in number of pages or other reasonable form of estimation. This estimate does not need to be provided if the volume is otherwise indicated through deletions on records disclosed in part, or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption. DOT marks or annotates records disclosed in part to show both the amount and location of the information deleted whenever practicable (see § 7.23(d)).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) * * *
(1) Each appeal must be made in writing to the appropriate DOT appeal official and postmarked or, in the case of electronic or facsimile transmissions transmitted, within ninety calendar days from the date the initial determination is signed and should include the DOT file or reference number assigned to the request and all information and arguments relied upon by the person making the request. The contact information for all DOT component appeal officials is identified in the DOT FOIA Reference Guide available at
(b) When the extension is for more than ten Federal working days, the written notice provides the requester with an opportunity to either modify the request (
(f) Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, DOT does not assess search fees otherwise chargeable under § 7.42(h) and (j) or duplication fees otherwise chargeable under § 7.42(i) when DOT fails to comply with the time limits under § 7.31 or § 7.33.
(1) If DOT has determined that unusual circumstances apply (as defined in § 7.34(a)), 5,000 pages or less are necessary to respond to the request, and DOT has provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with § 7.34(a), a failure to comply with the time limits under § 7.31 or § 7.33 is excused for an additional 10 days. If DOT does not comply with the extended time limit, DOT does not assess search fees otherwise chargeable under § 7.42(h) and (j) or duplication fees otherwise chargeable under § 7.24(i);
(2) If DOT has determined that unusual circumstances apply (as defined under § 7.34(a)) and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, DOT may charge search fees under § 7.42(h) and (j) or duplication fees under § 7.42(j) if DOT has provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with § 7.34(a) and (b), and DOT has discussed with the requester via written mail, electronic mail, or telephone (or made not less than three good faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request.
(3) If a court determines that exceptional circumstances exist (as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)), failure to comply with time limits under § 7.31 or § 7.33 shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closures.
NMFS announces the 2017 recreational fishing seasons for the private angling and Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) components for red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) through this temporary rule. The Federal recreational season for red snapper in the Gulf EEZ begins at 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 1, 2017. For recreational harvest by the private angling component, the season closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 4, 2017. For recreational harvest by the Federal for-hire component, the season closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 20, 2017. These closures are necessary to prevent the private angling and Federal for-hire components from exceeding their respective quotas (annual catch limits (ACLs)) for the 2017 fishing year and to prevent overfishing of the Gulf red snapper resource.
The closure is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 4, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018, for the private angling component. The closure is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, July 20, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018, for the Federal for-hire component. The 2018 Federal recreational fishing seasons for the respective components will begin on June 1, 2018.
Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
The final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: The private angling component and the Federal for-hire component (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). Amendment 40 also allocated the red snapper recreational ACL (recreational quota) between the components and established separate seasonal closures for the two components. The recreational seasonal closures are projected from the component ACTs (set 20 percent less than the component quotas) to reduce the likelihood of harvests' exceeding the component quotas and the total recreational ACL.
The final rule for Amendment 28 to the FMP revised the allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors for red snapper to be 48.5 percent and 51.5 percent, respectively, and consequently revised quotas and ACTs for the private angling and for-hire components of the recreational sector (81 FR 25576, April 28, 2016). However, a decision in
In addition, for the 2017 fishing year, the total recreational quota and the private angling quota and ACT must be reduced due to an overage in the 2016 fishing year. The 2016 private angling component quota was exceeded, which also resulted in an overage of the 2016 total recreational quota by 129,906 lb (58,924 kg), round weight; the for-hire component quota was not exceeded. Therefore, as specified at 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(ii), NMFS must reduce the total recreational quota and the private angling component quota for the 2017 fishing year by the amount of the quota overage. For that reason, the 2017 total recreational quota is set at 6,603,094 lb (2,995,113 kg), round weight, the private angling component quota is set at 3,755,094 lb (1,703,282 kg), round weight, and the private angling component ACT is set at 3,004,075 lb (1,362,625 kg), round weight. The for-hire component quota in 2017 will remain at 2,848,000 lb (1,292,000 kg), round weight, and the component ACT will remain at 2,278,000 lb (1,033,000 kg), round weight.
The 2017 red snapper recreational fishing seasons have been determined based on projection of when landings would reach the component ACTs (as adjusted), using catch rates and mean weights, and taking into account the red snapper harvest expected to occur during the recreational seasons set by the five Gulf states. The 2017 Federal season for the private angling component will be 3 days and the 2017 Federal season for the for-hire component will be 49 days.
Therefore, the 2017 Federal recreational season for the private angling component will begin at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2017, and close at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 4, 2017. The Federal season for the Federal for-hire component will begin at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2017, and close at 12:01 a.m., local time, July 20, 2017. The 2018 Federal recreational fishing seasons for the respective components will begin on June 1, 2018.
On and after the effective date of a recreational component closure, the bag and possession limits for red snapper in the respective component are zero. When the Federal charter vessel/headboat component or entire recreational sector is closed, these bag and possession limits apply in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested,
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf red snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the private angling and Federal for-hire components for the red snapper recreational sector constitute good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the recreational red snapper ACLs and ACTs, and the rule implementing the requirement to close the recreational components when the ACTs are projected to be reached have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closures. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect Gulf red snapper by timely closing the federal recreational seasons. In addition, prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and many of those affected by the length of the recreational fishing seasons, particularly charter vessel and headboat operations that book trips for clients in advance, need as much advance notice as NMFS is able to provide to adjust their business plans to account for the recreational fishing seasons.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Aviat Aircraft Inc. Models A-1C-180 and A-1C-200 airplanes equipped with Rapco part number RA1798-00-1 fuel vent check valves. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the fuel tank vent check valves are sticking in the closed position causing fuel starvation to the engine. This proposed AD would require checking the fuel vent check valves for proper operation and replacing any inoperative fuel vent check valve with an airworthy part. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 19, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Aviat Aircraft Inc., P.O. Box 1240, Afton, WY 83110; phone (307) 885-3151; fax: (307) 885-9674; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Richard R. Thomas, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, Colorado 80249; phone: (303) 342-1085; fax: (303) 342-1088; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report that an owner of an Aviat Aircraft Inc. Model A-1C-180 airplane was forced to make a dead stick landing after the engine shutdown on takeoff. Following the incident, the fuel tank caps were removed and the mechanic heard air rushing into the fuel tanks. Further investigation revealed that the forced landing was a result of fuel exhaustion caused by the fuel tank vent valves sticking in the closed position in both wings. Manual force was required to push the check balls off of their seats. When both vent valves stick, a vacuum of sufficient strength forms on the backside of the fuel and fuel no longer is gravity fed to the engine. Failure of a single vent valve is latent as there is a cross-feed vent between the left and right tanks that allows the properly operating valve to vent both tanks.
The incident airplane was equipped with Rapco part number (P/N) RA1798-00-1 fuel vent check valves. The design of the Rapco P/N RA1798-00-1 is such that the check valve ball seat is nearly the same diameter as the ball and the ball can readily wedge itself in the seat and block the fuel tank vent.
This condition, if not corrected, could cause fuel starvation to the engine and result in the engine shutting down.
We reviewed Aviat Aircraft Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 33, dated November 11, 2016. The service bulletin describes procedures for checking the fuel vent check valve on each wing of the airplane for proper operation and replacing any inoperative fuel vent check valve. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 98 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We conservatively estimated the cost to do a single pre-flight check. We recognize the pilot is allowed to perform this check without the assistance of a mechanic, which would significantly reduce the estimated cost. We further recognize that an individual airplane would require this check every pre-flight from the issuance of this proposed AD until the end of its useful life unless both valves are replaced with Duke valves per paragraph (i). We have no way of determining the total cost of repeating this check every pre-flight either for a single product or for all U.S. operators.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed pre-flight check. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need these replacements.
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 19, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Aviat Aircraft Inc. Models A-1C-180 and A-1C-200 airplanes, serial numbers 3181 through 3282, that are:
(1) Equipped with Rapco part number (P/N) RA1798-00-1 fuel vent check valves; and
(2) certificated in any category.
Airplanes equipped with Duke P/N 1798-001 fuel vent check valves are not affected by this AD.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2820, Fuel Distribution.
This AD was prompted by a report that Rapco P/N RA1798-00-1 fuel vent check valves are sticking in the closed position. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the fuel tank vent check valve, which could result in fuel starvation to the engine and cause the engine to shut down.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, insert Steps 1 through 3 of Aviat Aircraft Inc. (Aviat) Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 33, dated November 11, 2016, into the Limitations Section of the airplane flight manual (AFM). This insertion and the steps therein may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate. The insertion of Steps 1 through 3 in the AFM must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. This AFM requirement mandates preflight checks of the fuel vent check valve on each wing for proper operation on the applicable airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.
During any check required in paragraph (g) of this AD, if one or both of the fuel vent check valves are not operating properly, before further flight, remove the inoperative valve following Steps 4 through 6 of Aviat MSB No. 33, dated November 11, 2016.
Before further flight after removing the inoperative fuel vent check valve required in paragraph (h) of this AD, replace it with an airworthy fuel vent check valve following Steps 8 and 9 of Aviat MSB No. 33, dated November 11, 2016. If both fuel vent check valves, Rapco P/N RA1798-00-1, are replaced with airworthy Duke P/N 1798-001 fuel vent check valves, the repetitive pre-flight checks required in paragraph (g) of this AD are terminated.
Special flight permits are not necessary for the preflight checks. A special flight permit is allowed for this AD per 14 CFR 39.23 with limitations. Special flight permits are permitted for the airplane to be flown VFR only to a location where the inoperative fuel vent check valve can be removed and replaced. No special flight permits are allowed if both valves are found to be inoperative.
(1) The Manager, Denver Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Richard R. Thomas, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Denver ACO, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, Colorado 80249; phone: (303) 342-1085; fax: (303) 342-1088; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviat Aircraft Inc., P.O. Box 1240, Afton, WY 83110; phone (307) 885-3151; fax: (307) 885-9674; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Technify Motors GmbH TAE 125-02 reciprocating engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a loss of engine power in flight caused by oil leaking from the gearbox radial shaft sealing ring that contaminated the clutch. This proposed AD would require replacement of the clutch with a dual mass flywheel. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this NPRM by June 19, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Technify Motors GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14, D-09356 Sankt Egidien, Germany; phone: +49 37204 696 0; fax: +49 37204 696 29125; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
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 EASA AD 2017-0034, dated February 20, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products.
The MCAI states:
A temporary power loss occurred during flight on a TAE 125-02-powered aeroplane. Following investigation, it was determined that an improper lapping of the gearbox driveshaft led to insufficient sealing of the gearbox radial shaft sealing ring, eventually resulting in oil leakage and oil contamination of the clutch.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to permanent engine power loss, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Technify Motors GmbH has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB TMG 125-1020 P1, Initial Issue, dated January 27, 2016. The SB describes procedures for replacing the clutch with a dual mass flywheel. 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 Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has 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 provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require replacing the clutch with a dual mass flywheel.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 19, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Technify Motors GmbH TAE 125-02-99 (commercial designation CD-135, formerly Centurion 2.0) and TAE 125-02-114 (commercial designation CD-155, formerly Centurion 2.0S) reciprocating engines with a gearbox serial number (S/N) listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 8510, Reciprocating Engine Front Section.
This AD was prompted by a loss of engine power in flight caused by oil leaking from the gearbox radial shaft sealing ring that contaminated the clutch. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the clutch, loss of engine power in flight, and reduced control of the airplane.
(1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(2) Within 55 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
(i) Replace the clutch with a dual mass flywheel. Use Technify Motors Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB TMG 125-1020 P1, Initial Issue, dated January 27, 2016, to do the replacement.
(ii) Install a start phase monitoring system and software mapping in accordance with the requirements of FAA AD 2015-21-01 (80 FR 64314, October 23, 2015); and
(iii) Inspect the rear radial shaft sealing ring on the gearbox for oil leakage in accordance with Figures 2 and 3 of Technify Motors SB No. SB TMG 125-1020 P1, Initial Issue, dated January 27, 2016. If an oil leak is detected, replace the gearbox with a part eligible for installation before the next flight.
After the effective date of this AD:
(1) Do not install an engine that is equipped with a clutch and has an affected gearbox listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD;
(2) Do not install an affected gearbox on an engine unless it has passed the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this AD; and
(3) Do not install a clutch on an engine previously modified in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD or already incorporating a dual mass flywheel.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0034, dated February 20, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Technify Motors GmbH Service Bulletin SB No. SB TMG 125-1020 P1, Initial Issue, dated January 27, 2016, can be obtained from Technify Motors GmbH using the contact information in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Technify Motors GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14, D-09356 Sankt Egidien, Germany; phone: +49 37204 696 0; fax: +49 37204 696 29125; email:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) that proposed to supersede AD 2011-01-15, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-01-15 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel along the chem-milled step at certain stringers, and repair, if necessary. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by reducing the compliance time for certain inspections. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by June 19, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5348; fax: 562-627-5210; 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
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572 (76 FR 1351, January 10, 2011) (“AD 2011-01-15”). AD 2011-01-15 applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-01-15 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel along the chem-milled step at stringers S-4L and S-4R, from station (STA) 297 through STA 439, and repair if necessary. AD 2011-01-15 also includes terminating action for the repetitive inspections of the repaired areas only. AD 2011-01-15 resulted from reports of cracking in the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, we have received a report that cracking was found earlier than the compliance time specified for the Zone 1 inspections identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015 (referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions). Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, has been issued to reduce the compliance time for the Zone 1 inspections.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive external sliding probe eddy current (EC) and external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspections for cracking of the crown skin panel, repair, a preventive modification, and replacement of the crown skin panel. 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 gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
FedEx provided comments that support the intent of the NPRM. FedEx also stated that the inspection area is within the affected area of its passenger-to-freighter modification per supplemental type certificate (STC) ST03562AT. FedEx noted that ST Aerospace will apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
Boeing asked that we change paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD to reduce the compliance threshold for the Zone 1 inspections from 18,000 to 15,000 total flight cycles. Boeing stated that a grace period could be provided for airplanes that have exceeded 15,000 total flight cycles. Boeing noted that an operator reported a crack finding in Zone 1 that occurred on an airplane with 15,722 total flight cycles. Boeing added that previous data supported the threshold of 18,000 flight cycles, but this new finding supports the 15,000 total flight cycle threshold. Boeing stated that since FAA letter 120S14-181, dated March 26, 2014 (which extends the compliance times specified in AD 2011-01-15), and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015 (which specifies the 18,000 flight-cycle compliance time), were released, some operators may have suspended or delayed inspections beyond 15,000 total flight cycles and up to 18,000 total flight cycles. Boeing added that a short grace period of 200 flight cycles or 90 days (which is similar to the grace period in AD 2011-01-15) should be applied for
We agree with the commenter's request to reduce the compliance threshold for the Zone 1 inspections from 18,000 to 15,000 total flight cycles, for the reasons provided. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, has been issued to reduce the compliance time for the Zone 1 inspections. We have changed the compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD and added a new paragraph (h) to this proposed AD to specify the reduced compliance times.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the STC ST01518SE does not affect compliance with the actions specified in the NPRM.
We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) as (c)(1) and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to this proposed AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the proposed actions. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
European Air Transport Leipzig GmbH and DHL Air Ltd. asked that we remove all duplicated data from the NPRM, and only refer to the compliance tables specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. The commenters stated that the compliance information is contained in detail in the referenced service information, and is repeated in the NPRM without benefit of clarification. The commenters added that the stringers identified for inspection in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD are incorrect, and should refer to inspection Zone 3 containing stringers S-3L, S-2L, S-1, S-2R, andS-3R.
We partially agree with the commenters' request. We agree to revise this proposed AD for clarity but we do not agree to remove all of the details for the required actions in this proposed AD. The stringers identified for inspection in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD are correct, as specified in the referenced service information. However, paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) should have specified between stringers S-3L to S-3R instead of “at stringers S-3L and S-3R.” Since the stringer location is clear in the service information, we have removed the reference to the stringers in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of this proposed AD. Instead, we have added a reference to the Zone 3 areas of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
Boeing and United Airlines (UA) asked that we clarify the inspection language specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD. Boeing asked that we include “Zone 1 areas” and “as applicable” in the description. UA stated that it appears that the inspections are for “Zone 1 areas.” Boeing stated that the Zone 1 areas are clearly delineated in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015.
We agree with the commenters' request for the reason provided. As stated previously, this proposed AD cites Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. We have clarified the inspection language in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD. We have also clarified similar inspection language in paragraph (g)(2) of this proposed AD.
UA asked that we clarify the optional terminating action in paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD, to eliminate the need for a new AMOC as terminating action for the inspections after replacing the crown skin panel using a method approved in accordance with paragraph (m) of the proposed AD. UA noted that Note (c) of Table 1, Note (b) of Table 2, and Note (b) of Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, stipulate that the skin replacement itself is considered terminating action to all inspections done in accordance with the referenced service information. UA added that this is based on the fact that the skin chem-mill process defect should not be present in the new skin. UA noted that this method of skin replacement is not part of the safety consideration, and should not require a new AMOC.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have clarified paragraph (k)(2) of this proposed AD (which was referred to as paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) to add replacing the crown skin panel in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this proposed AD (which was referred to as paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)), terminates the inspections.
Boeing asked that we include the possibility that cracking may have been found during the inspections required by paragraph (g) of AD 2011-01-15 in the provisional requirements of paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Boeing recommended including a reference to paragraph (g) of AD 2011-01-15 as follows: “For airplanes on which any crack is found during any inspections required by Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD or previously per AD 2011-01-15, Paragraph (g); or any repair . . . .” Boeing added that to exclude this language could lead operators to infer that it precludes previous findings from inclusion in the provisional statement.
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. As of the effective date of the final rule following this SNPRM, AD 2011-01-15 will no longer exist since it will be superseded by the new AD. For this reason, we do not typically refer to a superseded AD in a new AD requirement. However, paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this proposed AD do include findings from paragraph (g) of AD 2011-01-15. Paragraph (h) of AD 2011-01-15 states that a repair must be done before further flight if any crack is found. Therefore, for any crack found before the effective date of the final rule, the crack should already have been repaired. Paragraph (g)(2) of this proposed AD states “. . . or any repair is installed that covers any portion of the Zone 1 inspection area . . .” and that statement covers the crack findings in AD 2011-01-15.
In addition, paragraph (m) of this proposed AD provides credit for Zone 1 inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of the final rule using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, dated November 22, 2010; Revision 1, dated January 6, 2011; or Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. We
Boeing and UA asked that a new paragraph (l)(3) be added to the proposed AD to provide credit for previous inspections done using previous revisions of the referenced service information to accomplish the inspections in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Those inspections were approved as an AMOC to AD 2011-01-15.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. It is not necessary to include credit for inspections that were done using previous revisions of the referenced service information, because credit for those inspections is already provided in paragraph (m) of this proposed AD. Therefore, we have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
UA asked that we include credit language in this proposed AD for inspecting previously approved repairs, as specified in Note (a) of Table 1, Note (c) of Table 2, and Note (c) of Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. UA stated that including this credit would avoid unnecessary work stoppage and minimize future AMOC requests for repairs which meet these criteria.
We agree that operators are allowed credit for inspecting previously approved repairs, as specified in the notes in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. However, we do not agree that the language in those notes should be added to this proposed AD because Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, also include those credit notes. This proposed AD requires accomplishing the specified actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, which includes those notes in the Work Instructions; therefore, operators are given credit. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
Boeing and UA asked that we clarify the inspection area in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD to include the Zone 2 areas, and also that we clarify the inspection area in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD to include the Zone 3 areas. Boeing and UA stated that the zones are identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015.
We agree with the commenters' requests for the reason provided. As stated previously, this proposed AD cites Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. We have clarified the inspection language in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii), of this proposed AD to include the Zone 2 and Zone 3 areas, respectively.
Boeing asked that we change paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD to clarify that the inspections should be done using the instructions specified in Part 1 or Part 2 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. Boeing stated that this clarification would avoid confusion.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have clarified paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(1)(i), and (g)(1)(ii) of this proposed AD to include doing the inspection as specified in Part 1 or Part 2 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
Boeing and UA asked that we change paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD to clarify that the Zone 2 inspections should be done using the instructions specified in Part 4 or Part 5 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. Boeing stated that those areas are clearly identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, and should be included for clarity.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have clarified paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(2)(i), and (g)(2)(ii) of this proposed AD to include doing the Zone 2 inspections as specified in Part 4 or Part 5 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
Boeing and UA asked that we change paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD to clarify that the Zone 3 inspections should be done using the instructions specified in Part 6 or Part 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. Boeing and UA stated that those areas are clearly identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, and should be included for clarity.
We agree with the commenters' request for the reason provided. We have clarified paragraphs (g)(3), (g)(3)(i), and (g)(3)(ii) of this proposed AD to include doing the Zone 3 inspections as specified in Part 6 or Part 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. The reference to Part 6 and Part 7 also applies to the repetitive inspections.
Boeing asked that we clarify the inspection language in paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD to better describe the inspections required when doing the preventative modification. Boeing stated that it should specify doing high frequency eddy current open-hole inspections for cracking in existing fastener holes. Boeing noted that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, clearly specifies using an open-hole inspection, and added that if this inspection is not defined it would permit operators to do a surface inspection around the fasteners, which is not sufficient to ensure there is no cracking in the fastener holes.
Boeing also asked that we change the paragraph identifier at the end of paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD from (g) to (g)(1) since the referenced inspection is actually required by paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD. Boeing also asked that we change that paragraph identifier in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD merely refers to the inspection paragraphs.
We agree with the commenter's requests for the reasons provided. We have clarified the inspection language in paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD (which was referred to as paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) to include “. . . open-hole inspections for cracking in existing fastener holes.”
We have also changed the paragraph identifiers in paragraphs (k)(1) and (m) of this proposed AD (which were referred to as paragraphs (j)(1), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) to specify paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD accordingly.
Boeing asked that we change paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD to clarify that the repair can cover “any portion” of the Zone 1
We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have clarified paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this proposed AD to include the words “any portion” of the Zone 1 repair area to be inspected.
Boeing asked that we change paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD to clarify that “any preventative modification” is actually “the optional Zone 1 preventative modification specified in paragraph (j)(1) of the NPRM.” Boeing stated that there is only one specific preventative modification specified in the referenced service information that necessitates the inspections in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have clarified paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this proposed AD to include the language provided by the commenter.
Boeing asked that we change paragraph (k)(3) of the proposed AD to clarify that the exception covers cracking found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) or (j)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Boeing stated repairing any crack found during the inspection before installation of the preventative modification in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) should also be an exception.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (j) of this proposed AD (which was referred to as paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) already specifies repairing any cracking found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this proposed AD (which was referred to as paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)), as well as inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this proposed AD. Paragraph (k)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) was intended to address cracking found during the preventative modification specified in paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). For clarity in this proposed AD, we have added the corrective action for cracking found during the inspection specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD (which was referred to as paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) into paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. We have also removed paragraph (k)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) from this proposed AD.
Two commenters requested that we clarify whether existing AMOCs are approved. UA asked that paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be changed to clarify that repairs approved previously as AMOCs to AD 2011-01-15 require no further evaluation or approval. UA stated that operators were required to repair any finding with a repair that included an AMOC to AD 2011-01-15. UA stated that the current language in paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would invalidate all such AMOCs, forcing operators to submit new requests for approval for each previously approved repair. In addition, UA asked that we include a new paragraph (l)(3) to provide credit for inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) that were approved as an AMOC to AD 2011-01-15.
Boeing asked if paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) meant that new AMOCs are needed for all AMOCs to AD 2011-01-15. Boeing asked that credit be given for inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) that were approved as an AMOC to AD 2011-01-15 in Boeing Alternative Method of Compliance Notice 757-53-0097-AMOC-01, dated March 28, 2011, and stated in FAA letter 120S-11-13, dated January 19, 2011. Boeing stated that the AMOC allowed a longer interval for the inspections that are now incorporated in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. Boeing also noted that Boeing Alternative Method of Compliance Notice 757-53-0097 AMOC 03, dated March 28, 2014, should be rescinded since new data shows that a 15,000 total flight cycle threshold is appropriate instead of 18,000 total flight cycles.
We agree that clarification is necessary. Although paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) specified that AMOCs approved for AD 2011-01-15, are not approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM); after further review we have determined those AMOCs should continue to be approved, except as of the effective date of this proposed AD, AMOCs that extend the initial compliance times specified in AD 2011-01-15 are no longer approved for the compliance time extension and instead, the compliance times required by this proposed AD must be complied with. Boeing Alternative Method of Compliance Notice 757-53-0097 AMOC 03, dated March 28, 2014, extended the initial compliance times specified in AD 2011-01-15, and as stated previously, we have received new data that does not justify the extended compliance times. We have changed paragraph (n)(4) of this proposed AD (which was referred to as paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) accordingly.
Boeing asked that paragraph (m)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be changed from “For a repair method to be approved the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD” to “For a repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation to be approved the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.” Boeing stated that this approval needs to specify not only for a repair method to be approved, but also for modification and alteration deviations to be approved, they must meet type certification.
We agree that some clarification is necessary. We have clarified paragraph (n)(3) of this proposed AD (which was referred to as paragraph (m)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) as follows: “An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.”
Boeing asked that we change the punctuation following the word “repair” in the first sentence of paragraph (m)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) from a period to a comma. Boeing noted that this is a punctuation error.
We agree with the commenter's request and have corrected the
A commenter, Jonathan Fortune, stated that it is imperative that any potentially catastrophic structural issues identified in any airplanes be promptly corrected. Mr. Fortune added that repair costs are greatly outweighed by the potential marketing and industry disaster that would occur if these airplanes crashed. Mr. Fortune noted that Boeing should not be able to operate these airplanes without addressing these issues. Mr. Fortune stated that he is willing to pay for increased air travel costs in order to get the sense of safety established through compliance with this regulation.
We acknowledge and appreciate the commenter's concerns. The FAA works to ensure that all unsafe conditions are addressed in a timely manner in accordance with FAA risk management policies that are designed to promote aviation safety.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This SNPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the optional replacement specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We 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 19, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572 (76 FR 1351, January 10, 2011) (“AD 2011-01-15”).
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of the initiation of fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel along locally thinned channels adjacent to the chem-milled steps. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel, which could result in pressure venting and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Do the applicable inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) For all airplanes: Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, do the Zone 1 inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the applicable Part 1 or Part 2 inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. Accomplishing the preventative modification specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD or the replacement specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
(i) Do an external sliding probe eddy current (EC) inspection for cracking of the crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 1 areas specified in, and in accordance with, Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
(ii) Do an external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection for cracking of the crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 1 areas specified in, and in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
(2) For airplanes on which any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; or any repair is installed that covers any portion of the Zone 1 inspection area specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016; or the optional Zone 1 preventative modification specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD is installed: At the applicable time specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, except as required by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD: Do the Zone 2 inspection specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the applicable Part 4 or Part 5 inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. Accomplishing the replacement specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
(i) Do an external sliding probe EC inspection for cracking of the crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 2 areas specified in, and in accordance with, Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
(ii) Do an external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection for cracking of the crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 2 areas specified in, and in accordance with, Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
(3) For airplanes on which any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; or any repair is installed that covers any portion of the Zone 1 inspection area specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016; or the optional Zone 1 preventative modification specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD is installed: At the applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, except as required by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, do the Zone 3 inspection specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the applicable Part 6 or Part 7 inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. Accomplishing the replacement specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
(i) Do an external sliding probe EC inspection for cracking of the crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 3 areas specified in, and in accordance with, Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
(ii) Do an external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection for cracking of the crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 3 areas, specified in, and in accordance with, Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
Within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD, whichever occurs latest: Do the initial inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(1) For all airplanes: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles.
(2) For airplanes on which an external sliding probe EC inspection for Zone 1, as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Within 620 flight cycles after accomplishing the most recent external sliding probe EC inspection for Zone 1.
(3) For airplanes on which an external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection for Zone 1, as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Within 200 flight cycles after accomplishing the most recent external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection for Zone 1.
(4) For all airplanes: Within 200 flight cycles or 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
For airplanes on which a preventive modification has been installed as specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016: At the applicable time specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016; do eddy current and detailed inspections for cracking of the applicable areas of the fuselage skin of the doublers, triplers, and fillers of the preventive modification, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (i) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Doing the repair ends the repetitive inspections for the repaired area only.
(1) Accomplishing the preventative modification, including doing high frequency EC open-hole inspections for cracking in the existing fastener holes, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, provided the preventative modification is done before further flight after accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. If any cracking is found during any high frequency EC open-hole inspection, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
(2) Replacing the crown skin panel between station (STA) 297 and STA 439, and stringers S-4L and S-4R, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD, terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” or “after the Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for Zone 1 inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, dated November 22, 2010 (which was incorporated by reference in AD 2011-01-15); Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 1, dated January 6, 2011; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2011-01-15 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD; except, as of the effective date of this AD, AMOCs that extend the initial compliance times specified in AD 2011-01-15 are no longer approved for the compliance time extension and the compliance times required by this AD must be complied with.
(5) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (n)(5)(i) and (n)(5)(ii) apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5348; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during a fireworks display in Charles County near Newburg, MD, on June 17, 2017. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0357 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On April 11, 2017, Gilligan's Pier of Newburg, MD, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a short-duration aerial fireworks display at 9
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 17, 2017, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 24, 2017. The safety zone would include all navigable waters of the Potomac River, within 200 yards radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°23′45.2″ N., longitude 076°59′31.8″ W., located near Newburg, MD. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Potomac River for 2
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 the precise number of small entities impacted is unknown, this section of the Potomac normally has a low number of vessels transiting the area planned for the safety zone, during the enforcement period. Although, 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
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; and; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland—National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland—National Capital Region or designated representative. To request permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland—National Capital Region and or designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland—National Capital Region or designated representative and proceed as directed while within the zone.
(4)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of extension of comment period on supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is adding an additional 30 days to the comment period on the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking for “Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2017 Annual Review” published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published April 5, 2017 (82 FR 16542) is extended. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0268 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email
The Coast Guard is adding an additional 30 days to the comment period on the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) for “Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2017 Annual Review” published in the
As we stated in the summary of the SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to modify its calculations for hourly pilotage rates on the Great Lakes by accounting for the “weighting factor,” which is a multiplier that can increase the pilotage costs for larger vessels traversing areas in the Great Lakes by a factor of up to 1.45. While the weighting factor has existed for decades, it has never been included in any of the previous ratemaking calculations. We propose to add steps to our rate-setting methodology to adjust hourly rates downwards by an amount equal to the average weighting factor, so that when the weighting factor is applied, the cost to the shippers and the corresponding revenue generated for the pilot associations will adjust to what was originally intended. We note that until a final rule is produced, the 2016 rates will stay in effect, even if a final rule is not published by the start of the 2017 season.
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
The SNPRM we are seeking comments on, and documents mentioned in the SNPRM as being available in the docket—including all public comments, will be in our online docket at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application, pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), from the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Long Range Strike Weapons System Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP) activities in the Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion (BSURE) area of the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii, for the period of August 23, 2017, through August 22, 2022. NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take, and requests comments on the proposed regulations.
Comments and information must be received no later than June 5, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document by either of the following methods:
•
•
Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
A copy of 86 FWS's application and any supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
This proposed rule, to be issued under the authority of the MMPA, would establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to LRS WSEP activities in the BSURE area of the PMRF off Kauai, Hawaii. We received an application from 86 FWS requesting 5-year regulations and authorization for the take, by Level B harassment, of 16 species of marine mammals, and, by Level A harassment of 4 of those species. The regulations would be valid from August 23, 2017, to August 22, 2022. Please see
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing this proposed rule containing five-year regulations, and for any subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to those regulations. As directed by this legal authority, this proposed rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Section 319, Pub. L. 108-136, November 24, 2003) (NDAA of 2004) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild” (Level A Harassment); “or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered” (Level B Harassment).
Following is a summary of some of the major provisions in this proposed rule for 86 FWS's LRS WSEP activities. We have preliminarily determined that 86 FWS's adherence to the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures listed below would achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. They include:
• Restricting time of activities to missions that will occur only during day-light hours, only on weekdays, and only during the summer or fall months.
• Conducting visual aerial surveys before and after mission activities each day.
• Delaying mission activities if a protected species is observed in the impact zones, and resuming only after one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the impact area; or (2) the impact area has been clear of any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes.
• If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, delaying LRS WSEP strike operations until adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring to be undertaken.
• Using mission reporting forms to track the use of the PMRF for missions and protected species observations.
• Submitting a summary report of marine mammal observations and LRS WSEP activities to the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) and the Office of Protected Resources 90 days after expiration of the current authorization.
• Using Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) by using the Navy's hydrophones within the PMRF to collect data before, during, and after LRS WSEP missions. This data will be stored at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) to be analyzed as funding allows.
• If unauthorized takes of marine mammals (
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA(16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) and (D)) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
On June 23, 2016, NMFS received a request for regulations from 86 FWS for the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to LRS WSEP activities in the BSURE area of the PMRF off Kauai, Hawaii. We received revised drafts on November 29, 2016, and December 21, 2016, which we considered adequate and complete. On January 6, 2017, we published a notice of receipt of 86 FWS's application in the
The 86 FWS proposes taking marine mammals incidental to LRS WSEP activities by Level B harassment of 16 species of marine mammals and by Level A harassment of 4 of those species. NMFS has previously issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 86 FWS authorizing the taking of marine mammals incidental to LRS WSEP activities in the BSURE area of the PMRF in 2016 (81 FR 67971; October 3, 2016). The regulations proposed in this action, if issued, would be effective from August 23, 2017, through August 22, 2022.
The 86 FWS proposes to conduct air-to-surface missions in the BSURE area of the PMRF. The LRS WSEP test objective is to conduct operational evaluations of long range strike weapons and other munitions as part of LRS WSEP operations to properly train units to execute requirements within Designed Operational Capability Statements, which describe units' real-world operational expectations in a time of war. Due to threats to national security, an increasing number of missions involving air-to-surface activities have been directed by the Department of Defense (DoD). Accordingly, the U.S. Air Force seeks the ability to conduct operational evaluations of all phases of long range strike weapons within the U.S. Navy's Hawaii Range Complex (HRC). LRS WSEP objectives are to evaluate air-to-surface and maritime weapon employment data, evaluate tactics, techniques, and procedures in an operationally realistic environment and to determine the impact of tactics, techniques, and procedures on combat Air Force training. The munitions associated with the proposed activities are not part of a typical unit's training allocations and, prior to attending a WSEP evaluation, most pilots and weapon systems officers have only dropped weapons in simulators or used the aircraft's simulation mode. Without WSEP operations, pilots would be using these weapons for the first time in combat. On average, half of the participants in each unit drop an actual weapon for the first time during a WSEP evaluation. Consequently, WSEP is a military readiness activity and is the last opportunity for squadrons to receive operational training and evaluations before they deploy.
LRSWSEP missions involve the use of multiple types of live and inert munitions (bombs and missiles) scored above, at, or just below the water's surface in the BSURE (Table 1). The ordnance may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter aircraft. Weapon performance will be evaluated by an underwater acoustic hydrophone array system as the weapons strike the water surface. Net explosive weight of the live munitions ranges from 23 to 300 pounds (lbs). Missions will occur annually over five years from 2017 and 2021 (see Table 1), primarily during the summer but may occur in the fall as well. All missions will be conducted during daylight hours. LRS WSEP missions could potentially take 16 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment, and additionally, 4 of those species by Level A harassment.
The specified activity may occur during the summer months, or less likely in fall months, during the five-year period of validity of the proposed regulations. Missions will occur only on weekdays during daytime hours. Missions will occur, on average, approximately five days per year on consecutive days. The LOA would be valid from August 20, 2017, through August 19, 2022.
The specific planned impact area is approximately 44 nautical miles (nmi) (81 kilometers (km)) offshore of Kauai, Hawaii, in a water depth of about 15,240 feet (ft) (4,645 meters (m)). (see Figure 2-2 of 86 FWS's application). All activities will take place within the PMRF, which is located in Hawaii off the western shores of the island of Kauai and includes broad ocean areas to the north, south, and west (see Figure 2-1 of 86 FWS's application).
Within the PMRF, activities would occur in the BSURE area, which lies in Warning Area 188A (W-188A). The BSURE consists of about 900 nmi
The LRS WSEP training missions, classified as military readiness activities, refer to the deployment of live (containing explosive charges) missiles and bombs from aircraft toward the water surface. Depending on the requirements of a given mission, munitions may be inert (containing no explosives or only a “spotting” charge) or live (containing explosive charges). Live munitions may detonate above, at, or slightly below the water surface. The actions include air-to-surface test missions of the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile/Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile-Extended Range (JASSM/JASSM-ER), Small Diameter Bomb-I/II (SDB-I/II), High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), Joint Direct Attack Munition/Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM/LJDAM), and Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD), including detonations above the water, at the water surface, and slightly below the water surface (Table 1).
Aircraft used for munition releases would include bombers and fighter aircraft. Additional airborne assets, such as the P-3 Orion or the P-8 Poseidon, would be used to relay telemetry and
Aircraft flight maneuver operations and weapon release would be conducted in W-188A. Chase aircraft may be used to evaluate weapon release and to track weapons. Flight operations and weapons delivery would be in accordance with published Air Force directives and weapon operational release parameters, as well as all applicable Navy safety regulations and criteria established specifically for the PMRF. Aircraft supporting LSR WSEP missions would primarily operate at high altitudes—only flying below 3,000 ft for a limited time as needed for escorting non-military vessels outside the hazard area or for monitoring the area for protected marine species (
The JASSM is a stealthy precision cruise missile designed for launch outside area defenses against hardened, medium-hardened, soft, and area type targets. The JASSM has a range of more than 200 nmi (370 km) and carries a 1,000-lb warhead with approximately 300 lbs of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent net explosive weight (NEW). The specific explosive used is AFX-757, a type of plastic bonded explosive (PBX). The weapon has the capability to fly a preprogrammed route from launch to a target, using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and an internal navigation system (INS) combined with a Terminal Area Model when available. Additionally, the weapon has a Common Low Observable Auto-Routing function that gives the weapon the ability to find the route that best utilizes the low observable qualities of the JASSM. In either case, these routes can be modeled prior to weapon release. The JASSM-ER has additional fuel and a different engine for a greater range than the JASSM (500 nmi (926 km)) but maintains the same functionality of the JASSM.
The SDB-I is a 250-lb air-launched GPS-INS guided weapon for fixed soft to hardened targets. SDB-II expands the SDB-I capability with network enabling and uses a tri-mode sensor infrared, millimeter, and semi-active laser to attack both fixed and movable targets. Both munitions have a range of up to 60 nmi (111 km). The SDB-I contains 37 lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW, and the SDB-II contains 23 lbs NEW. The explosive used in both SDB-I and SDB-II is AFX-757.
The HARM is a supersonic air-to-surface missile designed to seek and destroy enemy radar-equipped air defense systems. The HARM has a proportional guidance system that homes in on enemy radar emissions through fixed antenna and seeker head in the missile nose. It has a range of up to 80 nmi (148 km) and contains 45 lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW. The explosive used is PBXN-107.
The JDAM is a smart GPS-INS weapon that uses an unguided gravity bomb and adds a guidance and control kit, converting it to a precision-guided munition. The LJDAM variant adds a laser sensor to the JDAM, permitting guidance to a laser designated target. Both JDAM and LJDAM contain 192 lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW with multiple fusing options, with detonations occurring upon impact or with up to a 10-millisecond delay.
The MALD is an air-launched, expendable decoy that will provide the Air Force the capability to simulate, deceive, decoy, and saturate an enemy's threat integrated air defense system (IADS). The MALD production has recently transitioned to include the MALD-J variant, which has the same decoy capability of the MALD plus the addition of jamming IADS. The MALD and MALD-J have ranges up to 500 nmi (926 km) to include a 200 nmi (370 km) dash with a 30-minute loiter mode. It has no warhead, and no detonation would occur upon impact with the water surface.
Releases of live ordnance associated with 2017-2021 missions would result in either airbursts, surface detonations, or subsurface detonations (10-ft (3 m) water depth). Up to four SDB I/II munitions could be released simultaneously, such that each ordnance would hit the water surface within a few seconds of each other. Aside from the SDB-I/II releases, all other weapons would be released separately, impacting the water surface at different times. There will be a total of five mission days per year during the time frame of 2017 to 2021.
A typical mission day would consist of pre-mission checks, safety review, crew briefings, weather checks, clearing airspace, range clearance, mitigations/monitoring efforts, and other military protocols prior to launch of weapons. Potential delays could be the result of multiple factors, including adverse weather conditions leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and aircraft operations, inability to clear the range of non-mission vessels or aircraft, mechanical issues with mission aircraft or munitions, or presence of protected species in the impact area. These standard operating procedures are
Each long range strike weapon would be released in W-188A and would follow a given flight path with programmed GPS waypoints to mark its course in the air. Long range strike weapons would complete their maximum flight range (up to 500 nmi distance for JASSM-ER) at an altitude of approximately 18,000 ft (equivalent in kms) mean sea level (MSL) and terminate at a specified location for scoring of the impact. The cruise time would vary among the munitions but would be about 45 minutes for JASSM/JASSM-ER and 10 minutes for SDB-I/II. The time frame between employments of successive munitions would vary, but releases could be spaced by approximately one hour to account for the JASSM cruise time. The routes and associated safety profiles would be contained within W-188A boundaries. The objective of the route designs is to complete full-scale evasive maneuvers that avoid simulated threats, and would not consist of a standard “paper clip” or regularly shaped route. The final impact point on the water surface would be programmed into the munitions for weapons scoring and evaluations. The JDAM/LJDAM munitions would also be set to impact at the same point on the water surface.
All missions would be conducted in accordance with applicable flight safety, hazard area, and launch parameter requirements established for the PMRF. A weapon hazard region would be established, with the size and shape determined by the maximum distance a weapon could travel in any direction during its descent. The hazard area is typically adjusted for potential wind speed and direction, resulting in a maximum composite safety footprint for each mission (each footprint boundary is at least 10 nmi from the Kauai coastline). This information is used to establish a Launch Exclusion Area and Aircraft Hazard Area. These exclusion areas must be verified to be clear of all non-mission and non-essential vessels and aircraft before live weapons are released. In addition, a buffer area must also be clear on the water surface so that vessels do not enter the exclusion area during the launch window. Prior to weapon release, a range sweep of the hazard area would be conducted by participating mission aircraft or other appropriate aircraft, potentially including S-61N helicopter, C-26 aircraft, fighter aircraft (F-15E, F-16, F-22), or the Coast Guard's C-130 aircraft.
The PMRF has used small water craft docked at the Port Allen public pier to keep nearshore areas clear of tour boats for some mission launch areas. However, for missions with large hazard areas that occur far offshore from Kauai, it would be impractical for these smaller vessels to conduct range clearance activities. The composite safety footprint weapons associated with LRS WSEP missions is anticipated to be rather large; therefore, it is likely that range clearing activities would be conducted solely by aircraft.
The Range Facility Control Officer is responsible for establishing hazard clearance areas, directing clearance and surveillance assets, and reporting range status to the Operations Conductor. The Control Officer is also responsible for submitting all Notice to Airmen (NOTAMs) and Notice to Mariners (NOTMARs), and for requesting all Federal Aviation Administration airspace clearances.
The 86 FWS would also like to use a maximum of eight target boats and a maximum of 5,000 20-mm gunnery rounds each year. The gunnery rounds would be inert (do not contain explosives), which would minimize the potential for fragmentation and creation of marine debris, and would be fired against a target boat. Because the use of target boats with inert munitions does not have an acoustic component, it would not take any marine mammals, and is therefore not discussed further.
There are 25 marine mammal species with potential or confirmed occurrence in the proposed activity area; however, not all of these species occur in this region during the project timeframe. Table 2 lists and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance of these species. Please see NMFS' draft 2016 Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at
Of these 25 species, 5 are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and as depleted throughout their range under the MMPA. These are: Blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale, and the Hawaiian monk seal. Only one of these species, the sei whale, may be impacted by 86 FWS's activities.
Of the 25 species that may occur in Hawaiian waters, only certain stocks occur in the impact area during the season in which LRS WSEP activities may occur. Sixteen species are
We have reviewed 86 FWS's species descriptions, including life history information, distribution, regional distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness. We refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of 86 FWS's application and to Chapter 3 in 86 FWS's EA, rather than reprinting the information here.
Below, for those 16 species that are likely to be taken by the activities described, we offer a brief introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any information regarding local occurrence.
Humpback whales are found worldwide in all ocean basins. In winter, most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (Muto
There are five stocks of humpback whales, one of which occurs in Hawaii: The Central North Pacific Stock, which consists of winter/spring populations in the Hawaiian Islands, which migrate primarily to northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (Muto
Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to be listed as endangered. NMFS recently evaluated the status of the species, and on September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), removed the current species-level listing, and in its place listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. There is one DPS that occurs in the action area: The Hawaii DPS, which is not listed under the ESA (81 FR 62259). Because this rule resulted in the designation of DPSs in the North Pacific, a parallel revision of MMPA population structure in the North Pacific is currently being considered.
Sei whales occur seasonally in Hawaii in the winter and spring months and feed in higher latitude feeding grounds in the summer and fall (Carretta
The abundance estimate for this stock from a 2010 survey is 178 animals (Carretta
Minke whales occur seasonally in Hawaii (Carretta
The current abundance estimate for this stock is unknown and, therefore, PBR is also unknown (Carretta
Pygmy sperm whales are found in tropical and warm-temperate waters throughout the world (Ross and Leatherwood 1994). This species prefers deeper waters with observations of this species in greater than 4,000 m depth (Baird
There is a single stock of Pygmy sperm whales in Hawaii. Current abundance estimates for this stock are unknown. A 2002 survey in Hawaii estimated 7,138 animals; however, this data is outdated and is no longer used. PBR cannot be calculated due to insufficient data. (Carretta
Dwarf sperm whales are found throughout the world in tropical to warm-temperate waters (Carretta
There is one stock of dwarf sperm whales in Hawaii. Sighting data suggests a small resident population off Hawaii Island (Baird 2016). There are no current abundance estimates for this stock. In 2002, a survey off Hawaii estimated the abundance at 17,159; however, this data is outdated and is no longer used. PBR cannot be calculated due to insufficient data. It has been suggested that this species is probably one of the more abundant species of cetaceans in Hawaiian waters (Baird 2016). One of their main threats is interactions with fisheries; however, dwarf sperm whales are also sensitive to high-intensity underwater sounds and navy sonar testing. This stock is not listed as endangered under the ESA and is not considered strategic or designated as depleted under the MMPA (Carretta
Pygmy killer whales are found in tropical and subtropical waters. The Hawaii stock occurs year round in Hawaii and has a small resident population within the main Hawaiian islands (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for this group in the SAR is 3,433 animals with PBR at 23 animals (Carretta
Short-finned pilot whales are found primarily in tropical and warm-temperate waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for this group in the SAR is 12,422 animals with PBR at 70 animals (Carretta
Melon-headed whales are found in tropical and warm-temperate waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for this stock in the SAR is 2,860 animals with PBR at 49 animals (Carretta
Bottlenose dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 3,755 animals with PBR at 38 animals (Carretta
Pantropical spotted dolphins are found in tropical and subtropical waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 15,917 animals with PBR at 115 animals (Carretta
Striped dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 20,651 animals with PBR at 154 animals (Carretta
Spinner dolphins are found in tropical and warm-temperate waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 3,351 animals from a 2002 survey, which is outdated (Carretta
Rough-toothed dolphins are found in tropical and warm-temperate waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 6,288 animals with PBR at 46 animals (Carretta
Fraser's dolphin are found in tropical waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 10,226 animals with PBR at 47 animals (Carretta
Risso's dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 7,256 animals with PBR at 42 animals (Carretta
Longman's beaked whales are found in tropical waters from the eastern Pacific westward through the Indian Ocean to the eastern coast of Africa (Carretta
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 4,571 animals with PBR at 28 animals (Carretta
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components (
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound, and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that we reference all underwater sound levels in this document to a pressure of 1 μPa, and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 μPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that one can account for the values in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
•
•
•
•
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
The sounds produced by the proposed WSEP activities are considered impulsive, which is one of two general sound types, the other being non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Impulsive sound sources (
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (Richardson
Animals are less sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of their functional hearing range and are more sensitive to a range of frequencies within the middle of their functional hearing range. For mid-frequency cetaceans, functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing estimated to occur between approximately 10 to less than 100 kHz (Finneran
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (81 FR 51694). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting onset of temporary (TTS) and permanent threshold shifts (PTS) for impulsive (
There are sixteen marine mammal species with expected potential to co-occur with 86 FWS LRS WSEP military readiness activities. These species fall into the following hearing groups: (1) Low-frequency cetaceans (humpback whale (
Please refer to the information given previously (
Richardson
We describe the more severe effects (
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals—PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal (Kastak
Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions (
When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (16 U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series (
1.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Currently, TTS data exist only for four species of cetaceans ((bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (
2.
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone to the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors, and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in subtler ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruptions of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
3.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
4.
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but it may result in a behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes, but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals caused by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
The LRS WSEP training exercises proposed for the incidental take of marine mammals have the potential to take marine mammals by exposing them to impulsive noise and pressure waves generated by live ordnance detonation at the surface of the water. Exposure to energy, pressure, or direct strike by ordnance has the potential to result in non-lethal injury (Level A harassment), disturbance (Level B harassment), serious injury, and/or mortality. In addition, NMFS also considered the potential for harassment from vessel and aircraft operations.
Explosive detonations at the water surface send a shock wave and sound energy through the water and can release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of most concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock wave and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be injured, killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience hearing related effects with or without behavioral responses, or exhibit temporary behavioral responses (
The effects of underwater detonations on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the size, type, and depth of the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of the sound; the depth of the water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff distance between activities and the animal; and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Thus, we expect impacts to marine mammals from LRS WSEP activities to result primarily from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of the effect relates to the received level and duration of the sound exposure, as influenced by the distance between the animal and the source. The further away from the source, the less intense the exposure should be.
The potential effects of underwater detonations from the proposed LRS WSEP training activities may include one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species could result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada
Serious Injury/Mortality: 86 FWS proposes to use munitions in its training exercises that may detonate above, at, or slightly below the water surface. The explosions from these weapons would send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and blast noise are of most concern to marine animals. In general, potential impacts from explosive detonations can range from brief effects (such as short term behavioral disturbance), tactile perception, physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs, and death of the animal (Yelverton
Non-lethal injury includes slight injury to internal organs and the auditory system; however, delayed lethality can be a result of individual or cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN 2001). Immediate lethal injury would be a result of massive combined trauma to internal organs as a direct result of proximity to the point of detonation (DoN 2001).
Because the few available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound, it is difficult to quantify exactly how sound from the LRS WSEP operational testing would affect marine mammals. It is likely that the onset of surface detonations could result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These
The biological significance of any of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However generally, one could expect the consequences of behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
While it may occur temporarily, we do not expect auditory masking to result in detrimental impacts to an individual's or population's survival, fitness, or reproductive success. Dolphin movement is not restricted within the BSURE area, allowing for movement out of the area to avoid masking impacts, and the sound resulting from the detonations is short in duration. Also, masking is typically of greater concern for those marine mammals that utilize low frequency communications, such as baleen whales and, as such, is not likely to occur for marine mammals in the BSURE area.
The marine mammals most vulnerable to vessel strikes are slow-moving and/or spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (
Aircraft produce noise at frequencies that are well within the frequency range of cetacean hearing and also produce visual signals such as the aircraft itself and its shadow (Richardson
There are fewer reports of reactions of odontocetes to aircraft than those of pinnipeds. Responses to aircraft by pinnipeds include diving, slapping the water with pectoral fins or tail fluke, or swimming away from the track of the aircraft (Richardson
Another potential risk to marine mammals is direct strike by ordnance, in which the ordnance physically hits an animal. Although strike from an item at the surface of the water while the animals are at the surface is possible, the potential risk of a direct hit to an animal within the target area would be low. Marine mammals spend the majority of their time below the surface of the water, and the potential for one bomb or missile to hit that animal at that specific time is highly unlikely.
Detonations of live ordnance would result in temporary changes to the water environment. An explosion on the surface of the water from these weapons could send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. However, these effects would be temporary and not expected to last more than a few seconds. Similarly, 86 FWS does not expect any long-term impacts with regard to hazardous constituents to occur. The 86 FWS considered the introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical materials into the water column within its EA and determined the potential effects of each to be insignificant. We summarize 86 FWS's analyses in the following paragraphs. For a complete discussion of potential effects, please refer to section 3.0 in 86 FWS's EA.
Metals typically used to construct bombs and missiles include aluminum, steel, and lead, among others. Aluminum is also present in some explosive materials. These materials would settle to the seafloor after munitions detonate. Metal ions would slowly leach into the substrate and the water column, causing elevated concentrations in a small area around the munitions fragments. Some of the metals, such as aluminum, occur naturally in the ocean at varying concentrations and would not necessarily impact the substrate or water column. Other metals, such as lead, could cause toxicity in microbial communities in the substrate. However, such effects would be localized to a very small distance around munitions fragments and would not significantly affect the overall habitat quality of sediments in the BSURE area. In addition, metal fragments would corrode, degrade, and become encrusted over time.
Chemical materials include explosive byproducts and also fuel, oil, and other fluids associated with remotely controlled target boats. Explosive byproducts would be introduced into the water column through detonation of live munitions. Explosive materials would include TNT and research department explosive (RDX), among others. Various byproducts are produced during and immediately after detonation of TNT and RDX. During the
Chemicals introduced into the water column would be quickly dispersed by waves, currents, and tidal action, and eventually become uniformly distributed. A portion of the carbon compounds such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide would likely become integrated into the carbonate system (alkalinity and pH buffering capacity of seawater). Some of the nitrogen and carbon compounds, including petroleum products, would be metabolized or assimilated by phytoplankton and bacteria. Most of the gas products that do not react with the water or become assimilated by organisms would be released into the atmosphere. Due to dilution, mixing, and transformation, none of these chemicals are expected to have significant impacts on the marine environment.
Explosive material that is not consumed in a detonation could sink to the substrate and bind to sediments. However, the quantity of such materials is expected to be inconsequential. Research has shown that if munitions function properly, nearly full combustion of the explosive materials will occur, and only extremely small amounts of raw material will remain. In addition, any remaining materials would be naturally degraded. TNT decomposes when exposed to sunlight (ultraviolet radiation) and is also degraded by microbial activity (Becker 1995). Several types of microorganisms have been shown to metabolize TNT. Similarly, RDX decomposes by hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation exposure, and biodegradation.
While we anticipate that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat and prey resources would be temporary and reversible. The main impact associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Marine mammals are anticipated to temporarily vacate the area of live detonations. However, these events are usually of short duration, and animals are anticipated to return to the activity area during periods of non-activity. Thus, based on the preceding discussion, we do not anticipate that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of affecting the least adverse impact practicable on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
NMFS and 86 FWS have worked to identify potential practicable and effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the military-readiness activity. We refer the reader to Section 11 of 86 FWS's application for more detailed information on the proposed mitigation measures, which include the following:
Protected species surveys typically begin within one hour of weapon release and as close to the impact time as feasible, given human safety requirements. Survey personnel must depart the human hazard zone before weapon release, in accordance with Navy safety standards. Personnel conduct aerial surveys within an area defined by a maximum 8-mi (13 km) radius around the impact point with surveys typically flown in a star pattern. This survey distance is much larger than requirements for similar actions at the PMRF and what was accomplished for October 2016 missions. This expanded area would encompass the entire behavioral threshold ranges (SEL) for all mid-frequency cetaceans, the entire PTS threshold ranges (SEL) for low-frequency cetaceans and phocids, approximately 23 percent of the TTS threshold ranges (SEL) for low-frequency cetaceans and phocids, and about 64 percent of the PTS threshold range (SEL) for high-frequency cetaceans (pygmy and dwarf sperm whales) (Table 5). The survey distance would not cover the entire behavioral harassment ranges for low- and high-frequency cetaceans and phocids. Given operational constraints, surveying these larger areas would not be feasible.
Observers would consist of aircrew operating the C-26, S-61N, and C-130 aircraft from the PMRF and the Coast Guard. These aircrew are trained and experienced at conducting aerial marine mammal surveys and have provided similar support for other missions at the PMRF. Aerial surveys are typically conducted at an altitude of about 200 ft, but altitude may vary somewhat depending on sea state and atmospheric conditions. If adverse weather conditions preclude the ability for aircraft to safely operate, missions would either be delayed until the weather clears or cancelled for the day. The C-26 and other aircraft would generally be operated at a slightly higher altitude than the helicopter. The observers will be provided with the GPS location of the impact area. Once the aircraft reaches the impact area, pre-mission surveys typically last for 30 minutes, depending on the survey pattern. The fixed-wing aircraft are faster than the helicopter, and, therefore, protected species may be more difficult to spot. However, to compensate for the difference in speed,
Post-mission surveys would begin immediately after the mission is complete and the Range Safety Officer declares the human safety area is reopened. Approximate transit time from the perimeter of the human safety area to the weapon impact area would depend on the size of the human safety area and vary between aircraft but is expected to be less than 30 minutes. Post-mission surveys would be conducted by the same aircraft and aircrew that conducted the pre-mission surveys and would follow the same patterns as pre-mission surveys but would focus on the area down current of the weapon impact area to determine if protected species were affected by the mission (observation of dead or injured animals). If a serious injury or mortality occurs to a protected species due to LRS WSEP missions, NMFS would be notified immediately.
A typical mission day would consist of pre-mission checks, safety review, crew briefings, weather checks, clearing airspace, range clearance, mitigations/monitoring efforts, and other military protocols prior to launch of weapons. Potential delays could be the result of multiple factors including, adverse weather conditions leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and aircraft operations, inability to clear the range of non-mission vessels or aircraft, mechanical issues with mission aircraft or munitions, or presence of protected species in the impact area. These standard operating procedures are usually done in the morning, and live range time may begin in late morning once all checks are complete and approval is granted from range control. The range would be closed to the public for a maximum of four hours per mission day.
Standard impulsive and acoustic metrics were used for the analysis of underwater energy and pressure waves in this document. Several different metrics are important for understanding risk assessment analysis of impacts to marine mammals: SPL is the ratio of the absolute sound pressure to a reference level, SEL is the measure of sound intensity and duration, and positive impulse is the time integral of the pressure over the initial positive phase of an arrival.
The criteria and thresholds used to estimate potential pressure and acoustic impacts to marine mammals resulting from detonations were obtained from Finneran and Jenkins (2012) and include mortality, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment. In some cases, separate thresholds have been developed for different species groups or functional hearing groups. Functional hearing groups included in the analysis are low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and high-frequency cetaceans.
Based on the ranges presented in Table 5 and factoring operational limitations associated with the mission, 86 FWS estimates that during pre-mission surveys, the proposed monitoring area would be approximately 8 mi (13 km) from the target area radius around the impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern, which is much larger than requirements already in place for similar actions at the PMRF and what was accomplished for October 2016 missions.
NMFS discussed with the 86 FWS and the U.S. Navy—whose hydrophones and PAM equipment in the PMRF would be used—the idea of using PAM for mitigation purposes to supplement visual surveys. Through these discussions, NMFS and 86 FWS attempted to determine if using PAM as a mitigation tool was feasible. The Navy described the constraints of using PAM as a real-time mitigation tool due to the limitations of the current technology. These include limitations on the ability to detect, classify, and estimate locations of marine mammals around the equipment; the fact that marine mammals present in the area may not be vocalizing; and the fact that vocalizations made by some species may be outside of the frequency capabilities of the hydrophones. These limitations are explained further, below.
In regards to the limitations to detect classify, and estimate locations of marine mammals around the equipment, and the fact that some of those animals may vocalize outside of the frequency capabilities of the hydrophones, the Navy states:
Based on current capabilities, and given adequate time, vocalizing animals within an indeterminate radius around a particular phone are detected, but obtaining an estimated position for all individual animals passing through a predetermined area is not assured. Detecting vocalizations on a phone does not determine whether vocalizing individuals would be within the established mitigation zone in the timeframes required for mitigation. Since detection ranges are generally larger than current mitigation zones for many activities, this would unnecessarily delay events due to uncertainty in the animals location.
To develop an estimated position for an individual, it must be vocalizing and its vocalizations must be detected on at least three hydrophones. The hydrophones must have the required bandwidth, and dynamic range to capture the signal. In addition, calls must be sufficiently loud so as to provide the required signal to noise ratio on the surrounding hydrophones. Typically, small odontocetes echolocate with a directed beam that makes detection of the call on multiple hydrophones difficult. Developing an estimated position of selected species requires the presence of whistles which may or may not be produced depending on the behavioral state.
Large baleen species vocalize at frequencies well below 1 kHz. There are few broadband phones with low frequency capabilities at PMRF and they are widely spaced, especially on the southern portion of the range. This makes estimating the positions of low frequency baleen whales difficult in that area. For minke whale boings, it takes 30 to 45 minutes of calling (
Beaked whales vocalize only during deep foraging dives which occur at a rate of approximately 10 per day. They produce highly directed echolocation clicks that are difficult to simultaneously detect on multiple hydrophones. Current real-time systems cannot follow individuals and at best produce sparse positions with multiple false locations.
The position estimation process must occur in an area with hydrophones spaced to allow the detection of the same echolocation
In regards to marine mammals not vocalizing in the area, the Navy states:
Animals must vocalize to be detected; the lack of detections on a hydrophone may give the false impression that the area is all clear. The lack of vocalization detections is not a direct measure of the absence of marine mammals. If an event were to be moved based upon low-confidence localizations, it may inadvertently be moved to an area where non-vocalizing animals of undetermined species/ESA status are present.
NMFS decided that these analytical and technical limitations preclude the use of PAM as a real-time mitigation tool. However, we will require the use of PAM for monitoring purposes (as described below).
We have carefully evaluated 86 FWS's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
NMFS prescribes mitigation measures that accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to stimuli that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to training exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of 86 FWS's proposed measures, as well as other measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures, including visual aerial surveys and mission delays if protected species are observed in the impact area, provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance (while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and the impact of effectiveness of the military readiness activity).
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
The 86 FWS submitted marine mammal monitoring and reporting measures in their LOA application. We may modify or supplement these measures based on comments or new information received during the public comment period. Any monitoring requirement we prescribe will improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
NMFS proposes to include the following monitoring and reporting measures in the LRS WSEP Authorization (if issued):
(1) Using mission reporting forms, the 86 FWS will track the use of the PMRF for missions and protected species observations.
(2) The 86 FWS will submit a summary report of marine mammal observations and LRS WSEP activities to the NMFS PIRO and the Office of Protected Resources 90 days after completion of mission activities each year. This report must include the following information: (i) Date and time of each LRS WSEP exercise; (ii) a complete description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of LRS WSEP exercises on marine mammal populations; and (iii) results of the LRS WSEP exercise monitoring, including number of marine mammals (by species) that may have been harassed due to presence within the activity zone.
(3) The 86 FWS will monitor for marine mammals in the proposed action area through pre-mission aerial visual surveys. If 86 FWS personnel observe or detect any dead or injured marine
(4) The 86 FWS will monitor for marine mammals once the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area safe. Post-mission aerial visual surveys will be identical to pre-mission surveys and will occur approximately 30 minutes after the munitions have been detonated, concentrating on the area down-current of the test site. Observers will document and report any marine mammal species, number, location, and behavior of any animals observed. Post-mission monitoring determines the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any marine mammals within the ZOIs that may have been affected by mission activities.
(5) As noted previously, PAM will not be used as a real-time mitigation tool, but the 86 FWS will use PAM by using the Navy's hydrophones for monitoring within the PMRF, by collecting data before, during, and after LRS WSEP missions. This data will be stored at SPAWAR to be analyzed as funding allows.
(6) The 86 FWS must immediately report any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (
NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with the 86 FWS regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring measures for these regulations.
Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA include: (1) Results from 86 FWS's monitoring from the previous year(s); (2) results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and (3) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
The NDAA of 2004 amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a military readiness activity (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA) to read as follows: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
NMFS' analysis identified the physiological responses and behavioral responses that could potentially result from exposure to explosive detonations. In this section, we will relate the potential effects on marine mammals from detonation of explosives to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B harassment. This section will also quantify the effects that might occur from the proposed military readiness activities in the PMRF BSURE area. As described below, quantifying take includes a consideration of acoustic thresholds identified by NMFS above which received levels marine mammals are expected to be taken by either Level A or Level B harassment; predicted distances from the sound sources within which animals are expected to be exposed to sound levels above these thresholds; and the density of marine mammals within the areas ensonified above the thresholds.
Of the potential effects described earlier in this document, the following are the types of effects that would result from Level B harassment:
Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to non-impulsive or impulsive sound, which causes a behavioral disturbance that rises to the level described in the above definition, is Level B harassment. Some of the lower level physiological stress responses discussed earlier would also likely co-occur with the predicted harassments, although these responses are more difficult to detect, and fewer data exist relating these responses to specific received levels of sound. When predicting Level B harassment on estimated behavioral responses, those takes may have a stress-related physiological component.
Temporary Threshold Shift—As discussed previously, TTS can affect how an animal behaves in response to the environment, including conspecifics, predators, and prey. NMFS classifies exposure to explosives and other impulsive sources resulting in TTS as Level B harassment, not Level A harassment.
Of the potential effects that were described earlier, the following are the types of effects that result from Level A harassment and that may be expected from 86 FWS activities:
Permanent Threshold Shift—PTS (resulting from exposure to explosive detonations) is irreversible, and NMFS considers this to be an injury.
Table 4 outlines the explosive thresholds used by NMFS for this action when addressing noise impacts from explosives.
The 86 FWS completed acoustic modeling to determine the distances from their explosive ordnance corresponding to NMFS' explosive thresholds; these distances were then used with each species' density to determine exposure estimates. Below is a summary of the methodology for those modeling efforts.
The maximum estimated range, or radius, from the detonation point to the point at which the various thresholds extend for all munitions proposed to be released in a 24-hour time period was calculated based on explosive acoustic characteristics, sound propagation, and sound transmission loss in the Study Area. These calculations incorporated water depth, sediment type, wind speed, bathymetry, and temperature/salinity profiles (Table 5). Transmission loss was calculated from the explosive source depth down to an array of water depth bins extending to the maximum depths where marine mammals may occur (see depth distributions in Appendix B of the 86 FWS's application). Then impact volumes were computed for each explosive source (based on the total number of munitions released on a representative mission day). Impact areas were calculated from scaling the impact volumes by each depth bin, dividing by their depth intervals, summing each value over the entire water column and converting to square kilometers. The total energy for all weapons released as part of a representative mission day was calculated to assess impacts from the accumulated energy resulting from multiple weapon releases within a 24-hour period. Given that there is a large degree of uncertainty in knowing this far in advance what types of explosives could be released on any particular mission day, in order to calculate the number of munitions to be released per mission day, the total number of each munition proposed to be released per year was divided by the annual number of mission days.
Explosives generally will be separated by some number of minutes, with the exception of up to four SDB-I/II munitions, which includes a burst during which each ordnance hits the water surface within a few seconds of each other. For the purposes of predicting the number of exposures above threshold, calculating the area for each independent explosive and then adding those areas together and multiplying by species density would result in an overestimate. This is because all explosions will occur within 4 hours and are generally targeting the same spot, and several explosions have very large zones, so it is likely that many of the exposures will be experienced by the same individual animals. Therefore, to calculate take, we instead summed the energy of the expected number of separate explosives per day to create one area of impact to overlay with species density for that area. Since there would be a total of five mission days per year during the time frame of 2017—2021, the analysis assumed that in a representative mission day the following munitions and quantities would be released daily: One JASSM, six JDAMs, six SDB-Is, six SDB-IIs, and two HARMs.
The 86 FWS used the calculations for transmission loss from the summer season in their model, because the parameters for the summer were more conservative (
Density estimates for marine mammals were derived from the Navy's 2016 Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD). The 86 FWS used fall densities to estimate take. Fall densities are more conservative than summer densities because they include more species. Density estimates provided in Table 6 were extrapolated over the depth distributions by multiplying the density values by the percentage of time spent at each depth interval. These scaled densities were multiplied by the corresponding depth bin in the impact volume for each threshold and summed to create a three-dimensional exposure estimate. These estimates were then multiplied by the number of events, or total annual number of proposed mission days. NMFS refers the reader to Section 3 of 86 FWS's application for detailed information on all equations used to calculate densities presented in Table 6.
The resulting total number of marine mammals potentially exposed to the various levels of thresholds (mortality, injury, and non-injurious harassment, including behavioral harassment), in the absence of mitigation measures, is listed in Table 7. To eliminate double-counting of animals, exposure results from higher impact categories (
The 86 FWS and NMFS estimated that 16 species could be exposed to noise levels constituting Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral disruption), and 4 of those marine mammal species could be exposed to injurious noise levels (Level A harassment) (187 dB SEL) in the absence of mitigation measures.
These modeled take numbers show that the probability of some of these species being impacted by the 86 FWS's activities is low (
Based on the mortality exposure estimates calculated by the acoustic model (and further supported by the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation), zero marine mammals are expected to be affected by pressure levels associated with mortality or serious injury. Zero marine mammals are expected to be exposed to pressure levels associated with slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract injury.
NMFS considers PTS to fall under the injury category (Level A harassment). In this case, it would be highly unlikely for this scenario to unfold, given the nature of any anticipated acoustic exposures that could potentially result from a mobile marine mammal that NMFS generally expects to exhibit avoidance behavior to loud sounds within the BSURE area.
NMFS has relied on the best available scientific information to support the issuance of 86 FWS's authorization. In the case of authorizing Level A harassment, NMFS has estimated that, although unlikely, four marine mammal species (humpback whale, minke whale, dwarf sperm whale, and pygmy sperm whale) could experience minor PTS of hearing sensitivity. The available data and analyses include extrapolation of the results of many studies on marine mammal noise-induced TTS. An extensive review of TTS studies and experiments prompted NMFS to conclude that the possibility of minor PTS in the form of slight upward shift of hearing threshold at certain frequency
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
(1) The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;
(2) The number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment takes;
(3) The context in which the takes occur (
(4) The status of stock or species of marine mammals (
(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
(6) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
For reasons stated previously in this document, the specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, serious injury, or death.
The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. The takes from Level A harassment would be due to potential PTS. Activities would occur only over a timeframe of five days each year in the summer months, over a maximum of four hours per day.
Behavioral disruption due to Level B harassment would be limited to reactions such as startle responses, movements away from the area, and short-term changes to behavioral state. These impacts are expected to be temporary and of short duration. We do not anticipate that the effects would be detrimental to rates of recruitment and survival because we do not expect serious or extended behavioral responses that would result in energetic effects at the level to impact fitness.
Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, which includes TTS and PTS) are defined as increases in the threshold of audibility of the ear (
TTS was modeled to occur in 15 species of marine mammals from mission activities. If TTS occurs, it is expected to be at low levels and of short duration. As explained above, TTS is temporary with no long term effects to species. The modeled take numbers are expected to be overestimates since NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required aerial-based mitigation measures could avoid TTS. Further, it is uncommon to sight marine mammals within the target area, especially for prolonged durations. Avoidance varies among individuals and depends on their activities or reasons for being in the area.
There are different degrees of PTS: Ranging from slight/mild to moderate and from severe to profound. Profound PTS or the complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both ears is commonly referred to as deafness. High-frequency PTS, presumably as a normal process of aging that occurs in humans and other terrestrial mammals, has also been demonstrated in captive cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder, 1997; Yuen
In terms of what is analyzed for the potential PTS (Level A harassment) in marine mammals as a result of 86 FWS's LRS WSEP operations, if it occurs, NMFS has determined that the levels would be slight/mild because research shows that most cetaceans exhibit relatively high levels of avoidance. Further, it is uncommon to sight marine mammals within the target area, especially for prolonged durations. Avoidance varies among individuals and depends on their activities or reasons for being in the area.
Accordingly, NMFS' predicted estimates for Level A harassment take (Table 8) are likely overestimates of the likely injury that will occur. NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required aerial-based mitigation measures could avoid Level A harassment take. Also, NMFS expects that some individuals would avoid the source at levels expected to result in injury. Nonetheless, although NMFS expects that Level A harassment is unlikely to occur at the numbers proposed to be authorized, because it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of animals that might incur PTS, NMFS is proposing to authorize (and analyze) the modeled number of Level A harassment takes, which does not take the mitigation or avoidance into consideration. However, we anticipate that, because of the proposed mitigation measures, and the likely short duration of exposures, any PTS incurred would be in the form of only a small degree of PTS, rather than total deafness.
While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the activity, because of the short duration of the actual individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) combined with the short duration of the LRS WSEP operations (
Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures (described earlier in this preamble for the proposed rule) are expected to further minimize the potential for harassment. The protected species surveys would require 86 FWS to search the area for marine mammals, and if any are found in the impact zone, then the exercise would be suspended until the animals have left the area or relocated outside of the zone. Furthermore, LRS WSEP missions may be delayed or rescheduled for adverse weather conditions.
In past missions (October 2016), the 86 FWS completed pre- and post-aerial surveys. The 86 FWS did not observe any marine mammals in the ZOI before missions occurred, and did not observe any marine mammals after missions were completed. The 86 FWS was authorized for Level A and Level B harassment takes of five species, but monitoring showed that they had zero takes of any species from mission activities.
Based on NMFS' preliminary analysis of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that 86 FWS's LRS WSEP operations will result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, and that the taking from the LRS WSEP activities will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
There is one marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction that is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with confirmed or possible occurrence in the action area: The sei whale. In March 2017, NMFS initiated formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. The Biological Opinion will analyze the effects to the one ESA listed species by the 86 FWS' LRS WSEP activities.
In 2016, 86 FWS provided NMFS with an Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. The EA analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the specified activities on marine mammals. NMFS will review and evaluate the 86 FWS EA for consistency with the regulations published by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, and determine whether or not to adopt the EA. Information in 86 FWS's application, the EA, and this notice collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed issuance of the regulations for public review and comment. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, including the decision of whether to sign a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to a final decision on the LOA request. The 2016 NEPA documents are available for review at
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the associated LOAs to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect 86 FWS and not a small entity, NMFS concludes the action would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is necessary, and none has been prepared.
This action does not contain any collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) and those persons it authorizes to conduct activities on its behalf, for the taking of marine mammals as outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and incidental to Long Range Strike Weapons System Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP) missions.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by 86 FWS pursuant to a Letter of Authorization (LOA) is authorized only if it occurs at the Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion (BSURE) area of the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii.
Regulations in this subpart are effective August 23, 2017, through August 22, 2022.
Under a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to § 216.106 and § 218.56 of this chapter, the Holder of the LOA (herein after 86 FWS) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment associated with LRS WSEP activities within the area described in § 218.50 of this subpart, provided the activities are in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 218.50 and authorized by an LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 218.56 of this chapter, no person in connection with the activities described in § 218.50 of this chapter may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 218.56 of this chapter.
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.
When conducting activities identified in § 218.50 of this chapter, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 218.56 of this chapter must be implemented. These mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to the following general conditions:
(a) If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, LRS WSEP strike operations must be delayed until adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring to be undertaken.
(b) Restrictions on time of activities; missions will only occur during day-light hours, on weekdays, and only during the summer or fall months.
(c) Visual aerial surveys before and after mission activities each day.
(d) Required delay of mission activities if a protected species is observed in the impact zones. Mission activities cannot resume until one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The animal is observed exiting the impact area; or
(2) The impact area has been clear of any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes.
(e) If post-mission surveys determine that an injury or lethal take of a marine mammal has occurred, the next mission will be suspended until the test procedure and the monitoring methods have been reviewed with NMFS and appropriate changes made.
(f) Additional mitigation measures as contained in an LOA.
(a) Holders of LOAs issued pursuant to § 218.56 for activities described in § 218.50(a) are required to cooperate with NMFS, and any other Federal, state, or local agency with authority to monitor the impacts of the activity on marine mammals. Unless specified otherwise in the LOA, the Holder of the LOA must notify the Pacific Islands Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, by email, at least 72 hours prior to LRS WSEP missions. If the authorized activity identified in § 218.50(a) is thought to have resulted in the mortality or injury of any marine mammals or take of marine mammals not identified in § 218.50(b), then the Holder of the LOA must notify the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by telephone (301-427-8401), within 48 hours of the injury or death. The Holder of the LOA must also contact the Pacific Islands Region stranding coordinator, NMFS, by email, at least one business day after completion of missions to declare that missions are complete.
(b) The Holder of the LOA will use mission reporting forms to track their use of the PMRF BSURE area for the LRS WSEP missions and to track marine mammal observations.
(c) Aerial surveys—Pre-mission aerial surveys and post-mission aerial surveys will be conducted. Pre-mission surveys would begin approximately one hour prior to detonation. Post-detonation monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area safe. The proposed monitoring area would be approximately 8 miles (13 kilometers) from the target area radius around the impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern. Aerial surveys would be conducted at an altitude of about 200 feet, but altitude may vary somewhat depending on sea state and atmospheric conditions. If adverse weather conditions preclude the ability for aircraft to safely operate, missions would either be delayed until the weather clears or cancelled for the day. The observers will be provided with the GPS location of the impact area. Once the aircraft reaches the impact area, pre-mission surveys typically last for 30 minutes, depending on the survey pattern. The aircraft may fly the survey pattern multiple times.
(d) The Holder of the LOA is required to:
(1) Submit a draft report to NMFS OPR on all monitoring conducted under the LOA within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent LOA for projects at the PMRF, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at a minimum (see
(i) Date and time of each LRS WSEP mission;
(ii) A complete description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of LRS WSEP missions on marine mammal populations; and
(iii) Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the LRS
(2) The draft report will be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered the final report for this activity under the LOA if NMFS has not provided comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft report.
(e) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the LOA, such as an injury for species not authorized (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, 86 FWS shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Pacific Islands Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(i) Time and date of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions (
(iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
(vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(2) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with 86 FWS to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The 86 FWS may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(3) In the event that 86 FWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(4) The report must include the same information identified in paragraph (e)(i) of this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with 86 FWS to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(5) In the event that 86 FWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the LOA (
(f)
(2) A copy of the LOA must be in the possession of the safety officer on duty each day that long range strike missions are conducted.
(3) The LOA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these regulations, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 218.57.
(e) The LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) The number of marine mammals, by species and age class, authorized to be taken;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA will be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 218.56 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 218.50(a) will be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section), and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification or renewal request by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 218.56 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 218.50(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management—NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with 86 FWS regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA are:
(A) Results from 86 FWS's monitoring from previous years;
(B) Results from other marine mammal and sound research or studies; and
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 and 218.50 of this chapter, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oregon State University of Corvallis, Oregon, an exclusive license to the variety of strawberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 15/330,507, “STRAWBERRY PLANT NAMED `MARY'S PEAK',” filed on September 29, 2016.
Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oregon State University of Corvallis, Oregon, an exclusive license to the variety of blackberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 15/330,508, “BLACKBERRY PLANT NAMED `COLUMBIA SUNRISE',” filed on September 29, 2016.
Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
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 June 5, 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
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are updating the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) Program Standards document. In a previous notice, we made available to the public for review and comment proposed changes to the NPIP Program Standards document to establish new biosecurity principles, amend testing procedures for
Effective July 5, 2017.
Dr. Denise Brinson, DVM, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 (referred to below as the regulations) contain the provisions of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), a cooperative Federal-State-Industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture amends these provisions from time to time to incorporate new scientific information and technologies within the Plan.
In § 147.53, paragraph (b) states that approved tests and sanitation procedures used to qualify flocks for NPIP classifications are set out in the NPIP Program Standards.
• No comments were received on the notice;
• The comments on the notice supported the action described in the notice; or
• The comments on the notice were evaluated but did not change the Administrator's determination that approval of the test or sanitation procedure is appropriate based on the standards in paragraph (a) of § 147.53.
On February 13, 2017, we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 30 days ending on March 15, 2017. We did not receive any comments by that date.
Therefore, in accordance with our regulations in § 147.53(e)(2)(i)(A), we are revising the NPIP Program Standards as described in our previous notice. We are also making a minor change to the NPIP Program Standards document due to a change in company ownership of one of the approved diagnostic test kits. The diagnostic test kit is the Bax® PCR assays for Salmonella 1 and 2, which was previously owned by Dupont Qualicon. The test kit is now owned by
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the State for future Committee study.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. EST.
Public call information: Dial: 888-500-6975, Conference ID: 4014593.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-500-6975, conference ID: 4014593. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Public Meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC). The Committee will advise the Directors of the Economics and Statistics Administration's (ESA) two statistical agencies, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. Last minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments.
June 9, 2017. The meeting will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Conference Center, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20746.
James R. Spletzer, Designated Federal Official, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Research and Methodology Directorate, Room 5K175, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-4069, email:
Members of the FESAC are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee advises the Directors of the BEA, the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's BLS, on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2).
The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comments and questions. Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing at least three days before the meeting to the Designated Federal Official named above. If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Thursday, June 1, 2017. You may access the online registration form with the following link:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for
Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that mandatory respondent Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd. (New Oriental), does not qualify for a separate rate and is, therefore, considered a part of the People's Republic of China (PRC)-wide entity for its exports of subject merchandise exported to the United States during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. We also preliminarily find that mandatory respondent IFI & Morgan Ltd. and RMB Fasteners Ltd. (RMB/IFI Group), did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties (AD) on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective May 5, 2017.
Matthew Renkey or Courtney Canales, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312 or (202) 482-4997, respectively.
On June 6, 2016, the Department published in the
The merchandise covered by the order includes steel threaded rod. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading 7318.15.5051, 7318.15.5056, 7318.15.5090, and 7318.15.2095 of the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Petitioner timely withdrew its review requests with respect to 115 companies. Because we received no other requests for review of these 115 companies,
On July 5, 2016, RMB/IFI Group filed a no-shipment certification indicating that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. During the course of this review, the Department examined this no shipments claim and provides its analysis in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Based on the record evidence, we preliminarily determine that RMB/IFI Group did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. In addition, we find that it is appropriate not to rescind the review, in part, in this circumstance, and to complete the review with respect to the above-named company, issuing appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination in an 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 which we did not individually examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference that we not calculate an all-others rate using rates which are zero,
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016:
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with its preliminary results within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department is not calculating a weighted-average dumping margin for either of the mandatory respondents selected for individual examination, there are no calculations to disclose.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted average dumping margin is above
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks (drawn sinks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. The review covers two mandatory respondents, Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) and Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co. Ltd (Yingao). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by both respondents have been made at prices below normal value (NV). We also preliminarily grant separate rates to ten companies, which demonstrated eligibility for separate rate status, but were not selected for individual examination. Finally, we preliminarily find that New Shichu Import and Export Company Limited (New Sichu) made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective May 5, 2017.
Terre Keaton Stefanova or Rebecca Janz, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1280 and (202) 482-2972, respectively.
The products covered by the order include drawn stainless steel sinks. Imports of subject merchandise are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For the mandatory respondents Dongyuan and Yingao, export price and constructed export price were calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV was calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
We preliminarily determine that information placed on the record by the mandatory respondents, as well as by the following ten companies which were not selected for individual examination, demonstrated eligibility for separate rate status: Feidong Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd.; Xinhe Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd.; KaiPing Dawn Plumbing Products, Inc.; Jiangmen Hongmao Trading Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd.; Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai KOHLER Kitchen & Bathroom Products Co., Ltd.; B&R Industries Limited; and Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd.
On July 5, 2016, New Shichu submitted a timely-filed certification that they had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Consistent with our practice in NME cases, the Department is not rescinding this administrative review for New Shichu, but intends to complete the
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016:
The Department intends to disclose to the parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For each individually-examined respondent in this review, if we continue to calculate a weighted-average dumping margin that is not zero or
For the respondents that were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review and qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the average of the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Dongyuan and Yingao in the final results of this review.
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by the companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if we continue to find that New Shichu had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries of subject merchandise from New Shichu will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The period of review is February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.
Effective May 5, 2017.
Jessica Weeks, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4877.
On April 10, 2017, based on a timely request for review by M&B Metal Products Company, Inc. (the petitioner),
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioner timely withdrew its request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017, in its entirety.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the
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 duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 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 or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. The Department selected two companies, Jacobi Carbons AB and Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., as mandatory respondents for individual examination. The Department preliminarily finds that subject merchandise has been sold in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. The Department invites interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective May 5, 2017.
Bob Palmer or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068, or (202) 482-0131, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is certain activated carbon. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3802.10.00.
Based on an analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, and no shipment certifications submitted by Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd., and Sinoacarbon International Trading Co., Ltd., the Department preliminarily determines that these companies had no shipments during the POR. For additional information regarding this determination,
Consistent with our practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, the Department is not rescinding this review, in part, but intends to complete the review with respect to these companies, for which it has preliminarily found no shipments, and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We calculated constructed export prices and export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a NME within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As provided in sections 782(i)(3)(A)-(B) of the Act, we intend to verify the information upon which we will rely in determining our final results of review with respect to the two mandatory respondents, Jacobi Carbons AB and Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
The Department preliminarily finds that 186 companies for which a review was requested did not establish eligibility for a separate rate because they either failed to provide a separate rate application or separate rate certification (SRC).
For companies' subject to this review that have established their eligibility for a separate rate, the Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR from April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016:
The
Because, as noted above, the Department intends to verify the information upon which we will rely in making our final determination, interested parties may submit written comments in the form of case briefs within one week after the issuance of the last verification repot and rebuttal comments in the form of rebuttal briefs within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (
Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the rate for the PRC-wide entity.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For each specific company listed in the final results of review, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, announces an opportunity for industrial wireless communications equipment suppliers and academic institutions to incorporate their use cases, techniques, and equipment into a NIST Industrial Wireless Testbed to help advance measurement science research in industrial wireless communication, with special emphasis on manufacturing applications.
The deadline for responding to this opportunity is June 30, 2017.
Applications to participate may be submitted in one of two ways.
• By sending an email to
• By written request:
Please direct media inquiries to NIST's Office of Public Affairs at 301-975-2762.
Rick Candell, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8230, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 301-975-4287, email:
As part of the NIST Wireless Systems for Industrial Environments project, NIST has constructed a hardware-in-the-loop Industrial Wireless Testbed that includes a radio frequency channel emulator used to recreate the factory radio environment, and simulated and real factory processes, controls, and equipment. The emulator which is an Intelligent Automation Inc. D-508 emulator supports up to eight (8) devices. Industrial wireless communication devices are connected to the emulator, and measurement methods to assess the impacts of various types of wireless systems on the performance of simulated factory operations will be developed and applied. Participants will include researchers from industry and academia interested in supporting the industrial
Research results will be used as input into best practices reports on the performance measurement and use of industrial wireless systems in manufacturing applications. Integration of equipment into the testbed will be conducted at the expense of the responder. Participants will be expected to loan their equipment, through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with NIST, for a period of typically 6 months for use in the testbed. Participants will be expected to contribute in-kind engineering resources necessary to integrate and operate their equipment in the Testbed, including making any needed modifications to their equipment to achieve compatibility with Testbed interfaces, at no cost to NIST. Participants will have access to NIST test equipment associated with the Testbed, subject to availability. Industry participants are also encouraged to describe candidate use cases for possible inclusion in Testbed activities. More information on the NIST Wireless Systems for Industrial Environments may be found at
Interested participants should respond by sending an email to
The deadline for responding to this opportunity is June 30, 2017. NIST will accept up to five responders as collaborators in the proposed project, on a first come, first-served basis. Due to limited resources, the proposed research project will be limited to a maximum of five collaborators. Acceptance of participants will be aimed at achieving a diversity of industrial wireless equipment in the Testbed, and will depend on the level of commitment of the participant, the proposed equipment and engineering support resources, and the availability of NIST resources to support incorporation of equipment into the Testbed.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed addition to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
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 an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed action.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to provide the service listed below from a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
6/4/2017.
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 4/7/2017 (82 FR 17000-17002), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice 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:
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel will take place.
Open to the public, Friday, May 19, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Maria Fried, 703-571-2664 (Voice), 703-693-3903 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. Materials provided to Panel members for use at the public meeting, may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Security Education Board will take place.
The meeting will last one day in duration, Thursday, June 8, 2017 beginning at 8:30 a.m. and adjourning at 4:15 p.m.
Institute of International Education, 1400 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Michael Nugent, (571) 256-0702 (Voice), (703) 692-2615 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement—Public and agency comment period.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Huntington District has prepared a
The review period will be open from May 1, 2017 to May 30, 2017.
Send written comments concerning this proposed project to Rebecca Rutherford, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section, Planning Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV 25701-2070. Telephone: 304-399-5924. Electronic mail:
1.
2.
b. Bluestone Lake is a multipurpose component of the Kanawha River basin system which provides for flood control, recreation, hydropower development, low flow augmentation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. The project began operation in 1949 and helps control a 4,600 square mile drainage area.
c. The ROD, signed in 1999, completed the NEPA process for the DSA project permitting the Huntington District to begin detailed design and subsequent construction of the recommended alternative which included a 13 foot cantilever wall on top of the dam, an additional concrete monolith on the east abutment, a floodgate closure across WV Rt. 20, removable closures at each end of the spillway, high strength anchors placed into the dam itself, massive concrete blocks placed against the downstream face of the dam, and a pavement for scour protection downstream of the hydropower penstocks. The majority of the ongoing construction on these measures will continue through the year 2019. The ROD for this work anticipated construction would be completed 2005.
d. Physical modeling and expert analysis conducted during project construction has shown the downstream bedrock is vulnerable to erosion during high flow events as a result of deficiencies with the current stilling basin configuration. This potential erosion creates an unacceptable level of risk according to guidelines established in ER 1110-2-1156, under which this study is being conducted.
e. The SFEIS and Dam Safety Modification report (DSMR) have considered the structural integrity of the dam, its ability to accommodate flood waters as well as transportation, noise, terrestrial, aquatic, economic, environmental justice and cultural resource issues associated with the performance of the dam. The SFEIS and DSMR has recommended any modifications necessary to ensure the long-term safe performance of the structure as originally intended.
f. Modifications to meet current acceptable risk guidelines per ER 1110-2-1156 proposed include, alteration to the existing stilling basin to include installation of a protective concrete apron and larger baffles among other features described in the SFEIS. The No Action alternative will also be considered. As required by NEPA and Corps planning guidance, the No Action alternative will form a benchmark from which alternatives are evaluated and compared.
3.
4.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 5, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact James Billy, 202-245-7273.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
For each award year, the Secretary publishes in the
Jacquelyn C. Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6W232, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6088.
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.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
If the Secretary selects an applicant for verification, the applicant's Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) includes flags that indicate (1) that the applicant has been selected by the Secretary for verification and (2) the Verification Tracking Group in which the applicant has been placed. The Verification Tracking Group indicates which FAFSA information needs to be verified for the applicant and, if appropriate, for the applicant's parent(s) or spouse. The Student Aid Report (SAR) provided to the applicant will indicate that the applicant's FAFSA information has been selected for verification and direct the applicant to contact the institution for further instructions for completing the verification process.
The following chart lists, for the 2018-2019 award year, the FAFSA information that an institution and an applicant and, if appropriate, the applicant's parent(s) or spouse may be required to verify under 34 CFR 668.56. The chart also lists the acceptable documentation that must, under § 668.57, be provided to an institution for that information to be verified.
Only the following FAFSA/ISIR information must be verified:
For dependent students—
• The parents' AGI if the parents were tax filers;
• The parents' income earned from work if the parents were nontax filers; and
• The student's high school completion status and identity/statement of educational purpose, if selected.
For independent students—
• The student's and spouse's AGI if they were tax filers;
• The student's and spouse's income earned from work if they were nontax filers;
• The student's high school completion status and identity/statement of educational purpose, if selected; and
• The number of household members to determine if the independent student has one or more dependents other than a spouse.
We provide a more detailed discussion on the verification process in the following resources:
•
•
•
•
• Program Integrity Information—Questions and Answers on Verification at
These publications are on the Information for Financial Aid Professionals Web site at
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070a-1, 1070b-1070b-4, 1070c-1070c-4, 1070g, 1071-1087-2, 1087a-1087j, and 1087aa-1087ii; 42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 5, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of cancellation of open teleconference.
On April 19, 2017, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of open teleconference scheduled for May 18, 2017, of the State Energy Advisory Board. This notice announces the cancellation of this meeting. The next regular meeting will be held at a date to be determined.
The meeting scheduled for May 18, 2017, announced in the April 19,
Michael Li, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; email:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Decision and Order.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) gives notice of a Decision and Order (Case No. RF-043) that grants to Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of America (“PAPRSA”) a waiver from the DOE test procedure for determining the energy consumption of electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Under this Decision and Order, PAPRSA is required to test and rate specified basic models of its combination cooler-refrigerators in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, with the exception that it must calculate energy consumption using a correction factor (“K-factor”) of 0.85.
This Decision and Order is effective May 5, 2017. This Decision and Order will terminate on October 28, 2019, in conjunction with the compliance of the recently published standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. Testing to demonstrate compliance with those standards, and any other representations of energy use made on or after October 28, 2019, will require manufacturers to use the relevant test procedure for these products.
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-5B, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(f)(2)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth below. The Decision and Order grants PAPRSA a waiver from the applicable test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A for certain basic models of combination cooler-refrigerators provided that PAPRSA tests and rates such products using the alternate test procedure described in this notice. PAPRSA's representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products must be based on testing consistent with the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order below, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c).
Consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(j), not later than July 5, 2017, any manufacturer currently distributing in commerce in the United States a product employing a technology or characteristic that results in the same need for a waiver from the applicable test procedure must submit a petition for waiver. Manufacturers not currently distributing such products in commerce in the United States must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to the distribution in commerce of those products in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.
Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program that includes residential refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.
The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that: (1) Prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). DOE recently published standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”). See 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016). Testing to demonstrate compliance with those standards will require manufacturers to use the MREF test procedure established in a final rule published in July 2016. See 81 FR 46768 (July 18, 2016) (MREF coverage determination and test procedure final rule) and 81 FR 49868
On August 21, 2015, PAPRSA requested an extension of its previous waivers (Case Nos. RF-022, RF-031 and RF-041) under 10 CFR 430.27(g) for its combination cooler-refrigerator basic model, PR6180WBC, which is required to be tested using the test procedure detailed at appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (appendix A). At the time of the request for extension, Appendix A required measuring the energy consumption of refrigerators using a standardized compartment temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). PAPRSA, consistent with its prior waiver requests, seeks to use a modified version of the test procedure that would specify a higher standardized temperature for testing wine chiller compartments and a correction factor of 0.85 when calculating energy consumption.
In its petition, PAPRSA requested an extension of the waivers DOE granted in 2012 (under PAPRSA's previous corporate name, Sanyo E&E Corporation) (Case No. RF-022, 77 FR 49443 (August 16, 2012)), in 2013 (Case No. RF-031, 78 FR 57139 (September 17, 2013)), and 2014 (Case No. RF-041, 79 FR 55769 (September 17, 2014)). On October 4, 2012, DOE issued a notice of correction to this Decision and Order by incorporating a K-factor (correction factor) value of 0.85 when calculating the energy consumption of the affected models. (77 FR 60688) DOE also previously granted a similar waiver to Sub-Zero Group Inc. through an interim waiver (79 FR 55772 (September 17, 2014)) and a subsequent Decision and Order (80 FR 7854 (February 12, 2015)) under Case No. RF-040.
On January 26, 2016, DOE issued a proposed modification of its prior waivers and granted PAPRSA with an interim waiver (81 FR 4270) that consolidated all of the basic models under one, new, corrected interim waiver, subject to comment. DOE did not receive any comments on the PAPRSA request or the interim waiver.
DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure and believes that, as corrected, the formulas will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with PAPRSA's combination cooler-refrigerator basic models. However, DOE has identified additional formulas in appendix A that, for purposes of this waiver, should incorporate the 0.85 correction factor. DOE has also clarified the sections within appendix A for which the alternate calculations apply. DOE has included those updated formulas as part of this decision and order.
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) staff concerning the PAPRSA petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to PAPRSA.
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by PAPRSA and consultation with the FTC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 430.27, it is
(1) The petition for waiver submitted by the PAPRSA. (Case No. RF-043) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2) PAPRSA must test and rate the PAPRSA basic models specified in paragraph (3) on the basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, with the exception that it must calculate energy consumption using a correction factor (“K-factor”) of 0.85.
Therefore, the energy consumption is defined by:
If compartment temperatures are below their respective standardized temperatures for both test settings (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, sec. 6.2.4.1): E = (ET1 × 0.85) + IET.
If compartment temperatures are not below their respective standardized temperatures for both test settings, the higher of the two values calculated by the following two formulas (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, sec. 6.2.4.2):
Energy consumption of the “cooler compartment”: ECooler Compartment = (ET1 + [(ET2-ET1) × (55 °F-TC1)/(TC2-TC1)]) × 0.85 + IET
Energy consumption of the “fresh food compartment”: EFreshFood Compartment = (ET1 + [(ET2-ET1) × (39 °F-TR1)/(TR2-TR1)]) × 0.85 + IET.
(3) This Order applies to basic models PR6180WBC, KBCS24RSBS, SR6180BC,
JUB248RB, JUB248LW, JUB248RW, KBCO24LS, KBCS24LS, KBCO24RS, KBCS24RS, and MBCM24FW. Upon further review, however, DOE has determined that these are individual model, rather than basic model, number designations. The correct basic model designations, as determined through a review of PAPRSA's filings with DOE's Compliance Certification Management System, are KBCS24RSBS (which covers all of these individual model designations except for MBCM24FW) and SR6180BC (which covers MBCM24FW).
(4) Representations. PAPRSA may make representations about the energy use of the specified basic models of its combination cooler-refrigerator products for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions outlined above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing.
(5) This Decision and Order will terminate on October 28, 2019, in conjunction with the compliance date of the recently published standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”). See 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016). Starting on October 28, 2019, testing to demonstrate compliance with those standards must be performed in accordance with the MREF test procedure final rule. See 81 FR 46768 (July 18, 2016) (MREF test procedure final rule) and 81 FR 49868 (July 29, 2016) (MREF test procedure final rule correction notice).
(6) This waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.
(7) Grant of this extension does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Decision and Order.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) gives notice of a Decision and Order (Case No. RF-045) that grants to AGA Marvel a waiver from the DOE test procedure for determining the energy consumption of electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Under this Decision and Order, AGA Marvel is required to test and rate specified basic models of its combination cooler-refrigerator in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, with the exception that it must calculate energy consumption using a correction factor (“K-factor”) of 0.85.
This Decision and Order is effective May 5, 2017. This Decision and Order will terminate on October 28, 2019, in conjunction with the compliance date of the recently published standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. Testing to demonstrate compliance with those standards, and any other representations of energy use made on or after October 28, 2019, will require manufacturers to use the relevant test procedure for these products.
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-5B, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. E-mail:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. E-mail:
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(f)(2)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth below. The Decision and Order grants AGA Marvel a waiver from the applicable test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A for certain basic models of combination cooler-refrigerators provided that AGA Marvel tests and rates such products using the alternate test procedure described in this notice. AGA Marvel's representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products must be based on testing consistent with the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order below, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c).
Consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(j), not later than July 5, 2017, any manufacturer currently distributing in commerce in the United States a product employing a technology or characteristic that results in the same need for a waiver from the applicable test procedure must submit a petition for waiver. Manufacturers not currently distributing such products in commerce in the United States must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to the distribution in commerce of those products in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.
Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”) (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program that includes residential refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.
The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that: (1) Prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1).DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). DOE recently published standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”). See 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016). Testing to demonstrate compliance with those standards will require manufacturers to use the MREF test procedure established in a final rule published in July 2016. See 81 FR 46768 (July 18, 2016) (MREF coverage determination and test procedure final rule) and 81 FR 49868 (July 29, 2016) (MREF test procedure final rule correction notice). Under these rules, DOE has determined that products such as those that are at issue here fall into the MREF category. Accordingly, consistent with these MREF-specific provisions, these products will be evaluated under prescribed procedures and against specified standards that are tailored to account for their particular characteristics.
By letter dated January 26, 2016, AGA Marvel submitted a petition for waiver and application for interim waiver under 10 CFR 430.27(a) for 12 basic models of combination cooler-refrigerators that are required to be tested using the test procedure detailed at appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. AGA Marvel supplemented its filing with a March 9, 2016, email identifying the basic models. At the time of the petition, Appendix A required measuring the energy consumption of refrigerators using a standardized compartment temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), a temperature that, according to AGA Marvel, its products are not capable of achieving in all compartments. As a
DOE granted a similar waiver to Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of America (“PAPRSA”) in 2012 (under PAPRSA's previous corporate name, Sanyo E&E Corporation) (Case No. RF-022, 77 FR 49443 (August 16, 2012)), in 2013 (Case No. RF-031, 78 FR 57139 (Sept. 17, 2013)), and 2014 (Case No. RF-041, 79 FR 55769 (September 17, 2014)). On October 4, 2012, DOE issued a notice of correction to this Decision and Order by incorporating a K-factor (correction factor) value of 0.85 when calculating the energy consumption of the affected models. (77 FR 60688) On January 26, 2016, due to issues with regard to the equations detailed in the prior waiver decisions, DOE issued a proposed modification of its prior waivers and granted PAPRSA with an interim waiver (81 FR 4270) under Case No. RF-043 to correct these known issues. DOE also previously granted a similar waiver to Sub-Zero Group Inc. through an interim waiver (79 FR 55772 (September 17, 2014)) and a subsequent Decision and Order (80 FR 7854 (February 12, 2015)) under Case No. RF-040.
AGA Marvel's petition for waiver included an alternate test procedure to account for the energy consumption of its combination cooler-refrigerator products. Specifically, it proposed using the test procedure for combination cooler refrigeration products in appendix A. However, DOE's recent notice detailing a modified version of the calculation method used to measure and rate the energy use of products similar to AGA Marvel's combination cooler-refrigerators provides a simpler and equitable solution to the problems identified in AGA Marvel's petition. See 81 FR 4270 (notice granting interim waiver and seeking comment on DOE's proposal to modify PAPRSA's alternative test method for combination cooler refrigeration products). Accordingly, applying the test method outlined in the recent PAPRSA interim waiver to determine compliance with the existing refrigerator standards would follow an already-established approach and help ensure consistency when testing similar products (
AGA Marvel also requested an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure, which DOE granted. See 81 FR at 41531. DOE did not receive any comments on the AGA Marvel petition or the interim waiver.
DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure and believes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with AGA Marvel's combination cooler-refrigerator basic models.
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) staff concerning the AGA Marvel petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to AGA Marvel.
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by AGA Marvel and consultation with the FTC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 430.27, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The petition for waiver submitted by the AGA Marvel. (Case No. RF-045) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2) AGA Marvel must test and rate the AGA Marvel basic models specified in paragraph (3) on the basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, with the exception that it must calculate energy consumption using a correction factor (“K-factor”) of 0.85.
Therefore, the energy consumption is defined by:
If compartment temperatures are below their respective standardized temperatures for both test settings (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, sec. 6.2.4.1):
If compartment temperatures are not below their respective standardized temperatures for both test settings, the higher of the two values calculated by the following two formulas (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, sec. 6.2.4.2):
Energy consumption of the “cooler compartment”:
Energy consumption of the “fresh food compartment”:
(3) This Order applies only to the following basic models:
Basic models under the MARVEL brand:
Basic models under the MARVEL Outdoor brand:
Basic models under the MARVEL Professional brand:
Where (*) represents a character in the model number that corresponds to door swing, door style, color, or marketing features and has no impact on the number of compartments, compartment function, product class, or test method.
(4) Representations. AGA Marvel may make representations about the energy use of the specified basic models of its combination cooler-refrigerator products for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions outlined above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing.
(5) This Decision and Order will terminate on October 28, 2019, in conjunction with the compliance date of the recently published standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”). See 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016). Starting on October 28, 2019, testing to demonstrate compliance with those standards must be performed in accordance with the MREF test procedure final rule. See 81 FR 46768 (July 18, 2016) (MREF test procedure final rule) and 81 FR 49868 (July 29, 2016) (MREF test procedure final rule correction notice).
(6) This waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.
(7) Grant of this waiver does not release a petitioner from the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice.
In this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is forecasting the representative average unit costs of five residential energy sources for the year 2017 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act). The five sources are electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, propane, and kerosene.
The representative average unit costs of energy contained in this notice will become effective June 5, 2017 and will remain in effect until further notice.
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 287-1692,
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-7432,
Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the measurement of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.
Section 323(b)(3) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at
DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a
On June 5, 2017, the cost figures published in this notice will become effective and supersede those cost figures published on March 23, 2016. The cost figures set forth in this notice will be effective until further notice.
DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the data source for the 2017 representative average unit after-tax residential costs found in this notice. These costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the April 2017, EIA
The 2017 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective June 5, 2017. They will remain in effect until further notice.
Take notice that on April 27, 2017, South Central MCN LLC filed a petition for waiver of the requirement to file a FERC Form 3-Q for the periods of January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017, and April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017, as required by 18 CFR 141.400, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the B-System Project, proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in the above-referenced docket. Columbia requests authorization to modernize and upgrade Columbia's B-System pipelines by replacing and abandoning existing pipeline as well as constructing new pipeline and appurtenant facilities in Fairfield and Franklin Counties, Ohio.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the B-System Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Ohio Department of Natural Resources participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
As part of its proposed B-System Project, Columbia would:
• Abandon in place approximately 17.5 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline, remove two associated mainline valves (mileposts 7.7 and 10.9), install two gas heaters, and remove various exposed pipe segments on Columbia's Line B-105;
• construct approximately 14.0 miles of 20-inch-diameter replacement pipeline on Columbia's Line B-111;
• construct approximately 0.1 mile of 4-inch-diameter replacement pipeline on Columbia's Line B-121;
• construct approximately 0.5 mile of 4-inch-diameter replacement pipeline on Columbia's Line B-130;
• construct approximately 7.6 miles of new 20-inch-diameter pipeline (“Line K-270”) connecting Columbia's K-System and B-System; and
• remove, replace, restore, and install various appurtenances including connections, valves, aboveground piping, one regulation facility, and pig
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before May 30, 2017.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP16-498-000) with your submission. The Commission
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature located on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that on April 20, 2017, Caledonia Energy Partners, LLC (Caledonia), 20329 State Highway 249, Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77070, filed in Docket No. CP17-211-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Caledonia seeks authorization to abandon Gas Storage Wells No. 7 and No. 9, both located at its storage facility (Caledonia Facility) in Lowndes and Monroe Counties, Mississippi.
Caledonia proposes to perform these activities under its blanket certificate authority issued in Docket No. CP05-16-000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In its application, Caledonia also states that the abandonment of Wells No. 7 and No. 9 will not have an effect on Caledonia's ability to serve its storage customers, as there will be neither an effect on deliverability, nor an adverse impact to storage volumes. Caledonia also states that the proposed abandonment will not affect the existing boundary, total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, or the certificated capacity of the Caledonia Facility.
The filing may be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Nick Nicodemus, Director, Land and Regulatory Affairs, Enstor Gas, LLC, 20329 State Highway 249, Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77070, or by calling (281) 374-3089 (telephone),
Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
As announced in a Notice of Technical Conference issued on March 3, 2017, and in a Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference issued on April 13, 2017, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a technical conference on Monday, May 1, 2017, and Tuesday, May 2, 2017, to discuss certain matters affecting wholesale energy and capacity markets operated by the Eastern Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs). Each day, the conference will commence at approximately 9:00 a.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m. The conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Commissioners may participate in the conference.
The updated agenda for this technical conference, including speakers, is attached. All changes to the agenda since the Commission's April 13, 2017, Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference appear in italics.
All interested persons may attend the conference, and registration is not required. However, in-person attendees are encouraged to register on-line at:
The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available from Ace Reporting Company and may be purchased online at
While this conference is not for the purpose of discussing specific cases, it may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings that are pending:
•
•
•
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For further information please contact individuals identified for each topic:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. City of Watervliet (Watervliet) filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 28, 2017. Watervliet provided public notice of its request on March 3, 2017. In a letter dated April 27, 2017, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Watervliet's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Watervliet as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Watervliet filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a subsequent license for Project No. 2955-010. Pursuant to CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by February 29, 2020.
p. Register online at
Take notice that on April 21, 2017 Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed in the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210, 157.211 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Southern Star's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000, for authorization to construct, relocate, own, and operate a total of 6.76 miles in four non-contiguous segments of 20-inch-diameter Line V, and subsequently to abandon the equivalent segment in Noble and Logan Counties, Oklahoma, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Ronnie C. Hensley, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Southern Star Central Gas Pipelines, Inc., 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, phone (270) 852-4658, or email
Specifically, Southern Star states that proposed replacement will increase overall integrity and operational reliability of the Line V pipeline and allow this portion of the pipeline to receive in-line assessment instruments in the future. Southern Star states that the alignment of the proposed Line V replacement will be constructed approximately 25 feet from and parallel to the existing Line V pipeline except where avoiding interference with the footprint of Lawnview Cemetery located in Noble County. Southern Star plans to acquire amended easements from adjacent landowners of the cemetery and route the replacement pipeline around the cemetery property on the east side on adjacent properties. The estimated cost of the project is $11.6 million.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
Take notice that on April 17, 2017, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), Suite 200, 3201 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for its proposed Alaska LNG Project. Specifically, AGDC proposes: (i) A liquefaction facility designed to produce up to 20 million metric tons per annum of liquefied natural gas; (ii) an approximately 807-mile, 42-inch-diameter pipeline with a peak day capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet per day; (iii) a gas treatment plant; (iv) an approximately one-mile, 60-inch-diameter pipeline; (v) an approximately 63-mile, 32-inch-diameter pipeline; and (vi) eight compressor stations, all within the State of Alaska, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Frank T. Richards, P.E., Senior V.P., Program Management, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, Suite 200, 3201 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, by telephone at (907) 330-6532 or by email at
On September 12, 2014, Commission staff granted AGDC's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-21-000 to staff activities involved in the Alaska LNG Project. Now, as of April 17, 2017 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP17-178-000, as noted in the caption of the Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for this proposal. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on April 21, 2017, Spire STL Pipeline LLC (Spire), 700 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, filed an amendment to its application filed on January 26 pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's Regulations. Specifically, Spire is amending the application to propose a route alternative under which Spire would construct a new six-mile, 24-inch diameter pipeline for the final segment of its proposal (referred to as the North County Extension) instead of acquiring and refurbishing an existing seven-mile pipeline (known as Line 880) from its affiliated local gas distribution company, Laclede Gas Company (Laclede). The North County Extension would extend approximately six miles from the current terminus of the proposed 59-mile, 24-inch pipeline at the Laclede-Lange interconnect in St. Louis County, Missouri, through the northern portion of St. Louis County, and terminate at a new interconnection point with both Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC (MRT) and Laclede that would replace the existing Laclede-MRT interconnection at Chain of Rocks. The total length of the proposed project would be approximately 65 miles.
The filing may be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Scott Jaskowiak, Vice President, Spire STL Pipeline LLC, 700 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, phone: 314-516-8588, email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to assess the environmental effects of the Wisconsin South Expansion Project (Project) involving replacement and expansion of existing aboveground facilities by ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the area west and southwest of Lake Michigan. The Project would enable ANR to expand delivery by 230,950 dekatherm per day (Dth/d) into the Northern Illinois and Wisconsin market areas to meet growing natural gas demand.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
ANR proposes to install one new 6,130-horsepower (HP) Solar Centaur 50 compressor unit at ANR's existing Sandwich Compressor Station in Kendall County, Illinois; increase capacity of the existing Hampshire Meter Station in Kane County, Illinois from the current 320 million cubic feet per day (MMCFD) to 500 MMCFD; abandon by removal the existing 0.54-mile-long 16-inch-diameter Line 332 Lateral located in Kane County, Illinois, and replaced in the same ditch with a new 24-inch-diameter pipeline to increase flow capacity from the Hampshire Meter Station to Nicor; increase the capacity of ANR's existing Tiffany East Meter Station in Rock County, Wisconsin from the current 118 MMCFD to 237 MMCFD; and re-stage an existing Saturn 10 turbine compressor unit at ANR's Kewaskum Compressor Station in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket numbers (CP17-9-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically using the
(2) You may also file your comments electronically using the
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address:
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
In its
Upon receipt of the agency submissions, the Commission posted the information in eLibrary, and issued, on March 10, 2017, a notice announcing the date for a technical conference to review the submitted costs. On April 6, 2017, the Commission held the technical conference. Technical conference transcripts, submitted cost forms, and detailed supporting documents are all available for review under Docket No. AD17-1. These documents are accessible on-line at
Interested parties may file specific questions and comments on the FY 2016 OFA cost submissions with the Commission under Docket No. AD17-1, no later than May 15, 2017. Once filed, the Commission will forward the questions and comments to the OFAs for response.
Anyone with questions pertaining to the technical conference or this notice should contact Norman Richardson at (202) 502-6219 (via email at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on April 28, 2017, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e, and Rules 206 and 215 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.215, Linden VFT, LLC (Linden VFT or Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM or Respondent) alleging that (i) PJM does not have the authority to reallocate certain costs associated with Regional Transmission Expansion Plan projects b2436 and b2437 (BLC), (ii) PJM did not reallocate such cost using a methodology contained in the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, (iii) the PJM BLC cost reallocations are unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory and preferential, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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 and 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
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
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:
Revision to FR Notice Published 01/03/2014; The U.S. Forest Service is reopening the Review Period to end 06/05/2017.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public meeting.
EPA is planning to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee) under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) as indicated in a
This public meeting will be held on May 9, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on May 10, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The meeting on May 9 and 10, 2017, will be held at Capital Hilton, General Session Room (South American AB), 1001 16th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Any member of the public wishing to obtain information concerning the public meeting may contact Jonah Richmond, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, Office of General Counsel, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0210; email address:
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodation for a disability, please contact the DFO, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.
Any updates concerning the meeting announced in this notice may be found at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (including manufacture as a byproduct chemical substance and including import) chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this action may apply to them:
1. Chemical manufacturers and importers (NAICS codes 325 and 324110;
2. Chemical users and processors who may manufacture a byproduct chemical substance (NAICS codes 22, 322, 331, and 3344;
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0597, is available at
Under section 8(a)(6) of TSCA, as amended by the Lautenberg Act, EPA is required to enter into a negotiated rulemaking providing for limiting chemical data reporting requirements for manufacturers of any inorganic byproduct chemical substances when such byproduct chemical substances are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. This negotiation process includes the establishment of a federal advisory committee. Prior to establishing the Committee, EPA is holding a public meeting with potential committee members and the public for the purpose of information exchange and to discuss the process of negotiated rulemaking as indicated in a
EPA values public input during this process. The meeting announced in this notice will be open to the public, so interested parties may observe and communicate their views in the appropriate time and manner, as defined in the meeting agenda.
In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should submit requests by email to
Anyone may submit written statements; however, for timely consideration, statements should be supplied by email to
A copy of the agenda for this meeting will be posted to
15 U.S.C. 2601
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10400 Sun Security Bank, Ellington, Missouri (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Sun Security Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective May 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
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 22, 2017.
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project
Comments on this notice must be received by July 5, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by emails at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public the comment on this proposed information collection. As part of its effort to fulfill its mission goals, AHRQ, in collaboration with the Department of Defense's (DoD) Tricare Management Activity, developed TeamSTEPPS® (Team Strategies and Tools for Enhancing Performance and Patient Safety) to provide an evidence-based suite of tools and strategies for training teamwork-based patient safety to health care professionals. TeamSTEPPS includes multiple toolkits which are all tied to, or are variants of, the core curriculum. In addition to the core curriculum, TeamSTEPPS resources have been developed for primary care, rapid response systems, long-term care, and patients with limited English proficiency.
The main objective of the TeamSTEPPS program is to improve patient safety by training health care staff in various teamwork, communication, and patient safety concepts, tools, and techniques and ultimately helping to build national capacity for supporting teamwork-based patient safety efforts in health care organizations.
Created in 2007, AHRQ's National Implementation Program has trainedMaster Trainers who have stimulated the use and adoption of TeamSTEPPS in health care delivery systems. These individuals were trained using the TeamSTEPPS core curriculum at regional training centers across the U.S. AHRQ has also provided technical assistance and consultation on implementing TeamSTEPPS and has developed user networks, various educational venues and other channels of learning for continued support and the improvement of teamwork in health care. Since the inception of the National Implementation Program, AHRQ has trained more than 8,000 participants to serve as TeamSTEPPS Master Trainers.
Given the success of the National Implementation Program, AHRQ launched an effort to provide TeamSTEPPS training to primary care health professionals using the TeamSTEPPS in Primary Care version of the curriculum, which is now referred to as “TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care.”
Most of the participants in the current National Implementation Program's training come from hospital settings, because the TeamSTEPPS core curriculum is most aligned with that
As part of this initiative, AHRQ seeks to conduct an evaluation of the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training program. This evaluation seeks to understand the effectiveness of the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training and how trained practice facilitators implement TeamSTEPPS in primary care practices.
This research has the following goals:
(1) Conduct a formative assessment of the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training program to determine what revisions and improvement should be made to the training and how it is delivered, and
(2) Identify how trained participants use and implement the TeamSTEPPS tools and resources in primary care settings.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, the Health Research & Educational Trust and its subcontractor, IMPAQ International, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
This is a continuation of data collection for the purpose of conducting an evaluation of the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training program. The evaluation is formative in nature as AHRQ seeks information to improve the delivery of the online training.
To conduct the evaluation, the
In order to reduce respondent burden, the training participant questionnaire will be administered via the Web. Participant information acquired by HRET and its partner Reingold, Inc. when participants enroll in the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training program will be used to develop the distribution lists. Each potential respondent will receive up to five email communications to encourage participation (
Using an online system for data collection, rather than administering a paper-based questionnaire, will make completing and submitting the questionnaire less time-consuming for respondents. Any skip patterns included in the questionnaire (
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the study. The
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in the study. The total cost burden is estimated to be $24,944.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Delisting.
The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ has accepted a notification of voluntary relinquishment from the Healogics Patient Safety Institute of its status as a PSO, and has delisted the PSO accordingly. The Healogics Patient Safety Institute submitted this request for voluntary relinquishment after receiving a Notice of Preliminary Finding of Deficiency.
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on March 21, 2017.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from the Healogics Patient Safety Institute, a component entity of Healogics, Inc., PSO number P0169, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the Healogics Patient Safety Institute was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight EDT (2400) on March 21, 2017. AHRQ notes that the Healogics Patient Safety Institute submitted this request for voluntary relinquishment following receipt of the Notice of Preliminary Finding of Deficiency sent to the PSO on February 22, 2017.
Healogics Patient Safety Institute has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of Section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO. In addition, according to Sections 3.108(c)(2)(ii) and 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding disposition of PSWP, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, published in the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on March 30, 2017.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from the Empire State Patient Safety Assurance Network, PSO, a component entity of the University of Buffalo, PSO number P0048, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the Empire State Patient Safety Assurance Network, PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on March 30, 2017.
Empire State Patient Safety Assurance Network, PSO has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of Section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO. In addition, according to Sections 3.108(c)(2)(ii) and 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding disposition of PSWP, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by July 5, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. Antibiotics can have serious adverse effects including
More specifically, this project has the following goals:
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor Johns Hopkins University, with subcontracted partner NORC. The
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
(1)
(2)
(3) The AHRQ Surveys on Patient Safety Culture will be administered to all participating staff at the beginning and end of the intervention. Each survey asks questions about patient safety issues, medical errors, and event reporting in the respective settings.
a. The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) will be utilized to evaluate safety culture for acute care hospitals.
b. The Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture (NHSOPS) will be administered in long term care.
c. The Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture (MOSOPS) will be administered in ambulatory care centers.
(4) Semi-structured qualitative interviews: In-person and/or telephone discussions will be held before and after implementation with stewardship champions/organizational leaders, physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, certified nursing assistants and others deemed relevant, to learn about the facilitators and barriers to a successful antibiotic stewardship program. Specific areas of interest include stakeholder perceptions of implementation process and outcomes, including successes and challenges with carrying out project tasks and perceived utility of the project; staff roles, engagement and support; and antibiotic prescribing etiquette & culture (
(5)
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of five AHRQ subcommittee meetings.
The subcommittees listed below are part of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. These meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
See below for dates of meetings:
(Below specifics where each hotel will be held)
(To obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of the meetings.)
In accordance with section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), AHRQ announces meetings of the above-listed scientific peer review groups, which are subcommittees of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committees. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by June 5, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. This project, The Re-engineered Visit for Primary Care, directly addresses the agency's goal to conduct research to enhance the quality of health care and reduce avoidable readmissions, which are a major indicator of poor quality and patient safety.
Research from AHRQ's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) indicates that in 2011 there were approximately 3.3 million adult hospital readmissions in the United States. Adults covered by Medicare have the highest readmission rate (17.2 per 100 admissions), followed by adults covered by Medicaid (14.6 per 100 admissions) and privately insured adults (8.7 per
In recent years, payer and provider efforts to reduce readmissions have proliferated. Many of these national programs have been informed or guided by evidence-based research, toolkits and guides, such as AHRQ's RED (Re-Engineered Discharge), STAAR (STate Action on Avoidable Readmission), AHRQ's Project BOOST (Better Outcomes by Optimizing Safe Transitions), the Hospital Guide to Reducing Medicaid Readmissions, and Eric Coleman's Care Transitions Intervention. These efforts have largely focused on enhancing practices occurring within the hospital setting, including the discharge process transitions among providers and between settings of care. While many of these efforts have recognized the critical role of primary care in managing care transitions, they have not had an explicit focus on enhancing primary care with the aim of reducing avoidable readmissions.
Evidence-based guidance to reduce readmissions and improve patient safety are comparatively lacking for the primary care setting. This gap in the literature is becoming more pronounced as primary care is increasingly serving as the key integrator across the health system as part of payment and delivery system reforms. This research project aims to address the important and unfulfilled need to improve patient safety and reduce avoidable readmissions within the primary care context.
AHRQ's goals in supporting this 30-month project are to build on the knowledge base from the inpatient settings, add to the expanding evidence base on preventing readmissions by focusing on the primary care setting, and provide insight on the components and themes that should be part of a re-engineered visit in primary care. This work will ultimately inform an effective intervention that can be tested in a diverse set of primary care clinics.
To meet AHRQ's goals and objectives, the agency awarded a task order to John Snow, Inc. (JSI) to conduct qualitative research using quality improvement to investigate the primary care-based transitional care workflow from the primary care staff, patient, and community agency perspective.
This research has the following goals:
1. Analyze current processes in the primary care visit associated with hospital discharge; and
2. Identify components of the re-engineered visit.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and vale of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C 299a(a)(1) and (2).
To analyze current processes in the primary care visit associated with hospital discharge, the data collection is separated into seven smaller data collection activities to minimize research participant burden while still allowing for the collection of necessary data. Each of these tasks will be conducted at nine primary care sites:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
This has occurred despite the fact that clinical experience suggests that providers often fail to identify patient needs and concerns. Research has shown that there are cultural, social, and behavioral factors that may contribute to readmissions and assessing the patient's perspective can help to better understand the barriers to receiving appropriate follow-up care.
Patient and family interviews are increasingly common practices in efforts to improve care transitions and reduce readmissions, endorsed by CMS, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Kaiser Permanente, and others. This patient interview will collect unique information on the barriers to effective care transitions in the post-discharge period care, information which cannot be collected in other ways. It is anticipated that ten post-discharge patients per primary care site will be interviewed for a total of 90 patients.
7.
The purpose of this data collection is to understand the key components that should be included in the re-engineered visit in primary care. The project team will examine the diverse settings, staff, and transitional care activities across a variety of primary care practices to identify key transitional care processes that impact patient outcomes, the challenges to implementing those processes, and ways to improve those processes.
The project team will distill the themes and principles that should be a part of the re-engineered visit and develop an outline and summary of its components, with a comparison/contrast of the components across sites and discussion of the generalizability of these components to different settings.
The results of this research will add to the expanding evidence base on preventing readmissions by focusing on the primary care setting, and provide insight on the components and themes that should be part of a re-engineered visit. This information will ultimately inform an effective intervention that can be tested in a diverse set of primary care clinics.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated burden hours to the respondents for providing all of the data needed to meet the project's objectives. The hours estimated per responses are based on the pilot project results.
For the primary care site organizational characteristics survey and patient characteristics survey, one person per each of the nine primary care sites will participate. Both surveys are anticipated to take 1.5 hours to complete.
For the work flow mapping preliminary interviews, we estimate that eight primary care staff per primary care site will participate, with each individual spending 0.5 hours in these interviews. For the work flow mapping group interview, we estimate that 10 primary care staff per primary care site will participate, with each individual spending 1.5 hours in these interviews. Finally, we estimate that eight primary care staff per primary care site will participate in the work flow mapping follow-up interviews, with each individual spending 0.5 hours in this data collection activity.
There will be 10 patients interviewed in association with each primary care site. These patient interviews are expected to take 0.5 hours per individual research participant.
Lastly, there will be five community agency staff members interviewed in association with each primary care site. These interviews are expected to take 1 hour per individual research participant.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated cost burden for the respondents' time to participate in the project. The total annualized cost burden is estimated at $11,500.30.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services announces the next meeting of the Community Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) on June 14-15, 2017 in Atlanta, Georgia.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 14, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EDT and Thursday, June 15, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT.
The Task Force Meeting will be held at the CDC Edward R. Roybal Campus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Headquarters (Building 19), 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30329. You should be aware that the meeting location is in a Federal government building; therefore, strict Federal security measures are applicable. For additional information, please see Roybal Campus Security Guidelines under
U.S. citizens must register by June 7, 2017. To satisfy security requirements, Non U.S. citizens must register by May 29, 2017. Failure to register by the dates identified could result in the inability to attend the Task Force meeting.
Onslow Smith, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-E-69, Atlanta, GA 30329, phone: (404) 498-6778, email:
At the meetings, the Task Force considers systematic reviews and issues findings and recommendations based on the reviews. Task Force recommendations provide information about evidence-based options that decision makers and stakeholders can consider when they are determining what best meets the specific needs, preferences, available resources, and constraints of their jurisdictions and constituents.
All meeting attendees must RSVP by the dates outlined under
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for information and comments.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces four (4) draft Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Value Profile documents now available for public comment.
Electronic or written comments must be received by June 19, 2017.
You may submit responses, identified by CDC-2017-0048 and docket number NIOSH 156-C, by any of the following methods:
•
•
G. Scott Dotson, NIOSH, Education and Information Division, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, C-32, Cincinnati, OH 45226, telephone (513) 533-8540 (not a toll free number).
NIOSH seeks comments on four (4) draft IDLH values and IDLH Value Profile documents. The draft IDLH Value Profile documents were developed to provide the scientific rationale behind derivation of IDLH values for the following chemicals:
Each IDLH Value Profile document provides a detailed summary of the health hazards of acute exposures to high airborne concentrations and the rationale for the proposed IDLH value with the chemical(s) of interest.
To facilitate the review of these documents, NIOSH requests that the following questions be taken into consideration:
1. Does this document clearly outline the health hazards associated with acute (or short-term) exposures to the chemical? If not, what specific information is missing from the document?
2. Are the rationale and logic behind the derivation of an IDLH value for a specific chemical clearly explained? If not, what specific information is needed to clarify the basis of the IDLH value?
3. Are the conclusions supported by the data?
4. Are the tables clear and appropriate?
5. Is the document organized appropriately? If not, what improvements are needed?
6. Are you aware of any scientific data reported in governmental publications, databases, peer-reviewed journals, or other sources that should be included within this document?
The IDLH methodology is based on a weight-of-evidence approach that applies scientific judgment for critical evaluation of the quality and consistency of scientific data and in extrapolation from the available data to the IDLH value. The weight-of-evidence approach refers to critical examination of all available data from diverse lines of evidence and the derivation of a scientific interpretation on the basis of the collective body of data, including its relevance, quality, and reported results. Conceptually, the derivation process for IDLH values is similar to that used in other risk-assessment applications, including these steps:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by July 5, 2017.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
CMS updated the web portal system where state Departments of Insurance and issuers log in using a custom user
CMS is mandates that issuers verify and update their information on a quarterly basis and requests that States verify State-submitted information on an annual basis. In the event that an issuer enhances its existing plans, proposes new plans, or deactivates plans, the organization would be required to update the information in the web portal. Changes occurring during the three month quarterly periods will be allowed utilizing effective dates for both the plans and rates associated with the plans.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This quarterly notice lists CMS manual instructions, substantive and interpretive regulations, and other
It is possible that an interested party may need specific information and not be able to determine from the listed information whether the issuance or regulation would fulfill that need. Consequently, we are providing contact persons to answer general questions concerning each of the addenda published in this notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs and coordination and oversight of private health insurance. Administration and oversight of these programs involves the following: (1) Furnishing information to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, health care providers, and the public; and (2) maintaining effective communications with CMS regional offices, state governments, state Medicaid agencies, state survey agencies, various providers of health care, all Medicare contractors that process claims and pay bills, National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), health insurers, and other stakeholders. To implement the various statutes on which the programs are based, we issue regulations under the
Section 1871(c) of the Act requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the
This quarterly notice provides only the specific updates that have occurred in the 3-month period along with a hyperlink to the full listing that is available on the CMS Web site or the appropriate data registries that are used as our resources. This is the most current up-to-date information and will be available earlier than we publish our quarterly notice. We believe the Web site list provides more timely access for beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers. We also believe the Web site offers a more convenient tool for the public to find the full list of qualified providers for these specific services and offers more flexibility and “real time” accessibility. In addition, many of the Web sites have listservs; that is, the public can subscribe and receive immediate notification of any updates to the Web site. These listservs avoid the need to check the Web site, as notification of updates is automatic and sent to the subscriber as they occur. If assessing a Web site proves to be difficult, the contact person listed can provide information.
This notice is organized into 15 addenda so that a reader may access the subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice to determine whether any are of particular interest. We expect this notice to be used in concert with previously published notices. Those unfamiliar with a description of our Medicare manuals should view the manuals at
ANA, ACF, HHS.
Issuance of Final Policies.
The Administration for Native Americans (ANA) is issuing final interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice relating to the following seven Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs): Environmental Regulatory Enhancement (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NR-1221); Sustainable Employment and Economic Development Strategies (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NE-1225); Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance—Esther Martinez Immersion (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NB-1226); Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NL-1235); Social and Economic Development Strategies (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NA-1236); Social and Economic Development Strategies—Alaska (HHS-2015-ACF-ANA-NK- 0960); and Native Youth Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment, and Development (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NC-1263).
The policies described in the Notice for Public Comment (NOPC) are effective immediately upon publication.
Carmelia Strickland, Director, Division of Program Operations and Administration for Native Americans, (877) 922-9262.
Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), as amended, requires ANA to provide notice and allow for comment on its proposed interpretive rules and general statements of policy. This Notice responds to comments to ANA's January 23, 2017, NOPC, provides notice of the cancellation of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Sustainable Employment and Economic Development Strategies (SEEDS) FOA, and provides information on where to find the FY 2017 FOAs.
ANA published a NOPC in the
ANA received feedback from the Cherokee Nation. ANA considered the comments and determined none of them required changes to any of the FOAs. Many of the comments expressed agreement with ANA's changes to the FOAs. We appreciate the comments and they require no response or changes. A few comments expressed concerns or made suggestions about some of the changes. We respond to those below:
ANA forecasted the issuance of SEEDS FOA (HHS-ACF-ANA-NE-1225) for FY 2017 and included it in the NOPC in the
ANA is not seeking comments on this cancellation of the SEEDS FOA. Section 814(b) of NAPA requires that ANA follow the notice and comment procedures in the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553 for interpretive rules and statements of policy but, like in 5 U.S.C. 553, creates an exception when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Seeking comments on the cancellation is impracticable because ANA has made this decision due to a lack of funding and any comments cannot change ANA's funding for FY 2017.
For information on the types of projects funded by ANA, please refer to
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than July 5, 2017.
Submit statements and comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
The UDS data collection for 2018 will be revised in three ways. To support continued efforts to standardize data collection and reduce the burden per respondent of reporting for health centers, the measures stated below will be updated, where necessary, to align with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services electronic clinical quality measures (CMS e-CQMs) designated for the 2018 reporting period. Specifically:
• Poor glycemic control is defined as HbA1c > 9% per the CMS Meaningful Use and e-specifications.” Therefore, HRSA is removing this column to be consistent with the Healthy People 2020 national benchmark and CMS and to reduce reporting burden.
• Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) recognition assesses a health center's approach to patient-centered care. HRSA collects PCMH data on a quarterly basis outside of UDS. Therefore, HRSA is removing this question to reduce reporting burden.
• Telehealth is increasingly used as a method of health care delivery for the health center patient population, especially those hard-to-reach patients living in geographically isolated communities. Collecting information on telehealth capacity and use of telehealth is essential for (1) the delivery of technical assistance for health centers and (2) improving the health of the nation's underserved communities and vulnerable populations by assuring access to comprehensive, culturally competent, quality primary health care services. Based on the uniqueness of telehealth data and its introduction into the UDS system, HRSA is proposing more robust questions to better capture this data.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than July 5, 2017.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The NHSC invites current and former NHSC participants and individuals affiliated with academic, clinical, and other public health related organizations to participate in the NHSC Ambassador Program. NHSC Ambassadors provide professional development, training, and mentorship to NHSC Corps members interested in primary care and serving in a HPSA. NHSC Ambassadors also educate current and prospective NHSC participants about the unique or local characteristics of a particular NHSC site, HPSA, or region. NHSC Ambassadors inspire and motivate students and clinicians to provide primary care in communities with health professional shortages.
The NHSC Ambassador Portal serves as both the application interface for interested individuals to apply and become NHSC Ambassadors, as well as the public-facing online searchable database of contact information for Ambassadors. An applicant creates an Ambassador profile that contains information such as name, email address, professional/employment information (including organization name and address, or the school attending), phone number(s), discipline(s) interested in interacting with, and a brief reason why he or she would like to be Ambassador. Completed applications are forwarded through the portal to NHSC staff. If approved, an NHSC Ambassador has the opportunity to add a brief professional biography and social network addresses to his or her profile. Assistance in completing the application is provided through prompts via the online portal and through the NHSC Customer Care Center, if necessary.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the next federal advisory committee meeting regarding the development of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030. This meeting will be held online via webinar and is open to the public. The Committee will discuss the nation's health promotion and disease prevention objectives and will provide recommendations to improve health status and reduce health risks for the nation by the year 2030. The Committee will advise the Secretary on the Healthy People 2030 mission, vision, framework, and organizational structure. The Committee will provide advice regarding criteria for identifying a more focused set of measurable, nationally representative objectives. The Committee's advice must assist the Secretary in reducing the number of objectives while ensuring that the selection criteria identifies the most critical public health issues that are high-impact priorities supported by current national data.
The Committee will meet on June 27, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
The meeting will be held online via webinar. To register to attend the meeting, please visit the Healthy People Web site at
Emmeline Ochiai, Designated Federal Officer, Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Room LL-100, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8280 (telephone), (240) 453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Healthy People Web site at
The names and biographies of the Committee members are available at
To join the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Healthy People Web site at
42 U.S.C. 217a. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App.) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension, 1670-0027.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of the Chief Information Office has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request: “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 5, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0022, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant Web sites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
The information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. NPPD is planning to submit this collection to OMB for approval. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.
This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between NPPD and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on NPPD's services will be unavailable.
NPPD will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
1. The collections are voluntary;
2. The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
3. The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
4. Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
5. Personally identifiable information is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
6. Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the NPPD (if released, NPPD must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
7. Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
8. Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing personal information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
This is an extension of an existing information collection. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
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,
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice.
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. This collection consists of one form. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017.
To ensure that your comments are considered, OMB must receive them on or before June 5, 2017.
Please submit your written comments on this IC directly to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, at
Elizabeth S. Sangine, National Minerals Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 989, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-7720 (phone); or
Respondents to this form supply the USGS with domestic consumption data for 12 metals and ferroalloys, some of which are considered strategic and critical to assist in determining stockpile goals. These data and derived information will be published as chapters in Minerals Yearbooks, monthly Mineral Industry Surveys, annual Mineral Commodity Summaries, and special publications, for use by Government agencies, industry education programs, and the general public.
On January 24, 2017, a 60-day
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authorities for this collection are:
• National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (30 U.S.C. 1601
• National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21(a))
• Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ely District Office is establishing a new Individual Special Recreation Permit (ISRP) requirement for recreational use in the Cave Valley Cave, Goshute Cave, and Whipple Cave. This Notice also announces seasonal or temporary cave closures within the Ely District.
This new ISRP requirement is effective on May 5, 2017. These cave closures will be in effect from June 5, 2017 and will remain in effect until June 5, 2019, unless otherwise rescinded or modified by the Authorized Officer or designated Federal Officer.
Michael J. Herder, Ely District Manager,
The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301) states that significant caves on Federal lands are an invaluable and irreplaceable part of the Nation's natural heritage. In some instances, these significant caves are threatened due to improper use, increased recreational demands, urban spread, and lack of specific statutory protection. As provided by the Act, it is also the policy of the United States that Federal lands be managed in a manner that protects and maintains, to the extent practical, significant caves.
The Ely District encompasses 11.4 million acres of public land in east-central Nevada, on which there are about 40 known undeveloped caves. In addition to the known caves, it is possible that there are many caves left to be discovered. With increasing visitation and increased vandalism, additional measures are needed to effectively protect caves in the District. The Ely District Office has completed the Ely District Cave and Karst Management Plan (Plan) and Environmental Assessment. The Plan provides guidance for cave management and protection in accordance with the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, while providing for recreation within caves across the District. The Plan also establishes direction for long-term management, planning, and oversight of the District's cave resources, while identifying site-specific management actions for recreational use, scientific research, and management of cave resources.
The Ely District Office determined which caves to select for closure based on visitor use monitoring and identification of significant resource values. Monitoring of caves in the District has resulted in resource damage concerns resulting from recreational pressures. The new ISRP (referred to as a cave use permit system in the Ely District Plan) is being established to better manage recreational use while providing an opportunity to educate the public on the importance of protecting critical cave resources.
Application procedures for “private noncommercial individual use of special areas” are established here in accordance with 43 CFR 2932.22(b) and OMB control number 1004-0119. Visitors may obtain an office-issued permit in person at the Ely District Office. A permit may also be obtained by phone, or by downloading the application from the Ely District Office Web site and returning it by email, fax or U.S. mail. Self-issued permit stations will be established at Pescio Cave and Leviathan Cave. Each party is required to display the cave use permit on their vehicle's dashboard during their visit to the cave. A limit on the frequency of visitation is set for Cave Valley Cave, Goshute Cave, and Whipple Cave as determined in the site-specific management actions for those caves in the Plan. Based on our understanding of the carrying capacity of caves on the District, the Ely District Office will limit the number of visits and size of groups in the following caves: Cave Valley Cave, Goshute Cave, Leviathan Cave, Pescio Cave, and Whipple Cave.
Notice is also given that the Rose Guano Bat Cave will be closed each year during the bat maternity and migratory season (April 1-November 1); the Cave Valley Cave's side-passage will be closed to protect maternity colonies; and two significant caves on the District (NV-040-003 and NV-040-010) will be closed to protect cave integrity, cultural resources and Native American tribal concerns.
These restrictions do not apply to:
(1) Any Federal, State or local government officer or member of an organized rescue or fire fighting force while in the performance of an official duty.
(2) Any Bureau of Land Management employee, agent, contractor, or cooperator while in the performance of an official duty.
(3) Any Federal, State, local, or contract law enforcement officer, while in the performance of their official duties, or while enforcing this closure notice.
Violation of the requirement to obtain a permit is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a Class A misdemeanor in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581
Any person who violates this closure may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Nevada law.
43 CFR 2932.13, 2932.22, and 8364.1(a).
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.
Notice of extension.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), ONRR is inviting comments on a collection of information requests that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the paperwork requirements in the regulations under title 30,
You must submit your written comments on or before July 5, 2017.
You may submit comments on this ICR to ONRR by using one of the following three methods. Please reference “ICR 1012-0009” in your comments.
1. Electronically go to
2. Email comments to Mr. Armand Southall, Regulatory Specialist, at
3. Hand-carry or mail comments, using an overnight courier service, to ONRR. Our courier address is Building 53, entrance E-20, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225. Visitor parking is available near entrance E-20, with a phone to request entry. Call Mr. Armando Salazar at (303) 231-3585 or Ms. Janet Giron at (303) 231-3088 to gain entrance.
For questions on technical issues, contact
ONRR collects and uses this information to determine all allowable direct and allocable joint costs and credits under § 1220.011 incurred during the lease term, appropriate overhead allowance permitted on these costs under § 1220.012, and allowances for capital recovery calculated under § 1220.020. ONRR also collects this information to ensure that royalties or net profit share payments are accurately valued and appropriately paid. This ICR affects only oil and gas leases on submerged Federal lands on the OCS.
Title 30 CFR part 1220 covers the net profit share lease (NPSL) program and establishes reporting requirements for determining the net profit share base under § 1220.021 and calculating of net profit share payments due to the Federal government for the production of oil and gas from leases under § 1220.022.
To encourage exploration and development of oil and gas leases on submerged Federal lands on the OCS, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) promulgated regulations at 30 CFR part 260—Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing. Also, BOEM promulgated specific implementing regulations for the NPSL bidding system at § 260.110(d). BOEM established the NPSL bidding system to balance a fair market return to the Federal government for the lease of its public lands with a fair profit to companies risking their investment capital. The system provides an incentive for early expeditious exploration and development and provides for sharing the risks by the lessee and the Federal government. The NPSL bidding system incorporates a fixed capital recovery system as a means through which the lessee recovers costs of exploration and development from production revenues, along with a reasonable return on investment.
The Federal government does not receive a profit share payment from an NPSL until the lessee shows a credit balance in its capital account; that is, cumulative revenues and other credits exceed cumulative costs. Lessees multiply the credit balance by the net profit share rate (30 to 50 percent), resulting in the amount of net profit share payment due the Federal government.
ONRR requires lessees to maintain an NPSL capital account for each lease under § 1220.010, which transfers to a new owner when sold. Following the cessation of production, lessees are also required to provide either an annual or a monthly report to the Federal government, using data from the capital account until the lease is terminated, expired, or relinquished.
The NPSL lessees must notify BOEM of their intent to take inventory so that the BOEM Director may be represented at the taking of inventory under § 1220.032. Each lessee must file a report after each inventory is taken, reporting the controllable material under § 1220.031.
When non-operators of an NPSL call for an audit, they must notify ONRR. When ONRR calls for an audit, the lessee must notify all non-operators on the lease. These requirements are located at § 1220.033.
The information we collect under this ICR is essential in order to determine when net profit share payments are due and to ensure that lessees properly value and pay royalties or net profit share payments.
We will request OMB approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge fiduciary duties and may also result in the inability to confirm the accurate royalty value. ONRR protects the proprietary information received and does not collect items of a sensitive nature.
All fourteen lessees report monthly because all current NPSLs are in producing status. Because the requirements for establishment of capital accounts at § 1220.010(a) and capital account annual reporting at § 1220.031(a) are necessary only during the non-producing status of a lease, ONRR included only one response annually for these requirements, in case a new NPSL is established. We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business, which are considered usual and customary. The following table shows the estimated annual burden hours by CFR section and paragraph.
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency to “* * * provide
The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or record-keepers resulting from the collection of information. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods that you use to estimate (1) major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, (2) expected useful life of capital equipment, (3) discount rate(s), and (4) the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software that you purchase to prepare for collecting information and monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment, and record-storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased (i) before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Federal government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business, or private practices.
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you, without charge, upon request. We also will post the ICR at
The authorities for this action are the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1337) and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
May 12, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-1359 (Preliminary) (Carton Closing Staples from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination on May 15, 2017; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on May 22, 2017.
5.
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.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
May 11, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-573-574 and 731-TA-1349-1358 (Preliminary)(Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on May 12, 2017; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on May 19, 2017.
5.
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.
By order of the Commission.
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Of The United States, Department of Justice.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (Commission), Department of Justice, proposes to establish a new system of records to enable the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibility to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is effective upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, described below. Therefore, please submit any comments by June 5, 2017. Following the 30-day comment period, the routine uses, described below, will be effective.
The public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress are invited to submit any comments to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579.
Jeremy LaFrancois, Chief Administrative Counsel, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, U.S. Department of Justice, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579, or by telephone at (202) 616-6975.
On December 23, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, Title XVII, Public Law 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000, 2641-2647 (2016) (the “Guam Loyalty Recognition Act” or “Act”). The Act authorizes the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (Commission) to adjudicate claims and determine the eligibility of individuals for payments under the Act, in recognition of harms suffered by residents of Guam as a result of the occupation of Guam by Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II.
The system of records covered by this notice is necessary for the Commission's adjudication of claims under the Act. These records shall form the basis upon which the Commission will determine an individual's eligibility for and amount of payments under the Act. This system will not have any effect on any other systems of records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Commission has provided a report to OMB and the Congress on the new system of records.
Claims Arising under the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, JUSTICE/FCSC-32.
Unclassified.
Offices of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579.
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975. Fax: (202) 616-6993.
Authority to establish and maintain this system is contained in 5 U.S.C, 301 and 44 U.S.C. 3101, which authorize the Chairman of the Commission to create and maintain federal records of agency activities, and is further described in 22 U.S.C. 1622e, which vests all non-adjudicatory functions, powers and duties in the Chairman of the Commission.
To enable the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibility to determine the validity and amount of claims arising under the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.
Persons who file claims pursuant to the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.
Claim information, including name and address of claimant and representative, if any; date and place of birth, naturalization, or residency; nature of claim; description of loss or injury, including medical records; and other evidence establishing entitlement to payments under the Act.
Claimant on whom the record is maintained.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected.
a. To the Department of the Treasury in connection with the negotiation, adjudication, settlement and payment of claims;
b. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government, when necessary to accomplish a Commission function related to this system of records;
c. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record;
d. Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law;
e. In an appropriate proceeding before the Commission, or before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Department of Justice and/or the Commission determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding;
f. To a former employee of the Commission for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Commission regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Commission requires information and/or consultation from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility;
g. To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of
h. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to the individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;
i. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach;
j. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute or treaty.
Paper records maintained in file folders at the Commission's office and electronic records located on the Commission's Server.
Information from this system of records will be retrieved by claim number and/or decision number. An alphabetical index may be used by the Commission for identification of a claim by claimants' name.
Records are maintained under 5 U.S.C. 301. Disposal of records will be in accordance with the determination by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Paper records are under security safeguards at the Commission's office. Such safeguards include storage in a central location within a limited access building and a further limited access suite. Accordingly, access is limited to Commission employees and contractors with appropriate security clearances. The electronic records are safeguarded by the DOJ JCON security procedures. Access to the Commission's data requires a password and is limited to Commission employees and contractors with appropriate security clearances.
(a) Upon request in person or by mail, any individual will be informed whether or not a system of records maintained by the Commission contains a record or information pertaining to that individual. (b) Any individual requesting access to a record or information on himself or herself must appear in person at the offices of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and (1) Provide information sufficient to identify the record,
(a) Any individual may request amendment of a record pertaining to himself or herself according to the procedure in paragraph (b) of this section, except in the case of records described under paragraph (d) of this section. (b) After inspection by an individual of a record pertaining to himself or herself, the individual may file a written request, presented in person or by mail, with the Administrative Officer, for an amendment to a record. The request must specify the particular portions of the record to be amended, the desired amendments and the reasons therefor. (c) Not later than ten (10) days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the receipt of a request made in accordance with this section to amend a record in whole or in part, the Administrative Officer will: (1) Make any correction of any portion of the record which the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely or complete and thereafter inform the individual of such correction; or (2) Inform the individual, by certified mail return receipt requested, of the refusal to amend the record, setting forth the reasons therefor, and notify the individual of the right to appeal that determination as provided under 45 CFR 503.8. (d) The provisions for amending records do not apply to evidence presented in the course of Commission proceedings in the adjudication of claims, nor do they permit collateral attack upon what has already been subject to final agency action in the adjudication of claims in programs previously completed by the Commission pursuant to statutory time limitations.
The Administrative Officer will inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute made in accordance with title 45 CFR 503.7 of any record that has been disclosed to the person or agency if an accounting of the disclosure was made.
None.
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 60 days of this publication in the
Patricia Loiko, National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506-0001, telephone (202) 682-5541 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 682-5721. Dated: May 2, 2017.
The National Endowment for the Arts is particularly interested in comments which:
The National Science Board (NSB), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of NSB business as follows:
May 9, 2017 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and May 10, 2017 from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT.
These meetings will be held at the NSF headquarters, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Meetings are held in Room 1235 unless it is noted that the meeting is being held in Room 1295. All visitors must contact the Board Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email to
Public meetings and public portions of meetings held in Room 1235 will be webcast. To view these meetings, go to:
Please refer to the NSB Web site for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter, and status of meeting) may be found at
The NSB will continue its program to provide some flexibility around meeting times. After the first meeting of each day, actual meeting start and end times will be allowed to vary by no more than 15 minutes in either direction. As an example, if a 10:00 meeting finishes at 10:45, the meeting scheduled to begin at 11:00 may begin at 10:45 instead. Similarly, the 10:00 meeting may be allowed to run over by as much as 15 minutes if the Chair decides the extra time is warranted. The next meeting would start no later than 11:15.
Arrive at the NSB boardroom or check the webcast 15 minutes before the scheduled start time of the meeting you wish to observe. Members of the public are invited to provide feedback on this program. Contact:
Brad Gutierrez,
Nadine Lymn,
Portions open; portions closed.
2:30 p.m.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), to withdraw its application dated September 1, 2016, for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-38. The proposed amendment would have revised the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) Technical Specifications (TSs) to relocate the surveillance frequency requirements for selected Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Subgroup relays to a licensee-controlled program. Specifically, the license amendment would have revised the Table Notation for TS Table 4.3-2, “Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements,” to relocate the surveillance frequency of additional relays to the Waterford 3 Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP).
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0239 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available
•
•
•
April Pulvirenti, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1390, email:
The NRC has granted the request of Entergy to withdraw its September 1, 2016, application (ADAMS accession no. ML16245A359) for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-38 for Waterford 3, located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
The amendment would have revised the Waterford 3 TSs to relocate the surveillance frequency requirements for selected ESFAS Subgroup relays to a licensee-controlled program. Specifically, the license amendment would have revised the Table Notation for TS Table 4.3-2, “Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements,” to relocate the surveillance frequency of additional relays to the Waterford 3 SFCP. The Commission previously published a proposed finding in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard Review Plan—draft section revision; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is soliciting public comment on draft NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” Section 13.6.1, “Physical Security—Combined License and Operating Reactors.” The NRC seeks comments on the proposed draft section revision of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) concerning guidance for the review of combined construction and operating license (COL) and operating license (OL) applications and amendments for physical security.
Comments must be filed no later than July 5, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Mark D. Notich, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-3053; email
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0111 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0111 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC seeks public comment on the proposed draft section revision of SRP Section 13.6.1. The changes to SRP Chapter 13 reflect the current staff reviews, methods and practices based on lessons learned from the NRC's reviews of design certification and combined license applications completed since the last revision of this chapter. The draft SRP section would also provide guidance for reviewing an application for a combined license under part 52 of title 10 of the
Following NRC staff evaluation of public comments, the NRC intends to incorporate the approved revisions into the next revision of NUREG-0800. The SRP is guidance for the NRC staff. The SRP is not a substitute for the NRC regulations, and compliance with the SRP is not required.
Issuance of this draft SRP section, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 of 10 CFR, (the Backfit Rule) or otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The NRC's position is based upon the following considerations.
1.
The SRP provides guidance to the NRC staff on how to review an application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in internal staff guidance are not matters for which either nuclear power plant applicants or licensees are protected under either the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52.
2.
The NRC staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in the draft SRP to existing (already issued) licenses and regulatory approvals. Hence, the issuance of a final SRP—even if considered guidance which is within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—need not be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the NRC staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP on holders of already issued licenses in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the NRC staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.
3.
Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions discussed below—were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants.
The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of May, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a request from Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to amend the license for the Rancho Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) to allow the storage of byproduct nuclear material. The amendment would allow SMUD to use the byproduct nuclear material to check the functionality of radiation detection instruments. The NRC is evaluating whether approval of this request would be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by July 5, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0110 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:
•
•
•
Chris Allen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6877; email:
The NRC received, by letter dated January 17, 2017, a request from SMUD to amend Materials License No. SNM-2510 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17026A433). License No. SNM-2510 authorizes the licensee to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent fuel and greater than Class C waste at Rancho Seco ISFSI. The amendment, if approved, would add a license condition to allow the storage of byproduct nuclear material at Rancho Seco ISFSI. The SMUD would use the byproduct nuclear material to check the functionality of radiation detection instruments.
An NRC administrative completeness review, documented in a letter to SMUD dated March 17, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17074A011), found the application acceptable to begin a technical review. The NMSS has docketed this application under docket number 72-11. If the NRC approves the amendment, the approval will be documented in an amendment to NRC Materials License No. SNM-2510. However, before approving the proposed amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report. In the amendment request, SMUD asserted that the proposed amendment satisfies the categorical exclusion criteria of section 51.22(c)(11) of title 10 of the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
A State, local governmental body, federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 5, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of May 8, 15, 22, 29, June 5, 12, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 15, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 22, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 29, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 5, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for emergency clearance and review for existing information collection requests for the following OPM surveys: Customer Satisfaction Survey; Organizational Assessment Survey, Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, Exit Survey, and New Leaders Onboarding Assessment; and the OPM Leadership 360
Comments will be accepted until July 5, 2017.
Send or deliver comments to: Andrea Zappone, HR Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415.
Emergency clearance is requested given the current forms (Customer Satisfaction Survey (OMB No. 3206-0236); Organizational Assessment Survey, Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, Exit Survey, and New Leaders Onboarding Assessment (OMB No. 3206-0252); and the OPM Leadership 360
• whether this information is necessary and will have practical utility for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management and its client agencies on whose behalf the Office Personnel Management administers the surveys;
• whether our estimate of the public burden of these collections of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
• ways in which we can minimize the burden of these collections of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
For copies of this proposal, contact Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Andrea Zappone, or via email to
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension without change of a currently approved information collection (ICR), Initial Certification of Full-Time School Attendance, RI 25-41.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, Room 2347-E, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0099).
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of 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,
Form RI 25-41, Initial Certification of Full-Time School Attendance is used to determine whether a child is unmarried and a full-time student in a recognized school. OPM must determine this in order to pay survivor annuity benefits to children who are age 18 or older under title 5, U.S.C. Sections 8341(A)(4) and Chapter 84, Section 8441 (4)(C).
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the reinstatement of an expired information collection request (ICR) with change, Report of Medical Examination of Person Electing Survivor Benefits, OPM 1530.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0162) was previously published in the
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,
OPM Form 1530 is used to collect information regarding an annuitant's health so that OPM can determine whether the insurable interest survivor benefit election can be allowed.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), Request to Disability Annuitant for Information on Physical Condition and Employment, RI 30-1.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Retirement Services, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, Room 2347-E or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting, the Retirement Services Publications Team, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent by email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0143). The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Form RI 30-1 is used by persons who are not yet age 60 and who are receiving a disability annuity and are subject to inquiry regarding their medical condition as OPM deems reasonably necessary. RI 30-1 collects information as to whether the disabling condition has changed.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension without change of a currently approved information collection (ICR), Disabled Dependent Questionnaire, RI 30-10.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, Room 2347-E, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0179). The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of 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,
Form RI 30-10 is used to collect sufficient information about the medical condition and earning capacity for the Office of Personnel Management to be able to determine whether a disabled adult child is eligible for health benefits coverage and/or survivor annuity payments under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees Retirement System.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the reinstatement of an expired information collection request (ICR) without change, Civil Service Retirement System Survivor Annuitant Express Pay Application for Death Benefits, RI 25-51.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0233) was previously published in the
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,
Form RI 25-51 is used by the Civil Service Retirement System solely to pay benefits to the widow(er) of an annuitant. This application is intended for use in immediately authorizing payments to an annuitant's widow or widower, based on the report of death, when our records show the decedent elected to provide benefits for the applicant.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the reinstatement of an expired information collection request (ICR) without change, Death Benefit Payment Rollover Election, RI 94-7.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0218) was previously published in the
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
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,
Form RI 94-7 provides Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) surviving spouses and former spouses with the means to elect payment of FERS rollover-eligible benefits directly or to an Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA), eligible employer plan or Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension without change of a currently approved information collection (ICR), Evidence to Prove Dependency of a Child, RI 25-37.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, Room 2347-E, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0206). The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of 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,
Form RI 25-37 is designed to collect sufficient information for the Office of Personnel Management to determine whether the surviving child of a deceased federal employee is eligible to receive benefits as a dependent child.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension without change of a currently approved information collection (ICR), Verification of Adult Student Enrollment Status, RI 25-49.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, Room 2347-E, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0215). The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of 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,
Form RI 25-49 is used to verify that adult student annuitants are entitled to payment. The Office of Personnel Management must confirm that a full-time enrollment has been maintained.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 804(h) regarding quote mitigation.
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
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 804, entitled “Market Maker Quotations,” to specifically amend Rule 804(h) which addresses the Exchange's quote traffic mitigation plan to adopt a similar quote mitigation plan to that of NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”).
ISE implemented its quote mitigation plan in conjunction with joining other options exchanges in entering into the Penny Pilot Program to Quote Certain Options in Pennies. In 2007, ISE proposed to amend its rules to permit certain options classes to be quoted in pennies during a six-month pilot.
ISE Rule 804(h) provides that ISE shall utilize a mechanism so that newly-received quotations and other changes to the Exchange's best bid and offer are not disseminated for a period of up to, but not more than one second. With the upcoming planned migration to INET,
Phlx Rule 1082(a)(ii)(C) sets forth the conditions under which Phlx disseminates updated quotations based on changes in the Exchange's disseminated price and/or size. Phlx disseminates an updated bid and offer price, together with the size associated with such bid and offer, when: (1) Phlx's disseminated bid or offer price increases or decreases; (2) the size associated with Phlx's disseminated bid or offer decreases; or (3) the size associated with Phlx's bid (offer) increases by an amount greater than or equal to a percentage (never to exceed 20%)
The Exchange will not be adopting Phlx Rule 1082(a)(ii)(C)(4). This functionality is not necessary on INET. Phlx adopted 1082(a)(ii)(C)(4) when it was not operating on INET, with its subsequent replatform to INET functionality, 1082(a)(ii)(C)(4) was no longer necessary because of the real-time features which exist on INET. The INET functionality rendered the rule text in 1082(a)(ii)(C)(4) as unnecessary.
The Exchange will begin a system migration to Nasdaq INET in Q2 of 2017.
Upon completion of the migration to INET, ISE will set an initial percentage of 3% to be applied to all issues, which will be announced in an Options Trader Alert. ISE will continue to monitor the quote activity on the market and would not notify participants of any incremental increase in the size of the Exchange's quote to be disseminated to OPRA.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Phlx quote mitigation process has been in place since 2007. Phlx is operating on the INET system today, the same system that ISE will migrate to for its operating system. The Exchange believes that Phlx's quote mitigation process has successfully controlled Phlx's quote capacity. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to utilize a similar process as Phlx to mitigate quotes for ISE given the system architecture which will be utilized on ISE with the upcoming migration. Additionally, Nasdaq, Inc., a common parent to Phlx and ISE, has experience with this quote mitigation strategy on INET. The Exchange has selected to mitigate ISE at 3% to start and determine if the percentage will need to be adjusted thereafter. While ISE, similar to Phlx, is a mature market with various auction offerings and higher volumes, ISE will be newly migrated to INET. The Exchange plans on monitoring the volume on this market to determine if the percentage needs to be adjusted. Utilizing 3% as the initial percentage will provide the Exchange with data for the newly migrated market.
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. The Exchange proposes to mitigate all options trading on ISE. All options exchanges have a quote mitigation process in place in connection with their participation in the Penny Pilot Program.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant
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.
By letter dated May 01, 2017 (the “Letter”), counsel for Alpha Architect ETF Trust (the “Trust”), on behalf of the Trust, Alpha Architect Value Momentum Trend ETF (the “Fund”), any national securities exchange or national securities association on or through which shares issued by the Fund (“Shares”) are listed and/or may subsequently trade, Quasar Distributors, LLC (the “Distributor”), and other persons engaging in transactions in Shares (collectively, the “Requestors”), requested exemptions, or interpretive or no-action relief, from Rule 10b-17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M, in connection with secondary market transactions in Shares and the creation or redemption of aggregations of 50,000 Shares (“Creation Units”).
The Trust is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Fund is an exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) organized as a series of the Trust. The Fund seeks to track the performance of the Alpha Architect Value Momentum Trend Index (the “Index”). The Fund intends to operate as an “ETF of ETFs” by seeking to track the performance of its underlying Index through, under normal circumstances,
The Requestors represent, among other things, the following:
• Shares of the Fund will be issued by the Trust, an open-end management investment company that is registered with the Commission;
• The Trust will continuously redeem Creation Units at net asset value (“NAV”), and the secondary market price of the Shares should not vary
• Shares of the Fund will be listed and traded on BATS Exchange, Inc. or another exchange in accordance with exchange listing standards that are, or will become, effective pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act (the “Exchange”);
• All Underlying ETFs in which the Fund invests will either meet all conditions set forth in relevant class relief, will have received individual relief from the Commission, or will be able to rely upon individual relief even though they are not named parties;
• All of the components of the Index will have publicly available last sale trade information;
• The intra-day proxy value of the Fund per share and the value of the Index will be publicly disseminated by a major market data vendor throughout the trading day;
• On each business day before the opening of business on the Exchange, the Fund's custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, will make available the list of the names and the required number of shares of each security to be included in the consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit that day;
• The Exchange will disseminate continuously every 15 seconds throughout the trading day, through the facilities of the consolidated tape, the market value of a Share, and the Exchange, market data vendors, or other information providers will disseminate, every 15 seconds throughout the trading day, a calculation of the intra-day indicative value of a Share;
• The arbitrage mechanism will be facilitated by the transparency of the Fund's portfolio and the availability of the intra-day indicative value, the liquidity of securities held by the Fund, and the ability to acquire such securities, as well as the arbitrageurs' ability to create workable hedges;
• The Fund will invest solely in liquid securities and Financial Instruments;
• The Fund will invest in securities that will facilitate an effective and efficient arbitrage mechanism and the ability to create workable hedges;
• The Trust believes that arbitrageurs are expected to take advantage of price variations between the Fund's market price and its NAV; and
• A close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected.
While redeemable securities issued by an open-end management investment company are excepted from the provisions of Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M, the Requestors may not rely upon those exceptions for the Shares.
Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation rule that, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any “distribution participant” and its “affiliated purchasers” from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase any security that is the subject of a distribution until after the applicable restricted period, except as specifically permitted in the Rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines “distribution” to mean any offering of securities that is distinguished from ordinary trading transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of special selling efforts and selling methods. The provisions of Rule 101 of Regulation M apply to underwriters, prospective underwriters, brokers, dealers, or other persons who have agreed to participate in, or are participating in, a distribution of securities. The Shares are in a continuous distribution, and, as such, the restricted period in which distribution participants and their affiliated purchasers are prohibited from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce others to bid for or purchase, the Shares extends indefinitely.
Based on the representations and the facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management investment company that will continuously redeem, at NAV, Creation Unit aggregations of Shares of the Fund and that a close alignment between the market price of the Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to grant the Trust an exemption from Rule 101 pursuant to paragraph (d) of Rule 101 of Regulation M with respect to the Shares of the Fund, thus permitting persons participating in a distribution of Shares of the Fund to bid for or purchase such Shares during their participation in such distribution.
Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security holders, and any affiliated purchaser of such person from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a covered security during the applicable restricted period in connection with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf of an issuer or selling security holder.
Based on the representations and the facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management investment company that will redeem, at the NAV, Creation Unit aggregations of Shares of the Fund and that a close alignment between the market price of the Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to grant the Trust an exemption from Rule 102 pursuant to paragraph (e) of Rule 102 of Regulation M with respect to the Fund, thus permitting the Fund to redeem Shares of the Fund during the distribution of such Shares.
Rule 10b-17, with certain exceptions, requires an issuer of a class of publicly traded securities to give notice of certain specified actions (for example, a dividend distribution) relating to such class of securities in accordance with Rule 10b-17(b). Based on the representations and the facts presented in the Letter, and subject to the conditions below, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to grant the Trust a conditional exemption from Rule 10b-17 because market participants will receive timely notification of the existence and timing of a pending distribution, and thus the concerns that the Commission raised in
The exemption from Rule 10b-17 is subject to the following conditions:
• The Trust will comply with Rule 10b-17, except for Rule 10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b); and
• The Trust will provide the information required by Rule 10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) to the Exchange as soon as practicable before trading begins on the ex-dividend date, but in no event later than the time when the Exchange last accepts information relating to distributions on the day before the ex-dividend date.
This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. These exemptions are based on the facts presented and the representations made in the Letter. Any different facts or representations may require a different response. Persons relying upon this exemptive relief shall promptly present the facts for the Commission's consideration in the event that any material change occurs with respect to any of the facts or representations made by the Requestors, and, as is the case with all preceding relief for ETFs, particularly with respect to the close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV. In addition, persons relying on these exemptions are directed to the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act, particularly Sections 9(a), 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Responsibility for compliance with these and any other applicable provisions of the federal securities laws must rest with the persons relying on these exemptions.
This Order should not be considered a view with respect to any other question that the proposed transactions may raise, including, but not limited to, the adequacy of the disclosure concerning, and the applicability of other federal or state laws to, the proposed transactions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) actively-managed series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds; and (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.
ETF Series Solutions (“Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, ClearShares LLC (“ClearShares”), a Delaware limited liability company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Quasar Distributors, LLC (“Distributor”), a Delaware limited liability company and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The application was filed on January 24, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 26, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: W. John McGuire, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2541 and Michael D. Barolsky, Esq., U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC, 615 E. Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
Rochelle Kauffman Plesset, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6840 or Daniele
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities and other assets and investment positions (“Portfolio Instruments”). Each Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the day.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Instruments and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those Portfolio Instruments currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).
10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On March 1, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-003, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Proposed Rule Change consists of changes to the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (“Rules”)
Currently, GSD Bank Netting Members that are well-capitalized with at least $5 billion in equity capital are permitted to serve as Sponsoring Members and sponsor certain institutional firms into GSD membership as Sponsored Members.
Currently, eligibility to become a Sponsored Member is limited to investment companies that are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
The Proposed Rule Change would eliminate the RIC requirement. However, in order to ensure that Sponsored Members are financially sophisticated, FICC would retain the QIB requirement to the extent that the Sponsored Member's legal entity type falls under one of the enumerated categories of Rule 144A's QIB definition.
Because the proposal would newly permit non-U.S. entities to become Sponsored Members, FICC proposes to amend the GSD Rules to provide that such entities would be considered FFI Members
The proposal would also clarify that the existing requirement on all Sponsored Members and their Sponsoring Members to comply with all applicable laws includes the requirement to comply with global sanctions laws.
The Proposed Rule Change also contains proposed changes that are unrelated to the proposed expansion of entity types eligible to be Sponsored Members, but that relate to FICC's Sponsored Membership program in general. FICC states that these proposed changes are designed to provide specificity, clarity, and additional transparency to the Rules.
• Clarify that the Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account refers to an Account, as defined in Rule 1;
• amend Section 7 of Rule 3A to reference the application of fails charges
• amend Section 9 of Rule 3A to correct an out-of-date cross-reference to Rule 13;
• amend Section 10 of Rule 3A to reflect the current Clearing Fund calculation procedures applicable to a Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account;
• amend Section 10 of Rule 3A to specify that, for purposes of calculating the Unadjusted GSD Margin Portfolio Amount applicable to a Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account, FICC would apply the higher of the Required Fund Deposit calculation as of the beginning of the current Business Day and intraday on the current Business Day;
• amend Section 10 of Rule 3A to correct certain out-of-date cross-references to Rule 4;
• amend Section 12 of Rule 3A to reflect the current loss allocation process applicable to Sponsored Member Trades in the event that the Sponsoring Member is insolvent or otherwise in default to FICC;
• amend Section 12 of Rule 3A to correct certain out-of-date cross-references to Rule 4 and to correct certain typographical errors;
• amend Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 3A to correct certain out-of-date cross-references to Rule 21; and
• amend Section 15 of Rule 3A to specify the standard with respect to which a Sponsoring Member is deemed by FICC to have knowledge that one of its Sponsored Members is insolvent or is otherwise unable to perform on any of its material contracts, obligations, or agreements for purposes of the Sponsoring Member's obligation to inform FICC of such matter.
The Commission received four comment letters in response to the proposal: One from State Street supporting the proposal, one from Ronin opposing the proposal, one from FICC in response to Ronin, and a second from Ronin in response to FICC.
State Street raises a number of points in support of the proposal. Specifically, State Street argues that, if adopted, the proposal would (i) provide institutional investors with access to central clearing services through FICC, without material changes to FICC's operational or risk management practice; (ii) permit greater use of netting to offset Sponsored Member transactions against a direct GSD member's other eligible transactions, thereby substantially reducing required amounts of leveraged capital; (iii) better enable global systemically important banks to meet supplementary leverage ratio requirements; and (iv) enhance the liquidity and efficiency of collateral and financing markets.
Ronin raises a number of points in opposition to the proposal. Specifically, Ronin argues that the proposal would increase risks and have an anti-competitive impact. FICC's letter responds to the concerns raised by Ronin.
Ronin notes that the proposed expansion would allow certain entities such as hedge funds and other types of counterparties that Ronin believes are risk-taking and leveraged to participate in FICC as Sponsored Members. Ronin argues that by allowing such entities to participate in GSD as Sponsored Members, the proposal would (i) increase concentration risk in Sponsoring Members because the proposal would encourage entities to become Sponsored Members rather than full Netting Members that could then gravitate to one or just a few Sponsoring Members; (ii) increase settlement risk for Sponsoring Members who take on Sponsored Members; and (iii) increase the amount of leverage used by Sponsored Members, which would increase the risk of liquidity drain and fire sales in the event of a Sponsoring Member default.
In response to Ronin's concerns regarding concentration risk, FICC states that the Rules already incorporate risk management practices into the Sponsored Membership program (
In response to Ronin's concerns regarding settlement risk, FICC argues that the proposal would reduce settlement risk because Sponsoring Members would be able to take advantage of additional netting that results from increased participation in FICC, and as discussed more fully below, FICC would have access to additional margin in connection with Sponsored Member accounts.
Finally, in response to Ronin's concerns regarding increased leverage, FICC states that it is unlikely that the proposal would cause an increase in Sponsored Members' leverage because the prudential regulation of the Sponsoring Member and the Sponsoring Member Guaranty incentivize the Sponsoring Member to monitor and manage Sponsored Member activity to ensure that inappropriate risks are not presented.
Ronin argues that the proposed expansion of the Sponsored Membership program would unfairly burden non-participating Netting Members by (i) allowing Sponsored Members to benefit from centralized clearing without bearing the risk or cost (
In response to Ronin's concerns regarding loss mutualization, FICC acknowledges that the proposal would not make Sponsored Members responsible for default loss mutualization or CCLF contributions, but emphasizes that such responsibilities would be borne by the Sponsoring Member.
In response to Ronin's concerns that balance sheet offsets and reduced capital charges would only accrue to Sponsoring Members, FICC argues that all Netting Members would benefit from additional balance sheet and capital efficiencies to the extent that such members are counterparties to Sponsoring Members in new Sponsored Member activity cleared through FICC.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules be designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
As described above, Ronin argues that such an expansion of the Sponsored Membership program would create a competitive burden because Sponsored Members would not bear the risk or cost of loss mutualization in the event of GSD member default, as full Netting Members do,
In addition, the Commission believes that the proposal's expansion of the Sponsored Membership program would make the risk-reducing benefits of central clearing available to a wider range of entity types. In turn, increased trading activity through the expanded Sponsored Membership program would likely (1) lower the risk of diminished liquidity in the U.S. repo market caused by a large scale exit of participants from the market in a stress scenario (through FICC's guaranty of completion of settlement for a greater number of eligible transactions); (2) protect against fire sale risk (through FICC's ability to centralize and control the liquidation of a greater portion of a failed counterparty's portfolio); and (3) decrease settlement and operational risk (by making a greater number of transactions eligible to be netted and subject to guaranteed settlement, novation, and independent risk management through FICC).
Therefore, the Commission believes that by removing the RIC requirement and adjusting the QIB requirement, the Proposed Rule Change would remove an impediment to and help perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, cited above.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules also be designed to, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules also be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 10, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe”) 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 provides that within 45 days of the publication of the notice of the filing or a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. ICE Clear Europe proposes to revise its CDS End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy to implement a new Clearing Member price submission process to remove the intermediary agent through which Clearing Members currently submit required prices, and replace it with a process through which Clearing Members submit prices directly to ICE Clear Europe. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider ICE Clear Europe's proposed rule change and the associated operational risks.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, extends the period by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICEEU-2017-003) to no later than June 21, 2017.
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 Exchange Rule 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism.
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 Rule 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, to amend the duration of a PRIME Auction. PRIME is a process by which a Member
The Exchange believes that moving to a range structure provides the Exchange with greater flexibility in establishing the optimal duration for Auctions and Solicitation Auctions. The Exchange believes that permitting a shorter duration of as low as 100 milliseconds will reduce market risk for all Members executing trades on the Exchange via the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism. Initiating participants are required to guarantee an execution at the NBBO
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 515A(b)(2)(i)(C) to remove the reference to the duration of the current timer setting. Currently the rule states that, “[m]embers may submit responses to the RFR (specifying prices and sizes) during the response period (which shall be 500 milliseconds).” The Exchange proposes to replace this sentence with the proposed language used in 515A(a)(2)(i)(C) which provides that “[t]he RFR will last for a period of time, as determined by the Exchange and announced through a Regulatory Circular. The RFR will be no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second.”
The Exchange does not believe that requiring the Auction and Solicitation Auction to run for 500 milliseconds is necessary in today's market where, generally, Members' systems have the capability to respond within 100 milliseconds or less. As such, reducing the response time in the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism is appropriate as Members no longer need up to 500 milliseconds to respond to an Auction or Solicitation Auction. Reducing the response time will allow Members the opportunity to seek out liquidity in an expedient manner that is consistent with today's system capabilities.
The Exchange's Members operate electronic systems that enable them to react and respond to orders in a meaningful way in fractions of a second. The Exchange anticipates that its Members will continue to compete within the proposed response times designated by the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed response times—which will be no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second—will continue to provide Members with sufficient time to respond to, compete for, and provide price improvement for orders, and will provide investors and other market participants with more timely executions, and reduce their market risk.
Reducing the duration of Auctions and Solicitation Auctions from 500 milliseconds to as low as 100 milliseconds will benefit Members trading in the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism. The Exchange believes that it is in these Members' best interest to minimize the response time while continuing to allow Members adequate time to electronically respond. Both the order being exposed and the Members' responses are subject to market risk during the Auction or Solicitation Auction. While a limited number of Members wait to respond until later in the Auction or Solicitation Auction, presumably to minimize their market risk, the majority of Members respond within the first 100 milliseconds. The Exchange believes that a response time as low as 100 milliseconds will continue to provide market participants with sufficient time to respond, compete, and provide price improvement for orders and will provide investors and other market participants with more timely executions, thereby reducing their market risk.
To substantiate that Members can receive, process, and communicate a response to an auction broadcast within 100 milliseconds, the Exchange surveyed all Members that responded to an auction broadcast in the period beginning November 2016 and ending January 2017 (the “review period”). The Exchange received responses from all of the Members surveyed, and each Member confirmed that they can receive, process, and communicate a response back to the Exchange within 100 milliseconds.
Also, in consideration with this proposed rule change, the Exchange reviewed all responses received in PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Auctions from its Members for the review period. During the review period, on average, approximately 60% of responses were submitted within the first 50 milliseconds, and approximately 90% of responses were submitted within 100 milliseconds.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that a response time as low as 100 milliseconds will continue to provide Members with sufficient time to respond to, compete for, and provide price improvement for orders, and will provide investors and other market participants with more timely executions, and reduce their market risk. The Exchange also believes it is likely that the number of PRIME transactions will increase, thereby providing customers a greater opportunity to benefit from price improvement.
The Exchange believes that the information outlined above regarding price improving transactions in the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism provides substantial support for its assertion that reducing the response time from 500 milliseconds to as low as 100 milliseconds will continue to provide Members with sufficient time to ensure competition for orders entered into the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, and could provide customer orders with additional opportunities for price improvement.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and
MIAX Options believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the proposed rule change will provide investors with more timely execution of their option orders, while ensuring that there is an adequate exposure of orders in the mechanisms. Additionally, the proposed change will allow more investors the opportunity to receive price improvement through the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism and will reduce market risk for Members using these mechanisms. Finally, as mentioned above, other exchanges such as ISE, BX, PHLX, and CBOE [sic],
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because the response time duration would be the same for all Members. All Members in the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism have today, and will continue to have, an equal opportunity to receive the broadcast and respond with their best prices during the auction. Additionally, the Exchange believes the reduction of the response time for an auction reduces the market risk for all Members. The reduction of the time period reduces the market risk for the initiating member as well as any Members providing orders in response to an RFR.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed rule change to provide the Exchange flexibility in determining potentially shorter durations for Auctions and Solicitation Auctions does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as the Exchange believes that allowing for an auction period of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second will benefit Members utilizing the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism. The Exchange believes it is in these Members' best interest to minimize the Auction and Solicitation Auction duration while continuing to allow Members adequate time to respond electronically.
The proposed rule allows Members to respond quickly at the most favorable price while reducing the risk that the market will move against the response. The Exchange believes that its Members will be able to compete within a timer range of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second, and that any specific duration within this range is a sufficient amount of time to respond to, compete for, and provide price improvement for orders, and will provide investors and other market participants more timely executions, and reduce their market risk.
The Exchange does not believe its proposed rule change will impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as the Exchange notes other exchanges offer similar functionality with similar auction duration lengths.
For all the reasons stated, 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, and believes the proposed change will enhance competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of IDAHO, dated 04/27/2017.
Effective 04/27/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
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 151230.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are IDAHO, OREGON.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Montana, dated 09/20/2016.
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, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of an Economic Injury declaration for the State of MONTANA dated 09/20/2016 is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 08/19/2016 and continuing through 09/22/2016.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collection below is pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 5, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
•
○ (a) Notify SSA of receipt of an authorization for initial claims or cases they are appealing, and (b) submit a copy of that authorization either through a manual or electronic process;
○ (c) inform SSA of the amount of reimbursement;
○ (d) submit a written request for dispute resolution on a determination;
○ (e) notify SSA of interim assistance paid (using the SSA-8125 or the SSA-L8125-F6);
○ (f) inform SSA of any deceased claimants who participate in the IAR program and;
○ (g) review and sign an agreement with SSA.
•
•
•
The respondents are State IAR officers.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than June 5, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1.
2.
3.
4.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. 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 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to June 5, 2017.
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Derek A. Rivers, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Overseas Citizens Services (CA/OCS/PMO), U.S. Department of State, 2201 C. St. NW., Washington, DC 20522, who may be reached at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 purpose of the DS-5528 is to document the evacuation of persons from abroad when their lives are endangered by war, civil unrest, or natural disaster; document issuance of a crisis evacuation loan; obtain a Privacy Act Waiver to share information about the welfare of a U.S. citizen or U.S. lawful permanent resident consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974; and, to facilitate debt collection.
An electronic version of the Evacuee Manifest and Promissory Note was created, allowing applicants to type their information into the form, print it, and present it to a consular officer at the evacuation point. Continued software development will provide the capability to electronically submit signed loan applications for adjudication. The final stage of software development will not only allow the applicant to enter his/her information and submit the form, but will also make the information available for all stages of financial processing including the Department of State's debt collection process. Due to the potential for serious conditions during crisis events that often affect electronic and internet infrastructure systems, the electronic form will not replace the paper form. Rather, the paper form will still be maintained and used in the event that applicants are unable to submit forms electronically.
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State.
Notice.
On May 1, 2017, the Department of State certified that 13 shrimp-harvesting nations and four fisheries have a regulatory program comparable to that of the United States governing the incidental taking of the relevant species of sea turtles in the course of commercial shrimp harvesting and that the particular fishing environments of 26 shrimp-harvesting nations, one economy, and three fisheries do not pose a threat of the incidental taking of covered sea turtles in the course of such harvesting.
This finding is effective on May 5, 2017.
Section 609 Program Manager, Office of Marine Conservation, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520-2758; telephone: (202) 647-3263; email:
Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 (“Sec. 609”) prohibits imports of certain categories of shrimp unless the President certifies to the Congress by May 1, 1991, and annually thereafter, that either: (1) The harvesting nation has adopted a program governing the incidental taking of sea turtles in its commercial shrimp fishery comparable to the program in effect in the United States and has an incidental take rate comparable to that of the United States; or (2) the particular fishing environment of the harvesting nation does not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles. The President has delegated the authority to make this certification to the Department of State (“the Department”). The Department's Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Section 609 were published in the
On May 1, 2017, the Department certified 13 nations on the basis that their sea turtle protection programs are comparable to that of the United States: Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, and Suriname. This year the Department was unable to certify Pakistan because it did not demonstrate that the sea turtle protection program is comparable in effectiveness to that of the United States. Therefore, no wild-caught shrimp or product of that shrimp harvested in Pakistan and exported after April 30, 2017, will be permitted entry into the United States. The Department also certified 26 shrimp-harvesting nations and one economy as having fishing environments that do not pose a danger to sea turtles. Sixteen nations have shrimping grounds only in cold waters where the risk of taking sea turtles is negligible: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Ten nations and one economy only harvest shrimp using
A completed DS-2031 Shrimp Exporter's/Importer's Declaration must accompany all shipments of shrimp or products from shrimp into the United States. Only shrimp or products from shrimp harvested in the 39 certified nations and one economy listed above may be accompanied by a DS-2031 with Box 7(B) checked. All DS-2031 forms accompanying shrimp imports from uncertified nations must be originals with Box 7(A)(1), 7(A)(2), or 7(A)(4) checked, consistent with the form's instructions with regard to the method of harvest of the product and based on any relevant prior determinations by the Department, and signed by a responsible government official of the harvesting nation's competent domestic fisheries authority. The Department has not determined that any uncertified nation qualifies to export shrimp or products from shrimp harvested in a manner as described in 7(A)(3).
Shrimp and products of shrimp harvested with turtle excluder devices (“TEDs”) in an uncertified nation may, under specific circumstances, be eligible for importation into the United States under the DS-2031 Box 7(A)(2) provision for “shrimp harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs comparable in effectiveness to those required in the United States.” Use of this provision requires that the Department determine in advance that the government of the harvesting nation has put in place adequate procedures to monitor the use of TEDs in the specific fishery in question and to ensure the accurate completion of the DS-2031 forms. At this time, the Department has determined that only shrimp and products from shrimp harvested in the Northern Prawn Fishery, the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fishery, and the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery in Australia and shrimp and products from shrimp harvested in the French Guiana domestic trawl fishery are eligible for entry under this provision. The Department was unable to make the same determination with respect to the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery in Australia because the licensing conditions for the fishery do not meet the minimum technical standards of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, so no wild-caught shrimp and products from that shrimp harvested in Exmouth Gulf and exported after April 30, 2017, will be permitted entry into the United States. The importation of TED-caught shrimp from any other uncertified nation will not be allowed. A responsible government official of Australia or France must sign in Block 8 of the DS-2031 form accompanying these imports into the United States.
In addition, the Department has determined that shrimp and products from shrimp harvested in the Spencer Gulf region in Australia and with “mosquito” nets in the Republic of Korea, and Mediterranean red shrimp (
The Department has communicated these certifications and determinations under Sec. 609 to the Office of International Trade of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
Notice is being given that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a request from the County of Greenwood to waive the requirement that one parcel (10.11 acres) of surplus property, located at the Greenwood County Airport be used for aeronautical purposes. Currently, ownership of the property provides for protection of FAR Part 77 surfaces and compatible land use which would continue to be protected with deed restrictions required in the transfer of land ownership.
Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.
Documents are available for review by prior appointment at the following location: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Anna Lynch, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, Telephone: (404) 305-6746.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Anna Lynch, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Toby Chappell, County Manager, Greenwood County at the following address: County of Greenwood, Park Plaza, Suite 102, Greenwood, South Carolina 29646.
Anna Lynch, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404) 305-6746. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA is reviewing a request under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47151(d), by the County of Greenwood to release one parcel of surplus property (10.11 acres) at the Greenwood County Airport. These parcels were originally conveyed to the County of Greenwood on July 11, 1947 under the powers and authority contained in the provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944. Currently, the surplus properties are being used to generate timber sales but will become the site of a new County Animal Shelter.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the Greenwood County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Ninety Eighth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning System Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Ninety Eighth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning System Plenary.
The meeting will be held May 11, 2017, 09:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036. Virtual participation is also allowed.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Ninety Eighth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning System Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or 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 25, 2017.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0268 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.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, PHMSA is publishing this notice of three special permit requests for Class Location 1 to Class Location 3 changes that PHMSA received from three natural gas pipeline operators, seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. This notice seeks public comments on the requests, including comments on any safety or environmental impacts that would result from the granting of these permits. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will evaluate the requests and determine whether to grant or deny a special permit.
Submit any comments regarding these special permit requests by June 5, 2017.
Comments should reference the docket number for the specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
Comments including any personal information provided are posted to
PHMSA received the following Class 1 to Class 3 Location special permit requests. Each request includes a technical analysis and a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) provided by the respective operator. Each request has been assigned a separate docket number and is filed in the Federal Docket Management System at
Before issuing a decision on the special permit requests, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment we receive in making our decision to grant or deny the requests.
49 U.S.C. 60118 (c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.97.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the revision of an information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment on a revision to its collection titled “Uniform Interagency Transfer Agent Registration and Deregistration Forms.”
Comments must be submitted on or before July 5, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC, area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention “1557-0124, Forms TA-1 and TA-W,” 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to 571-465-4326 or by electronic mail to
You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling 202-649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comments or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, 202-649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is proposing to revise the following information collection:
Section 17A(c) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) requires all transfer agents for securities registered under section 12 of the Act or, if the security would be required to be registered except for the exemption from registration provided by section 12(g)(2)(B) or section 12(g)(2)(G), to “fil[e] with the appropriate regulatory agency . . . an application for registration in such form and containing such information and documents . . . as such appropriate regulatory agency may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this section.”
To accomplish the registration of transfer agents, Form TA-1 was developed in 1975 as an interagency effort by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the federal banking agencies (the OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). The agencies primarily use the data collected on Form TA-1 to determine whether an application for registration should be approved, denied, accelerated, or postponed, and they use the data in connection with their supervisory responsibilities . . . .” In addition, when a national bank or federal savings association no longer acts as a transfer
The OCC has determined that Forms TA-1 and TA-W are mandatory and that their collection is authorized by sections 17A(c), 17(a)(3), and 23(a)(1) of the Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78q-1(c), 78q(a)(3), and 78w(a)(1)). Additionally, section 3(a)(34)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(34)(B)(ii)) provides that the OCC is the ARA in the case of a national banks and federal savings associations and subsidiaries of such institutions. The registrations are public filings and are not considered confidential.
The OCC needs the information contained in this collection to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Section 17A(c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1(c)), as amended, provides that all those authorized to transfer securities registered under section 12 of the Act (transfer agents) shall register “by filing with the appropriate regulatory agency . . . . an application for registration in such form and containing such information and documents . . . . as such appropriate regulatory agency may prescribe to be necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this section.”
All comments received are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimates of the burden of the information collections, 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 collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2., that the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans will meet May 10-May 12, 2017 at various locations in Washington DC. This notice is amended to reflect a change in the meeting time and location.
The meeting sessions are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with an on-going assessment of the effectiveness of the policies, organizational structures, and services of VA in assisting Veterans at-risk and experiencing homelessness. The Committee shall assemble and review information related to the needs of homeless Veterans and provide advice on the most appropriate means of providing assistance to that subset of the Veteran population. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
The agenda will include briefings from officials at VA and other agencies regarding services for homeless Veterans. The Committee will also receive a briefing on the annual report that was developed after the last meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans and will then discuss topics for its upcoming annual report and recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments on issues affecting Veterans at-risk and experiencing homelessness for review by the Committee to Anthony Love, Designated Federal Officer, VHA Homeless Programs Office (10NC1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 90 K Street Northeast, Washington, DC, or via email at
Members of the public who wish to attend in-person should contact both Charles Selby and Timothy Underwood of the VHA Homeless Program Office by April 25, 2017, at
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR