| Page Range | 22609-22734 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 22733 - National Defense Transportation Day and National Transportation Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 22731 - Mother's Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 22729 - Military Spouse Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 22674 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 22720 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors | |
| 82 FR 22616 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 22643 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 22613 - Safety Zone; Tennessee River 323.0-325.0, Huntsville, AL | |
| 82 FR 22615 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper | |
| 82 FR 22647 - Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology | |
| 82 FR 22674 - Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea and Taiwan; Determinations | |
| 82 FR 22643 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission | |
| 82 FR 22609 - Changes to the Inspection Coverage in Official Establishments That Slaughter Fish of the Order Siluriformes | |
| 82 FR 22665 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0092; -0149 & -0182) | |
| 82 FR 22648 - National Conference on Weights and Measures 102nd Annual Meeting | |
| 82 FR 22673 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Department of Homeland Security National Protection and Programs Directorate Visitor Request Form | |
| 82 FR 22646 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Government Performance and Results Act Data Collection | |
| 82 FR 22667 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 82 FR 22676 - In the Matter of Airgas Specialty Gases, Inc.; Order Approving Direct and Indirect Transfers of Control of License | |
| 82 FR 22675 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 82 FR 22711 - RiverNorth DoubleLine Strategic Opportunity Fund, Inc. and RiverNorth Capital Management LLC | |
| 82 FR 22670 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting | |
| 82 FR 22655 - Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 22654 - Electricity Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 22655 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford | |
| 82 FR 22679 - Submission for Review: Revision of an Existing Information Collection, USAJOBS® | |
| 82 FR 22678 - Submission for Review: Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Open Season Express Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System and Open Season Web Site | |
| 82 FR 22646 - Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 82 FR 22612 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, Ocean City, MD | |
| 82 FR 22720 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act | |
| 82 FR 22675 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
| 82 FR 22612 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA | |
| 82 FR 22719 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions of Proposed Highway in California | |
| 82 FR 22718 - Proposed Third Renewed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Assigning Certain Federal Environmental Responsibilities to the State of Utah, Including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Authority for Certain Categorical Exclusions (CEs) | |
| 82 FR 22621 - Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska-2018-19 and 2019-20 Subsistence Taking of Wildlife Regulations | |
| 82 FR 22679 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 22611 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR | |
| 82 FR 22652 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NCER-NPSAS Grant Study-Connecting Students with Financial Aid (CSFA) 2017: Testing the Effectiveness of FAFSA Interventions on College Outcomes | |
| 82 FR 22672 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Commercial Invoice | |
| 82 FR 22672 - Committee Name: Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 22668 - Product-Specific Guidances; Draft and Revised Draft Guidances for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 22669 - Determination That CALCIJEX (Calcitriol) Injectable, 1 Microgram/Milliliter and 2 Micrograms/Milliliter, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 82 FR 22656 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 22665 - Chugach Electric Association, Inc.; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit | |
| 82 FR 22660 - Notch Butte Hydro Company, Inc., Koosh, Inc.; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
| 82 FR 22661 - Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
| 82 FR 22656 - Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment | |
| 82 FR 22662 - Keni Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 22659 - Reuel Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 22657 - EUI Affiliate LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 22663 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 22723 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Wrist Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire | |
| 82 FR 22725 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Conflicting Interests Certification for Proprietary Schools | |
| 82 FR 22723 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Certification of Affirmation of Enrollment Agreement Correspondence Course | |
| 82 FR 22722 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Certification of School Attendance or Termination | |
| 82 FR 22724 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under Review: Proposed Information Collection, Claim for Standard Government Headstone or Marker and Claim for Government Medallion for Placement in a Private Cemetery | |
| 82 FR 22656 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 22658 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725R); Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 22659 - Greenwood County, South Carolina; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 22662 - New Jersey Boroughs of Milltown, Park Ridge, and South River v. Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Notice of Complaint | |
| 82 FR 22661 - Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 22660 - Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 22657 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 22664 - Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 82 FR 22663 - Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 82 FR 22699 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Proposed Rule Change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Add Rules Related to the Clearing of CDX.NA.HY CDS | |
| 82 FR 22689 - Aspiriant Trust, et al. | |
| 82 FR 22687 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services | |
| 82 FR 22680 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the VanEck Vectors AMT-Free National Municipal Index ETF of VanEck Vectors ETF Trust Under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4) | |
| 82 FR 22682 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Qualified Contingent Cross Orders | |
| 82 FR 22690 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 3317 To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web Site Data Publication | |
| 82 FR 22708 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 519C | |
| 82 FR 22697 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees for Use on the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
| 82 FR 22702 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, Regarding Investments of the Janus Short Duration Income ETF Listed Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 | |
| 82 FR 22706 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4770 To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web Site Data Publication | |
| 82 FR 22692 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4770 To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web Site Data Publication | |
| 82 FR 22694 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Quoting Bandwidth Allowance | |
| 82 FR 22685 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees | |
| 82 FR 22645 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Florida Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 22677 - Fiscal Year 2016 Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences | |
| 82 FR 22712 - Commission Meeting | |
| 82 FR 22715 - RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 22645 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 22653 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EDGAR Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements | |
| 82 FR 22651 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; ED-524 Budget Information Non-Construction Programs Form and Instructions | |
| 82 FR 22651 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; U.S. Department of Education Grant Performance Report Form (ED 524B) | |
| 82 FR 22671 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 22671 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 22609 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards | |
| 82 FR 22649 - Endangered Species; File No. 21088 | |
| 82 FR 22714 - Noise Exposure Map Notice for LaGuardia Airport, New York City, New York | |
| 82 FR 22713 - Approval of Noise Compatibility Program, Melbourne International Airport, Melbourne, FL | |
| 82 FR 22716 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 22717 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 22619 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 22721 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act or Executive Order 12978 | |
| 82 FR 22625 - Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls | |
| 82 FR 22635 - Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V001) |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Correcting amendment to continue delay of implementation date.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is updating the final guidance that appeared in the
Rhea Hubbard or Gil Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management,
This is a summary of OMB's Erratum, 2 CFR part 200 released on December 26, 2013.
Previous revisions were published in the
Accounting, Auditing, Colleges and universities, State and local governments, Grant programs, Grants administration, Hospitals, Indians, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Under the authority of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 503), the Office of Management and Budget amends 2 CFR part 200 as follows:
31 U.S.C. 503.
(a) The standards set forth in this part that affect the administration of Federal awards issued by Federal awarding agencies become effective once implemented by Federal awarding agencies or when any future amendment to this part becomes final. Federal awarding agencies must implement the policies and procedures applicable to Federal awards by promulgating a regulation to be effective by December 26, 2014, unless different provisions are required by statute or approved by OMB. For the procurement standards in §§ 200.317 through 200.326, non-Federal entities may continue to comply with the procurement standards in previous OMB guidance (as reflected in § 200.104) for a total of three fiscal years after this part goes into effect. As such, the effective date for implementation of the procurement standards for non-Federal entities will start for fiscal years beginning on or after December 26, 2017. If a non-Federal entity chooses to use the previous procurement standards for all or part of these three fiscal years before adopting the procurement standards in this part, the non-Federal entity must document this decision in its internal procurement policies.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notification and request for comments.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing and requesting comment on its plan to adjust inspection coverage at official establishments that slaughter fish of the order Siluriformes, which include catfish, from all hours of operation to once per production shift.
Submit comments on or before June 16, 2017.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments relevant to adjusting inspection coverage as discussed and outlined in this notification. Only comments addressing the scope of this notification will be considered.
Rachel Edelstein, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495, or by Fax: (202) 720-2025.
On December 2, 2015, FSIS published the final rule, “Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived from Such Fish,” which amended its regulations to establish a mandatory inspection program for fish of the order Siluriformes (80 FR 75590). The final rule established regulations to implement the provisions of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to include all fish of the order Siluriformes as an amenable species (21 U.S.C. 601(w)(2)) and provided for their inspection under Section 606, “Inspection and labeling of meat food products” (21 U.S.C 606(b)). Fish of the order Siluriformes include, but are not limited to, “catfish” (fish of the family Ictaluridae) and “basa” and “swai” (fish of the family Pangasiidae). For convenience, this notification will use “fish” to mean all fish of the order Siluriformes.
The 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills placed the authority for FSIS's inspection of fish under Section 606 of the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 606(b)), “Inspecting and labeling of meat food products.” FSIS's longstanding and well-known interpretation of Section 606 is that it only requires inspection once per production shift. Further, the Farm Bills amended the FMIA to add a new Section 625 (21 U.S.C. 625), which explicitly excludes fish from the statutory provisions requiring ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection and humane methods of slaughter (21 U.S.C. 603, 604, 605 and 610(b)). These requirements, again, not applicable to inspection of fish, can only be implemented through inspection at all times when an establishment is conducting slaughter operations. Accordingly, FSIS does not believe that Congress intended for FSIS to inspect the slaughter or slaughter and processing of fish during all hours of an establishment's operations, but instead intended that FSIS inspect fish establishments consistent with how FSIS inspects meat and poultry processing establishments, at least once per production shift.
In the final rule discussion of inspection coverage at official fish establishments, the Agency stated that upon initial implementation of fish inspection on March 1, 2016, although not required by the FMIA, it would assign inspection personnel during all hours of operation at official establishments that kill live fish and at least quarterly at processing-only establishments (80 FR 75606). This level of inspection coverage was intended to provide an orderly transition from the FDA regulatory model to the FSIS inspection model and to assist official fish establishments in bringing their operations into full compliance with the new regulations. Providing inspection coverage during all hours of operation at official fish slaughter establishments also assisted the Agency in gaining experience and insight into commercial fish production in the United States, from the receiving of live fish to the fabrication of fish products.
The Agency provided for an 18-month transitional period, from March 1, 2016, until September 1, 2017, during which it is exercising broad enforcement discretion and taking enforcement actions when establishments produce adulterated or misbranded product, or when there is intimidation of or interference with FSIS personnel. In the final rule, FSIS stated that, based on its findings during and after the 18-month transitional period, it may adjust inspection frequency in official fish slaughter establishments in the future, meaning that although inspection would be provided when an establishment is operational, it may not be during all hours of operation (80 FR 75606). The Agency also stated that it would establish the criteria it would follow in determining how inspection would be adjusted and make these criteria available to the public. In addition, the Agency stated that, at the end of the 18-month transitional period, inspection program personnel would be assigned at least once per day per shift at processing-only establishments.
FSIS is announcing that it has decided to adjust its inspection coverage at official fish slaughter establishments, starting September 1, 2017, the date of full enforcement of the regulatory requirements for fish, from all hours of operation to once per production shift. As discussed below, this decision is based on the Agency's experience inspecting fish slaughter establishments since implementing the mandatory inspection program on March 1, 2016. As discussed in the final rule, on September 1, 2017, inspection program personnel will be assigned at least once per day per shift at processing-only establishments (80 FR 75607).
At this time, there are 16 official fish slaughter establishments that receive inspection during all hours of operation. All of these establishments receive live fish that are subsequently slaughtered and further processed. The FSIS definition of “slaughter,” with respect to fish, is the “intentional killing under controlled conditions” (9 CFR 531.1)). “Further processing” is defined as “smoking, cooking, canning, curing, refining, or rendering,” (9 CFR 531.1) and includes processes such as cutting and packaging. FSIS defined the terms “slaughter” and “further processing,” for fish based on the inspection operations of other FMIA amenable species,
From FSIS's inspection experience in these fish slaughter establishments, the fish are raised either contiguous to the establishment, or in close proximity, and are transported to the facility in aerated live haul trucks. The live fish are unloaded, drained, and weighed before being moved to holding vats or carried by conveyor to an electrical stunner. The fish are sorted by size or weight, with the fish that are processed typically weighing less than two pounds each. Dead and diseased fish and undesirable species are sorted manually prior to processing. The deheading, eviscerating, filleting, and skinning operations are typically automated, and the process flows quickly and seamlessly on conveyor belts. When the operations are manual, the size and immobility of the fish allow the process to move quickly. Thus, the typical farm-raised fish slaughter operation is a streamlined, automated process that combines slaughter with processing in the same continuous operation. As such, fish slaughter operations are more closely aligned with meat processing-only operations, as opposed to meat slaughter operations.
FDA's definition of fish processing combines the slaughter and processing
Starting on September 1, 2017, FSIS is making an adjustment in its inspection coverage at official fish slaughter establishments based on the following criteria:
Thus, based on the above criteria, the Agency has determined that adjusting the inspection coverage at fish slaughter establishments on September 1, 2017, from all hours of operation to once per production shift will enable it to provide adequate inspection coverage to fulfill the FMIA mandate and allow it to most efficiently equip its workforce with the resources and tools they need to protect public health.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
FSIS will announce this notification online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the upper deck of the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to support the Starlight Parade and Rose Parade events. This deviation allows the upper span of the Steel Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to allow for the safe passage of participates and mass transit vehicles across the bridge.
This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. June 3, 2017 through 1 p.m. June 10, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0389, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, at mile 12.1, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate participates in the Starlight Parade and Rose Parade events and mass transit vehicles. The Steel Bridge is a double-deck lift bridge with a lower lift deck and an upper lift deck which operate independent of each other. To facilitate this event, the upper deck will remain in closed-to-navigation position. When the lower deck is in the closed-to-navigation position, the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0; and in open-to-navigation position, the vertical clearance is 71 feet above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The deviation period is from 7 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 3, 2017, and from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. on June
Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the bridge with the lower deck in the open-to-navigation position or upper deck in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard has conducted a public outreach for this closure of the upper deck on the Steel Bridge to known mariners that transit on the river. The Coast Guard has not received any objections to this temporary deviation from the operating schedule. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Montlake Bridge across Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the Rock and Roll Marathon event. This deviation allows the bridge span to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on June 18, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0407] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
The Washington Department of Transportation (bridge owner) has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge across Lake Washington Ship Canal, at mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate Rock and Roll Marathon event participates to cross the bridge safely. The Montlake Bridge is a double leaf bascule bridge; and in the closed-to-navigation position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel, and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60 feet of the bridge; vertical clearance references to Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. To facilitate this event, the double bascule span will remain closed from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on June 18, 2017. The Coast Guard provided notice of and objections to this deviation to local mariners via the Local Notice Mariners. No objections were submitted to the Coast Guard.
The normal operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1051(e). Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and emergency vessels in route to a call. Lake Washington Ship Canal has no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels 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 designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the U.S. 50 (Harry Kelly) Bridge across the Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, mile 0.5, at Ocean City, MD. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 2017 Ocean City Air Show. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 4 p.m. on June 17, 2017, until 5 p.m. on June 18, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0373], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6587, email
The event director, Ocean City, Maryland, Department of Emergency Services, with approval from the Maryland State Highway Administration, who owns and operates the U.S. 50 (Harry Kelly) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 2017 Ocean City Air Show. The bridge is a double bascule bridge
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.559. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. on June 17 and 18, 2017. The Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 323.0 and ending at mile marker 325.0 beginning at noon on May 15, 2017 through noon on May 22, 2017. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with a cargo transfer operation taking place at the Redstone Arsenal. This rule prohibits persons and vessels from entering the safety zone area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from May 17, 2017 through noon on May 22, 2017. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from noon on May 15, 2017, through May 17, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Ashley Schad, MSD Nashville, Nashville, TN, at 615-736-5421 or at
On April 18, 2017, Redstone Arsenal notified the Coast Guard of cargo transfer operations that would take place from May 15, 2017 to May 22, 2017 during the movement of hazardous cargo. The cargo transfer operations will take place at various times determined by environmental factors. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that this safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure before, during, and after the cargo transfer operations.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard was informed of this project in early April, but full details of the operation on or over the navigable waterway were not provided until April 18, 2017. The notification of operations was made only a few weeks before the project was scheduled to begin. Immediate action is needed to respond to potential safety hazards related to this cargo transfer operation on or over this navigable waterway. We must establish this safety zone by May 15, 2017. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined the need to protect persons, property, and infrastructure during the cargo transfer operations taking place at the Redstone Arsenal on the Tennessee River at mile marker 323.0 to mile marker 325.0. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and these navigable waters before, during, and after cargo transfer operations take place.
The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is establishing this safety zone from May 15, 2017 through May 22, 2017 for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 323.0 and ending at mile marker 325.0. The Coast Guard was informed that the operations would take place during daylight hours. All vessels intending to transit the Tennessee River between mile markers 323.0 and 325.0 from May 15, 2017 to May 22, 2017 must contact COTP or a designated representative to request permission to transit at a time when critical operations are not taking place. If transit permission is granted, the Tennessee River between mile markers 323.0 and 325.0 will be a no wake zone. Safety zone enforcement times will be announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), Local Notices to
The safety zone is intended to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from safety hazards associated with cargo transfer operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are establishing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone.
This safety zone prohibits transit on the Tennessee River from mile 323.0 to mile 325.0, prior to, during, and 30 minutes after any vessel movement and cargo transfer operations from May 15, 2017 through May 22, 2017. BNMs, LNMs and other forms of public notice will also inform the community of the safety zone enforcement so that they may plan accordingly for each enforcement period restricting transit. Vessel traffic must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the restricted area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves area safety zone that would prohibit entry to unauthorized vessels. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Record of Environmental Consideration are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U. S. Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. U. S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the commercial sector for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS projects that commercial landings of vermilion snapper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the January through June 2017 fishing season by May 17, 2017. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ on May 17, 2017, and it will remain closed until July 1, 2017, the start of the July through December commercial fishing season. This closure is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, May 17, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2017.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes vermilion snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (equivalent to the commercial quota) for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into separate quotas for two 6-month seasons, January through June and July through December. For the January through June fishing season in 2017, the commercial quota is 388,703 lb (176,313 kg), gutted weight (431,460 lb (195,707 kg), round weight), as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(i)(D).
On March 22, 2017 (82 FR 14641), NMFS published a temporary rule in the
In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(f)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for vermilion snapper when the commercial quota for that portion of the fishing year has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for South Atlantic vermilion snapper for the January through June fishing season will be reached by May 17, 2017. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic vermilion snapper is closed effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, May 17, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2017.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper with vermilion snapper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such vermilion snapper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, May 17, 2017. During the commercial closure, the recreational bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(5) and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c)(1) apply to all harvest or possession of vermilion snapper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. Also during the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. As specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(i), the prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, May 17, 2017, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for vermilion snapper apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(f)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
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 commercial sector for vermilion snapper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason General category retention limit adjustment.
NMFS is adjusting the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) General category daily retention limit from the default limit of one large medium or giant BFT to four large medium or giant BFT for June 1 through August 31, 2017. This action is based on consideration of the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments, and applies to Atlantic Tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels when fishing commercially for BFT.
Effective June 1, 2017, through August 31, 2017.
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
The currently codified baseline U.S. quota is 1,058.9 mt (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area). See § 635.27(a). The currently codified General category quota is 466.7 mt. Each of the General category time periods (“January,” June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a portion of the annual General category quota. The codified June through August subquota is 233.3 mt.
Unless changed, the General category daily retention limit starting on June 1 would be the default retention limit of one large medium or giant BFT (measuring 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length (CFL) or greater) per vessel per day/trip (§ 635.23(a)(2)). This default retention limit would apply to General category permitted vessels and to HMS Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels when fishing commercially for BFT. For the 2016 fishing year, NMFS adjusted the daily retention limit from the default level of one large medium or giant BFT to three large medium or giant BFT for the January subquota period (80 FR 77264, December 14, 2015), which closed effective March 29, 2016 (the regulations allow the General category fishery under the “January” subquota to continue until the subquota is reached, or March 31, whichever comes first); five large medium or giant BFT for the June through August subquota period (81 FR 29501, May 12, 2016) as well as for September 1 through October 8, 2016 (81 FR 59153, August 29, 2016); four large medium or giant BFT for October 9 through October 16, 2016 (81 FR 70369, October 12, 2016); and two large medium or giant BFT for October 17 through December 31, 2016 (81 FR 71639, October 18, 2016). NMFS closed the 2016 General category fishery effective November 4, 2016 (81 FR 76874, November 4, 2016). NMFS adjusted the daily retention limit for the 2017 January subquota period from the default level of one large medium or giant BFT to three large medium or giant BFT in the same action as the 16.3-mt transfer from the December 2016 subquota period to the January 2016 subquota period (81 FR 91873, December 19, 2016), and closed the January 2017 fishery on March 29 (82 FR 16136, April 3, 2017).
Under § 635.23(a)(4), NMFS may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range of zero to a maximum of five per vessel based on consideration of the relevant criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS has considered these criteria and their applicability to the General category BFT retention limit for June through August 2017. These considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:
Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by General category fishermen and provided by BFT dealers continue to provide NMFS with valuable data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT would support the collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.
NMFS also considered the catches of the General category quota to date (including during the fall and winter fishery in the last several years), and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii)). Commercial-size BFT are anticipated to migrate to the fishing grounds off the northeast U.S. coast by early June. Based on General category
NMFS also considered the effects of the adjustment on BFT rebuilding and overfishing and the effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the FMP (§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). The adjusted retention limit would be consistent with the quotas established and analyzed in the BFT quota final rule (80 FR 52198, August 28, 2015), and with objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments, and is not expected to negatively impact stock health or to affect the stock in ways not already analyzed in those documents. It is also important that NMFS limit landings to the subquotas both to adhere to the FMP quota allocations and to ensure that landings are as consistent as possible with the pattern of fishing mortality (
Another principal consideration in setting the retention limit is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full General category quota without exceeding it based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(8)(x)). Adjustment of the retention limit is also supported by the Environmental Analysis for the 2011 final rule regarding General and Harpoon category management measures, which increased the General category maximum daily retention limit from three to five fish.
Despite elevated General category limits, the vast majority of successful trips (
NMFS anticipates that some underharvest of the 2016 adjusted U.S. BFT quota will be carried forward to 2017 to the Reserve category, in accordance with the regulations, this summer (
A limit lower than four fish could result in unused quota being rolled forward to the subsequent subquota time period in the General category season. Increasing the daily retention limit from the default may prevent rolling an excessive amount of unused quota forward from one subquota time period to the next. Increasing the daily retention limit to four fish will increase the likelihood that the General category BFT landings will approach, but not exceed, the annual quota, as well as increase the opportunity for catching BFT during the June through August subquota period. Increasing opportunity within each subquota period is also important because of the migratory nature and seasonal distribution of BFT. In a particular geographic region, or waters accessible from a particular port, the amount of fishing opportunity for BFT may be constrained by the short amount of time the BFT are present.
Based on these considerations, NMFS has determined that a four-fish General category retention limit is warranted for the June-August 2017 subquota period. It would provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the full U.S. BFT quota (including the expected increase in available 2017 quota based on 2016 underharvest), without exceeding it, while maintaining an equitable distribution of fishing opportunities; help optimize the ability of the General category to harvest its full quota; allow the collection of a broad range of data for stock monitoring purposes; and be consistent with the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. Therefore, NMFS increases the General category retention limit from the default limit (one) to four large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip, effective June 1, 2017, through August 31, 2017.
Regardless of the duration of a fishing trip, the daily retention limit applies upon landing. For example (and specific to the June through August 2017 limit), whether a vessel fishing under the General category limit takes a two-day trip or makes two trips in one day, the daily limit of four fish may not be exceeded upon landing. This General category retention limit is effective in all areas, except for the Gulf of Mexico, where NMFS prohibits targeting fishing for BFT, and applies to those vessels permitted in the General category, as well as to those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels fishing commercially for BFT.
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. General and HMS Charter/Headboat vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. The timing of this rulemaking will allow approximately two weeks' prior notice to the regulated community. Affording additional prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the change in the daily retention limit from the default level for the June through August 2017 subquota period would be impracticable. Based on available BFT quotas, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of BFT on the fishing grounds, responsive adjustment to the General category BFT daily retention limit from the default level is warranted to allow fishermen to take advantage of availability of fish and of quota. NMFS could not have proposed these actions earlier, as it needed to consider and respond to updated data and information about fishery conditions and this year's landings. If NMFS was to offer a public comment period now, after having appropriately considered that data, it would preclude fishermen from harvesting BFT that are legally available consistent with all of the regulatory criteria, and/or could result in selection of a retention limit inappropriate to the amount of quota available for the period.
Fisheries under the General category daily retention limit will commence on June 1 and thus prior notice would be contrary to the public interest. Delays in increasing these retention limits would adversely affect those General and Charter/Headboat category vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than the default retention limit of one BFT per day/trip and may result in low catch rates and quota rollovers. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the BFT daily retention limit from the default level would result in minimal risks of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. NMFS provides notification of retention limit adjustments by publishing the notice in the
Adjustment of the General category retention limit needs to be effective June 1, 2017, or as soon as possible thereafter, to minimize any unnecessary disruption in fishing patterns, to allow the impacted sectors to benefit from the adjustment, and to not preclude fishing opportunities for fishermen in geographic areas with access to the fishery only during this time period. Foregoing opportunities to harvest the respective quotas may have negative social and economic impacts for U.S. fishermen that depend upon catching the available quota within the time periods designated in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. Therefore, the AA finds there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under § 635.23(a)(4) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the upper aft skin of the right wing at certain fastener holes along the rear spar upper chord. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 3, 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 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
Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; 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 have received a report indicating that cracks were found in the upper aft skin of the right wing at fastener holes along the rear spar upper chord at wing buttock line (WBL) 125 (crack length 0.045 inch) and WBL 141 (crack length 0.060 inch). The cracks originated from fastener holes in the upper aft skin and had not penetrated the thickness of the skin. There were 68,100 total flight hours and 55,151 total flight cycles on the airplane. Several other reports of similar crack findings were found on airplanes having between 48,220 and 57,543 total flight cycles. The root cause of the cracks is identified as the braking loads, which introduce a high tension stress in the rear spar upper chord and skin between the main landing gear beam and the side-of-body for the rear spar chord. It was determined that the existing inspection programs are not sufficient to find such cracks before they grow to a critical length. The upper aft skin of both the left and right wings are subject to such cracking. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the inability of a principle structural element to sustain limit load, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This NPRM applies to all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, including some models that may have a limit of validity (LOV). Model 737 airplanes having line numbers 1 through 291 have an LOV of 34,000 total flight cycles, and the actions in this proposed AD, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017, would be required at a compliance time occurring after reaching that LOV. Although operation of an airplane beyond its LOV is prohibited by 14 CFR 121.1115 and 129.115, this proposed AD would include those airplanes in the applicability so that those airplanes are tracked in the event the LOV is extended in the future.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the upper aft skin of the wings for cracking. 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 service information described previously. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 471 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 cost estimates for the on-condition actions 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 July 3, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57; Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the upper aft skin of the right wing at certain fastener holes along the rear spar upper chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the upper aft skin of the wings, which could result in the inability of a principle structural element to sustain limit load, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings from wing buttock line (WBL) 80 to WBL 155, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017. If any cracking is found, repair before further flight in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017.
For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings, and do all applicable corrective actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this Service Bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(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) Except as required by paragraph (g) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD 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. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. 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 Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; 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
Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would establish regulations for hunting and trapping seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means related to taking of wildlife for subsistence uses during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 regulatory years. The Federal Subsistence Board is on a schedule of completing the process of revising subsistence taking of wildlife regulations in even-numbered years and subsistence taking of fish and shellfish regulations in odd-numbered years; public proposal and review processes take place during the preceding year. The Board also addresses customary and traditional use determinations during the applicable cycle. When final, the resulting rulemaking will replace the existing subsistence wildlife taking regulations. This rule would also amend the general regulations on subsistence taking of fish and wildlife.
•
•
We will post all comments on
Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786-
Under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program. This program provides a rural preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out this program in the
Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board comprises:
• A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• The Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service;
• The Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management;
• The Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• The Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service; and
• Two public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Through the Board, these agencies and public members participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth program eligibility and specific harvest seasons and limits.
In administering the program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Regional Advisory Council. The Regional Advisory Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Regional Advisory Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.
The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils have a substantial role in reviewing this proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. The Federal Subsistence Board, through the Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, has held public meetings on this proposed rule at the following locations in Alaska, on the following dates:
During June 2017, the written proposals to change the subpart D, take of wildlife regulations, and subpart C, customary and traditional use determinations, will be compiled and distributed for public review. During a subsequent public comment period, written public comments will be accepted on the distributed proposals.
The Board, through the Regional Advisory Councils, will hold a second series of public meetings in August through November 2017, to receive comments on specific proposals and to develop recommendations to the Board at the following locations in Alaska, on the following dates:
A notice will be published of specific dates, times, and meeting locations in local and statewide newspapers prior to both series of meetings. Locations and dates may change based on weather or local circumstances. The amount of work on each Regional Advisory Council's agenda determines the length of each Regional Advisory Council meeting.
The Board will discuss and evaluate proposed changes to the subsistence management regulations during a public meeting scheduled to be held in Anchorage, Alaska, in April 2018. The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Chairs, or their designated representatives, will present their
Proposals to the Board to modify the general fish and wildlife regulations, wildlife harvest regulations, and customary and traditional use determinations must include the following information:
a. Name, address, and telephone number of the requestor;
b. Each section and/or paragraph designation in this proposed rule for which changes are suggested, if applicable;
c. A description of the regulatory change(s) desired;
d. A statement explaining why each change is necessary;
e. Proposed wording changes; and
f. Any additional information that you believe will help the Board in evaluating the proposed change.
The Board immediately rejects proposals that fail to include the above information, or proposals that are beyond the scope of authorities in § ___.24, subpart C (the regulations governing customary and traditional use determinations), and §§ ___.25 and ___.26, subpart D (the general and specific regulations governing the subsistence take of wildlife). If a proposal needs clarification, prior to being distributed for public review, the proponent may be contacted, and the proposal could be revised based on their input. Once distributed for public review, no additional changes may be made as part of the original submission. During the April 2018 meeting, the Board may defer review and action on some proposals to allow time for cooperative planning efforts, or to acquire additional needed information. The Board may elect to defer taking action on any given proposal if the workload of staff, Regional Advisory Councils, or the Board becomes excessive. These deferrals may be based on recommendations by the affected Regional Advisory Council(s) or staff members, or on the basis of the Board's intention to do least harm to the subsistence user and the resource involved. A proponent of a proposal may withdraw the proposal provided it has not been considered, and a recommendation has not been made, by a Regional Advisory Council. The Board may consider and act on alternatives that address the intent of a proposal while differing in approach.
You may submit written comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The Federal Subsistence Board is committed to providing access to these meetings for all participants. Please direct all requests for sign language interpreting services, closed captioning, or other accommodation needs to the Office of Subsistence Management, 907-786-3888,
As expressed in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the Federal officials that have been delegated authority by the Secretaries are committed to honoring the unique government-to-government political relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) as listed in 79 FR 4748 (January 29, 2014). Consultation with Alaska Native corporations is based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act does not provide specific rights to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, because tribal members are affected by subsistence fishing, hunting, and trapping regulations, the Secretaries, through the Board, will provide Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this rule.
The Board will engage in outreach efforts for this proposed rule, including a notification letter, to ensure that Tribes and Alaska Native corporations are advised of the mechanisms by which they can participate. The Board provides a variety of opportunities for consultation: Proposing changes to the existing rule; commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process. The Board commits to efficiently and adequately providing an opportunity to Tribes and Alaska Native corporations for consultation in regard to subsistence rulemaking.
The Board will consider Tribes' and Alaska Native corporations' information, input, and recommendations, and address their concerns as much as practicable.
Subpart C and D regulations are subject to periodic review and revision. The Federal Subsistence Board currently completes the process of revising subsistence take of wildlife regulations in even-numbered years and fish and shellfish regulations in odd-numbered years; public proposal and review processes take place during the preceding year. The Board also addresses customary and traditional use determinations during the applicable cycle.
The current subsistence program regulations form the starting point for consideration during each new rulemaking cycle. The regulations at § ___.24 pertain to customary and traditional use determinations; the regulations at § ___.25 pertain to general provisions governing the subsistence take of wildlife, fish, and shellfish; and the regulations at § ___.26 pertain to specific provisions governing the subsistence take of wildlife.
The text of two final rules form the text of this proposed rule for the 2018-20 subparts C and D regulations:
The text of the proposed amendments to 36 CFR 242.24 and 242.26 and 50 CFR 100.24 and 100.26 is the final rule for the 2016-2018 regulations for
The text of the proposed amendments to 36 CFR 242.25 and 50 CFR 100.25 is the final rule for the 2015-17 regulations for the subsistence take of fish (80 FR 28187; May 18, 2015). (Because the most recent final rule pertaining to wildlife noted above (
These regulations will remain in effect until subsequent Board action changes elements as a result of the public review process outlined above in this document.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.
A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under
An ANILCA § 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final § 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting subsistence regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but will not likely restrict subsistence uses significantly.
During the subsequent environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of this rule was conducted in accordance with § 810. That evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the rule will not reach the “may significantly restrict” threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA § 810(a).
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require OMB approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these proposed regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Title VIII, does not provide specific rights to tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, the Secretaries, through the Board, will provide Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this proposed rule. Consultation with Alaska Native corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
The Secretaries, through the Board, will provide a variety of opportunities for consultation: Commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process.
This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Theo Matuskowitz drafted these regulations under the guidance of Eugene R. Peltola, Jr. of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by:
• Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;
• Mary McBurney, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;
• Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• Trevor T. Fox, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• Thomas Whitford, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Forest Service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Subsistence Board proposes to amend 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 regulatory years.
The text of the proposed amendments to 36 CFR 242.24 and 242.26 and 50 CFR 100.24 and 100.26 is the final rule for the 2016-2018 regulatory period for wildlife (81 FR 52528; August 8, 2016).
The text of the proposed amendments to 36 CFR 242.25 and 50 CFR 100.25 is the final rule for the 2015-17 regulatory period for fish (80 FR 28187; May 18, 2015).
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission invites comment on proposed changes to its rules implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and to its call completion rules. The Commission proposes rules to codify the clarification contained in the
Comments are due on or before July 3, 2017, and reply comments are due on or before July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket 17-59 by any of the following methods:
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 by email at
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
Document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that may result in modified information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in the
1. In the document FCC 17-24, the Commission begins a process to facilitate voice service providers' blocking of illegal robocalls. Providers have been active in identifying such robocalls, and consumer groups and others have asked the Commission to encourage better call blocking.
2. The Commission believes that it is in the best interest of achieving the goal of eliminating illegal robocalls to collaborate with industry—government can remove regulatory roadblocks and ensure that industry has the flexibility to use robust tools to address illegal traffic. It is also important for the Commission to protect the reliability of the nation's communications network and to protect consumers from provider-initiated blocking that harms, rather than helps, consumers. The Commission therefore must balance competing policy considerations—some favoring blocking and others disfavoring blocking—to arrive at an effective solution that maximizes consumer protection and network reliability. The Commission therefore seek comment on several proposals that the Commission believes strike the correct balance.
3. Specifically, the Commission proposes that voice service providers may block telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal robocalls. First, the Commission proposes to codify the clarification contained in the
4. The Commission's legal authority for these rules stems from sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act (the Act), which prohibit unjust and unreasonable practices and unjust and unreasonable discrimination—and thus have formed the basis for the Commission's historic prohibitions on call blocking. Here, the Commission believes that blocking a call from a spoofed number is not, by definition, an unjust or unreasonable practice or unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory practice, and the Commission invokes authority stemming from sections 201 and 202 of the Act in making that determination. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as codified in section 227(b)(2) of the Act, also states that the Commission “shall prescribe regulations to implement” the TCPA's restrictions on robocalls in subsection 227(b) of the Act. As discussed below, the Commission's proposed rules are intended to facilitate blocking of illegal robocalls by voice service providers, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that consumers receive fewer robocalls that violate section 227(b) of the Act, while also preserving effective call completion obligations. In addition, the Commission is charged with prescribing regulations to implement the Truth in Caller ID Act, which made unlawful the spoofing of Caller IDs “in connection with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service . . . . with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value . . . .” Given the continuing and ever-evolving schemes by illegitimate callers to harm and defraud consumers using spoofed Caller IDs, these proposals are necessary to allow service providers to help prevent these unlawful acts and protect voice service subscribers. Finally, section 251(e) of the Act gives the Commission authority over the use
5. As a threshold matter, the Commission seek comment on how to define the term “illegal robocall” for purposes of this proceeding. Based on the Strike Force's recommendation, the Commission tentatively concludes that an “illegal robocall” is one that violates the requirements of the TCPA, the related Commission regulations implementing the Act, or the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as any call made for the purpose of defrauding a consumer, as prohibited under a variety of federal and state laws and regulations, including the federal Truth in Caller ID Act. Is this definition sufficient to capture all robocalls that should be subject to provider-initiated blocking? If not, how might the definition be expanded to serve the Commission's goals in this proceeding? For example, would this definition preclude voice service providers from blocking calls that are not lawful for other reasons, such as calls prohibited by an anti-stalking law or a court order, or preclude providers from blocking calls that violate a law but are not autodialed or prerecorded? Conversely, is this definition insufficiently precise so that it could lead to lawful calls being blocked? If so, what types of calls and how should the Commission change this definition?
6. The
7. The
8. In the Strike Force Report, the Strike Force asked the Commission to further clarify that provider-initiated blocking is permissible where the call purports to originate from a number that the provider knows to be unassigned. As discussed in more detail below, use of an unassigned number is a strong indication that the calling party is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm a voice service subscriber. The Commission can readily identify three categories of unassigned numbers. Those categories are: (1) Numbers that are invalid under the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), including numbers with unassigned area codes; (2) numbers that have not been allocated by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or the National Number Pool Administrator (PA) to any provider; and (3) numbers that the NANPA or PA has allocated to a provider, but are not currently assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks comment on rules to codify that providers may block numbers that fall into each of these three categories. The Commission seeks comment on how and when such blocking should be permitted and on whether there are other categories of numbers that should be considered to be unassigned.
9. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule allowing provider-initiated blocking of calls purportedly originating from numbers that are not valid under the NANP. Examples of such numbers include numbers that use an unassigned area code; that use an N11 code, such as 911 or 411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the requisite number of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000. Can providers, because of their intimate knowledge of the North American Numbering Plan, easily identify numbers that fall into this category? Further, because these numbers are not valid, there is no possibility that a subscriber legitimately could be originating calls from such numbers. Nor do the Commission foresee any reasonable possibility that a caller would spoof such a number for any legitimate, lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its main call-back number, invalid numbers cannot be called back. The Commission therefore does not see a significant risk to network reliability in allowing
10. More generally, the Commission seeks comment on whether, for purposes of this rule, to define invalid numbers more specifically than already described above. Further, the Commission seeks comment on what, if anything, the Commission can do to assist providers in correctly identifying invalid numbers. With regard to smaller providers, are there any particular measures the Commission or the numbering administrators can implement to assist them in more readily identifying or blocking calls originating from invalid numbers? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any additional issues concerning the blocking of calls purportedly originating from invalid numbers.
11. The Commission also proposes to allow provider-initiated blocking of calls from numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are valid under the North American Numbering Plan, the Commission believes that they are similar to invalid numbers in that no subscriber can actually originate a call from any of them, and the Commission can foresee no legitimate, lawful reason to spoof such a number because they cannot be called back. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
12. Unlike the category of calls described above, numbers in this category are not presumptively invalid. Instead, the provider must have knowledge that a certain block of numbers has not been allocated to any provider and therefore that the number being blocked could not have been assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks comment on whether providers can readily identify numbers that have yet to be allocated to any provider and, if not, whether the NANPA or PA could assist by providing this information in a timely, effective way. If there are difficulties in identifying unallocated numbers, the Commission asks commenters to provide specific descriptions and/or examples of any of those difficulties, and to offer any proposed solutions to overcome these difficulties. Can providers identify a subset of such number blocks,
13. The Commission proposes to allow provider-initiated blocking of calls from numbers that have been allocated to a provider but are not assigned to a subscriber at the time of the call. Like the two categories of unassigned numbers discussed above, a subscriber cannot originate a call from such a number, and the Commission foresees no legitimate, lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is not assigned to a subscriber and thus cannot be called back. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
14. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the ability of providers to accurately and timely identify numbers that fall within this category. The Commission believes that the provider to which a telephone number is allocated will know whether that telephone number is currently assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks comment on whether other providers can also determine, in a timely way, whether a specific telephone number is assigned to a subscriber at the time a specific call is made. Do providers currently share information about which numbers are assigned to a subscriber, and, if so, is such information shared in close to real time? Can the number portability database administered by the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) provide such information for a subset of numbers? Are there ways the Commission can facilitate or improve the sharing of information about numbers in this category? Should the Commission mandate the sharing of information about unassigned numbers to facilitate appropriate robocall blocking? If so, what is the most appropriate means to facilitate such information sharing?
15. If there are reasons that information about such numbers cannot be shared in an accurate and timely way, the Commission also seeks comment on whether a rule explicitly authorizing provider-initiated blocking of calls purportedly from numbers that are allocated to a provider but not assigned to a subscriber should apply only to the provider to which the number is allocated. Are there other factors that support or disfavor explicitly authorizing all providers to block calls purporting to originate from numbers in this category? Are there concerns for small providers, which presumably have a smaller set of allocated numbers than the larger providers? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any issues not already raised that may arise by allowing providers to block allocated, but unassigned, telephone numbers.
16.
17.
18.
19. In the Strike Force Report, the Strike Force asked the Commission to clarify that providers are permitted to block “presumptively illegal” calls. Although the Commission agrees that no reasonable consumer would want to
20. The Commission believes that the categories of unassigned numbers discussed above exemplify objective standards for determining whether a specific call is illegal to a reasonably high degree of certainty. The Commission is aware, however, that there could be a variety of other objective standards that could indicate to a reasonably high degree of certainty that a call is illegal. Consequently, the Commission seeks comment on objective standards that would indicate to a reasonably high degree of certainty that a call is illegal and whether to adopt a safe harbor to give providers certainty that they will not be found in violation of the call completion and other Commission rules when they block calls based upon an application of objective standards. The Commission also seeks comment on ways that callers who make legitimate calls can guard against being blocked and to ensure that legitimate callers whose calls are blocked by mistake can prevent further blocking.
21. The Commission seeks comment on provider-initiated blocking based on objective criteria. The Commission seeks comment on what methods providers and third-party call blocking service providers employ in order to determine that a certain call is illegal. The Strike Force Report states that “[e]xamples of reasonable efforts include but are not limited to, soliciting and reviewing information from other carriers, performing historical and real time call analytics, making test calls, contacting the subscriber of the spoofed number, inspecting the media for a call (audio play back of the Real Time Protocol stream to understand the context of the call), and checking customer complaint sites.” The Commission seeks more specific information regarding these and other methods or standards that can be used to identify illegal calls to a reasonably high degree of certainty.
22. What other methods can be or are used? In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which information obtained through traceback efforts is, can, and should be used to identify future calls that are illegal to a reasonably high degree of certainty? The Commission asks commenters to submit information on whether some methods more accurately identify illegal calls in comparison to other methods, and whether some methods can identify unwanted calls but are less accurate in identifying illegal calls. Do certain methods work best in combination? Are some methods acceptable when used in the context of an informed consumer choosing to implement call blocking with knowledge of the risks of false positives, but might be less acceptable when used in the context of provider-initiated blocking? What can the Commission do to help providers minimize the possibility for false positives when blocking calls based on such methods?
23. Does provider size, geographic location, or other factors have an impact on which methods provide the most accurate results or which methods are feasible? What can the Commission do to provide support for smaller providers that wish to adopt these methods? Are some methods more likely to result in providers blocking legitimate calls in a manner that might violate the Act or the Commission's rules or polices related to call completion or that are more likely to contravene the policy goals underlying those rules? Calls that originate domestically may have differences from those which originate internationally, thus requiring consideration of different objective criteria. Are there any differences in how providers do, or should, handle calls originating outside of the United States in comparison to those originating domestically? If so, are there any limitations to a provider's ability to accurately identify the true origination point of a call?
24. The Commission recognizes that standards bodies have made significant progress on Caller ID Authentication Standards. The Commission applauds this progress, and encourages the industry to implement these standards as soon as they are capable of doing so. The Commission seeks comment on whether, once there is wide adoption of the protocols and specifications established by the Internet Engineering Task Force's (IETF) Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) working group and the Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) framework established in the joint Alliance for Telecommunications and Industry Solutions (ATIS) and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) forum Network-to-Network Interconnection (NNI) Task Force, providers should then be permitted to block calls for which the Caller ID has not been authenticated. Should unauthenticated Caller ID alone be sufficient grounds for a provider to block a call, or should it be used only in combination with other methods? To what extent can these standards be implemented on networks using various types of technology? For example, will these standards work on VoIP calls and traditional wireline calls equally well? If not, how does that impact the propriety of blocking calls based on whether the Caller ID has been authenticated in accordance with these standards? Would it be possible to consider the lack of authenticated Caller ID only for those calls to which these industry standards can be applied? Are there special considerations related to implementing these standards on networks operated by small providers or in rural areas? What other factors should the Commission consider with regard to blocking calls based upon whether Caller ID has been authenticated in accordance with these standards?
25. The Commission seeks comment on whether sharing of information among providers can increase the effectiveness of call blocking methodologies and could enable small providers to benefit from the greater resources of larger providers that might be better able to create and implement more sophisticated methods of identifying illegal calls. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other impacts, positive and negative, of such information sharing and on what the Commission can do to encourage and facilitate such sharing of information in a manner most likely to result in accurate and timely identification of illegal calls. Again, the Commission notes that by seeking comment on these issues, the Commission does not stall, interrupt, or prevent information sharing that is already occurring lawfully. The Commission notes that section 222(d)(2) of the Act makes clear that CPNI may be shared “to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of . . . such services.” The Commission seek comment on what other clarifications or rules changes, if any, would help to improve industry efforts to combat illegal robocalls and improve traceback efforts.
26. The Commission also seeks comment on a broader safe harbor to provide certainty to providers that blocking calls in accordance with the rules the Commission adopts in this proceeding will not be deemed a violation of the Commission's rules and the Act, or counted for purposes of evaluating a provider's call completion rates. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate scope of such a safe harbor.
27. The Commission seeks comment on what blocking practices and objective standards should be covered by any safe harbor. Are there any methods, practices, or objective standards that should expressly be excluded from the safe harbor? Are there methods, practices, or objective standards that warrant some protection, such as a rebuttable presumption that their use does not violate the call completion rules, but do not warrant the full protection of a safe harbor? What are they?
28. The Commission further seeks comment on how to formulate a safe harbor that avoids providing a roadmap enabling makers of illegal robocalls to circumvent call blocking by providers. Are there ways to provide both certainty to providers without providing a level of detail that would enable makers of illegal robocalls to circumvent blocking efforts? Should the Commission distinguish between standards that are general,
29. Even if providers use objective standards, there might be some situations in which legitimate calls would be blocked. For example, high-volume callers that properly obtain prior express consent might run afoul of call-per-minute restrictions even though all calls made are legal. This might occur if a call center lawfully spoofs the Caller ID on outgoing calls to utilize the business's toll-free number that consumers can use to call back or that might be familiar to consumers in a way that helps to identify the caller. The Commission seeks to avoid the blocking of such legitimate calls and, instead, seek to ensure that legitimate calls are completed. The Commission thus seeks comment on protections for legitimate callers. Specifically, should the Commission require providers to “white list” legitimate callers who give them advance notice? Should the Commission establish a challenge mechanism for callers who may have been blocked in error?
30. First, the Commission seeks comment on establishing a mechanism, such as a white list, to enable legitimate callers to proactively avoid having their calls blocked. Should the Commission specify the mechanism or mechanisms to be used or administrative details, such as the type of evidence providers might require of such legitimate callers? If so, what should the Commission require? Should the Commission specify a timeframe within which providers must add a legitimate caller to its white list? How should white list information be shared by providers? Is there anything the Commission can do to ensure that white list information is shared in a timely fashion such that legitimate callers need not contact each and every provider separately? Is Commission action needed to guard against white lists being accessed or obtained by makers of illegal robocalls? What is the risk that a caller could circumvent efforts to block illegal robocalls by spoofing numbers on the white list? Is this risk mitigated by the SHAKEN and STIR standards for authenticating Caller ID if, for example, the white list requires that all calls from the white listed telephone number be signed—once those standards have been implemented? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any other relevant issues.
31. Second, the Commission seeks comment on implementing a process to allow legitimate callers to notify providers when their calls are blocked and to require providers immediately to cease blocking calls when they learn that the calls are legitimate. How rapidly must a provider respond to a request to cease blocking, and should the Commission specify the information that providers must accept as proof that a caller is legitimate? Should the Commission require specific procedures, or allow providers discretion in how to develop processes, including processes for sharing and safeguarding this information? If provider discretion is allowed, should the Commission require providers to submit their procedures for staff review along with their objective standards? Are there procedures that would reduce any potentially undue burdens on smaller providers? The Commission believes most callers will contact their own provider first when their calls are being blocked. That provider, however, may not be the provider that is actually blocking the calls. The Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate information sharing so that the challenge reaches the provider actually blocking the calls. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any other relevant issues.
Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on whether providers should designate an officer or other authorized point of contact for legitimate callers seeking to proactively avoid having their calls blocked or to stop blocking of their calls. Would such a requirement represent an undue burden on smaller providers and, if so, what alternative should be available to legitimate callers?
32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA) the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 17-24. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the
33. Document FCC 17-24 begins a process to facilitate voice service providers' blocking of illegal robocalls, which represent an annoyance—and often worse—for consumers. Document FCC 17-24 proposes rules that would allow providers to—on their customers' behalf—block the illegal robocalls that can bombard their phones at all hours of the day. Providers have been active in identifying such robocalls, and consumer groups and others have asked
34. Document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on proposed rules to codify that voice service providers may block telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal robocalls. First, document FCC 17-24 proposes to codify the clarification contained in the
35. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under sections 201, 202, 227, 251(e) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 227, 251(e), 403.
36. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 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. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.8 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51. As indicated above, document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on proposed rules to codify that voice service providers may block telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal robocalls. Until these requirements are defined in full, it is not possible to predict with certainty whether the costs of compliance will be proportionate between small and large providers. The Commission seeks to minimize the burden associated with reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for the proposed rules, such as modifying software, developing procedures, and training staff.
52. Under the proposed rules, providers may need to record requests from subscribers to block certain numbers, as well as identify invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned. In addition, they may need to set up communication with other providers to share information about numbers to be blocked. Finally, providers may need to exclude calls that are blocked pursuant to the proposed rules when calculating their call completion rates.
53. 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
54. It should be noted that these proposed rules to codify that voice service providers may block telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal robocalls are permissive and not mandatory. Small businesses may avoid compliance costs entirely by declining to block robocalls, or may delay their implementation of robocall blocking to allow for more time to come into compliance with the rules. However, the Commission intends to craft rules that encourage all carriers, including small businesses, to block illegal robocalls and therefore seeks comment from small businesses on how to minimize costs associated with implementing the proposed rules. Document FCC 17-24 poses specific requests for comment from small businesses regarding how the proposed rules affect them and what could be done to minimize any disproportionate impact on small businesses.
55. The Commission has proposed rules regarding blocking calls at the request of the subscriber to the originating number and blocking calls originating from unassigned numbers. The Commission has requested feedback from small businesses in the Notice and seek comment on ways to make the proposed rules less costly. The Commission has proposed not to require providers to obtain an opt-in from subscribers in order to block calls as a way of reducing costs to all providers, including small businesses. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize the economic impact of the Commission's proposals.
56. The Commission has also initiated a Notice of Inquiry in document FCC 17-24 to consider a range of alternatives to expand the proposed rules, including establishment of objective standards to indicate that a call is likely to be illegal, creation of a safe harbor for providers, and creation of safeguards to minimize blocking of lawful calls. These are not yet proposed rules. They show the Commission is proceeding with caution and seeking comment from small businesses and others before developing rules in this complex area. The Commission will assess how to proceed in light of the record in response to the document FCC 17-24, including any comments from small businesses.
57. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the document FCC 17-24 and this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
58. None.
Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology, Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Voice service providers may block calls so that they do not reach a called party as follows:
(1) Providers may block calls when the subscriber to which the originating number is assigned has requested that calls originating from that number be blocked. Calls may be blocked based upon the originating number shown in the Caller ID without regard to whether the calls in fact originate from that number.
(2) Providers may block calls originating from the following numbers:
(i) A number that is not a valid North American Numbering Plan number;
(ii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or the Pooling Administrator; and
(iii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or Pooling Administrator, but is not assigned to a subscriber.
(3) For purposes of blocking calls based upon the originating number under this paragraph (k), a provider may rely on Caller ID information to determine the originating number.
(e) The following calls are excluded from these requirements:
(1) IntraLATA toll calls carried entirely over the covered provider's network or handed off by the covered provider directly to the terminating local exchange carrier or directly to the tandem switch that the terminating local exchange carrier's end office subtends (terminating tandem); and
(2) Calls blocked pursuant to § 64.1200(k) of the Commission's rules.
(e) The following calls are excluded from these requirements:
(1) IntraLATA toll calls carried entirely over the covered provider's network or handed off by the covered provider directly to the terminating local exchange carrier or directly to the tandem switch that the terminating local exchange carrier's end office subtends (terminating tandem); and
(2) calls blocked pursuant to § 64.1200(k) of the Commission's rules.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR). Under this initiative all parts of the regulation are being reviewed in phased increments to revise or remove any policy that has been superseded by changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove any procedural guidance that is internal to the VA, and to incorporate any new regulations or policies
Acquisition regulations become outdated over time and require updating to incorporate additional policies, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that implement and supplement the FAR to satisfy VA mission needs, and to incorporate changes in dollar and approval thresholds, definitions, and VA position titles and offices. This Proposed Rule will correct inconsistencies, remove redundant and duplicate material already covered by the FAR, delete outdated material or information, and appropriately renumber VAAR text, clauses and provisions where required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement.
This Proposed Rule will streamline the VAAR to implement and supplement the FAR only when required, and remove internal agency guidance as noted above in keeping with the FAR principles concerning agency acquisition regulations.
Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017 to be considered in the formulation of the final rule.
Written comments may be submitted through
Mr. Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services, 003A2A, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 632-5276. This is not a toll-free telephone number.
This action is being taken under the authority of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act which provides the authority for an agency head to authorize the issuance of agency acquisition regulations that implement or supplement the FAR. This authority ensures that Government procurements are handled fairly and consistently, that the Government receives overall best value, and that the Government and contractors both operate under a known set of rules.
The Proposed Rule updates the VAAR to current FAR titles, requirements, and definitions; it updates VA titles and offices; it corrects inconsistencies, removes redundancies and duplicate material already covered by the FAR; it deletes outdated material or information and appropriately renumbers VAAR text and clauses and provisions where required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement. All amendments, revisions, and removals have been peer reviewed and concurred with by an Integrated Product Team of agency stakeholders.
The VAAR uses the regulatory structure and arrangement of the FAR and headings and subject areas are broken up consistent with the FAR content. The VAAR is divided into subchapters, parts (each of which covers a separate aspect of acquisition), subparts, sections, and subsections.
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act provides the authority for the Federal Acquisition Regulation and for the issuance of Agency Acquisition regulations consistent with the FAR.
When Federal agencies acquire supplies and services using appropriated funds, the purchase is governed by the FAR, set forth at Title 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter 1, parts 1 through 53, and the agency regulations that implement and supplement the FAR. The VAAR is set forth at Title 48 CFR, chapter 8, parts 801 to 873. These authorities are designed to ensure that Government procurements are handled fairly and consistently, that the Government receives overall best value, and that the Government and contractors both operate under a known set of rules.
VA is proposing to revise the VAAR to add new policy or regulatory requirements and to remove any guidance that is applicable only to VA's internal operating processes or procedures. Codified acquisition regulations may be amended and revised only through formal rulemaking under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This proposed rule will generally be small business neutral. VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action.
VA proposes to make the following changes to the VAAR in this phase of its revision and streamlining initiative. For procedural guidance cited below that is proposed to be deleted from the VAAR, each section cited for removal is being considered for inclusion in VA's internal agency operating procedures in accordance with FAR 1.301(a)(2). Similarly, delegations of authorities that are removed from the VAAR will be included in the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM) as internal agency guidance.
We propose to revise the main parts reflected in the title of the case: VAAR parts 803, 814, and 822, as well as revisions to affected parts as a result of those changes: VAAR parts 801, 802, 812, and 852.
We propose to revise the authority citations under Parts 801, 802, 803, 812, 814, 822, and 852 to include a reference to 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3) which is from Title 41, Public Contracts, Positive Law codification that speaks to the authority of an executive agency under another law to prescribe policies, regulations, procedures, and forms for procurement that are subject to the authority conferred in the cited section, as well as other sections of Title 41 as shown therein. Any other proposed changes to
This proposed rule removes an information collection burden previously included in the VAAR based on an outdated practice in providing bid envelopes. In section 801.106, OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we propose to remove and discontinue the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 2900-0593, clause 852.214-70, as well as its prescription at 814.201-6(a), since sealed bids are solicited through the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) and are largely submitted electronically rather than through the U.S. mail, thereby making the optional practice of providing bidders with envelops and return address label unnecessary.
In section 802.101, Definitions, we propose to add two new definitions to define two key terms used within the revised VAAR part 803, Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interests, dealing with debarment and suspensions and that will be applicable when referenced in the future in other VAAR parts: Debarment and Suspension Committee and Suspension and Debarring Official. These are necessary to ensure a clear understanding of the meaning of these terms and who is designated as the Suspension and Debarring Official (SDO).
We propose to clarify the language regarding the prohibition of contractors from making reference in their commercial advertising regarding VA contracts to avoid implying that the Government approves or endorses products or services. We propose to add a requirement that contracting officers require contractors and subcontractors at any tier to obtain signed non-disclosure statements from covered personnel.
In subpart 803.1, Safeguards, we propose the remove and reserve the entire subpart for the reasons stated in the sections below which fall under the subpart. We propose to remove section 803.101, Standards of conduct, since it contains procedural guidance and a delegation of authority that is internal to the VA and will be in the VAAM.
We propose to remove section 803.101-3, Department regulations, since it contains information on standards of conduct and financial disclosure for VA employees and is internal procedural guidance that is internal to the VA and will be in the VAAM.
We propose to remove section 803.104, Procurement integrity, and section 803.104-7, Violations or possible violations, since they contain procedural guidance and a delegation of authority that is internal to the VA and will be in the VAAM. We propose to remove subsection 803.104-7, Violations or possible violations since it also contains procedural guidance and a delegation of authority that is internal to the VA and will be in the VAAM.
In subpart 803.2, Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel, we are proposing to update the policy governing improper business practices and personal conflicts of interests to make the agency's policies clear, to provide notice of due process rights and to establish who in the agency determines whether or not a violation of the Gratuities clause has occurred and what procedures are followed when the Suspension and Debarring Official (SDO) makes that decision.
In section 803.204, we propose to remove portions of section 803.204, Treatment of violations, which contain procedural guidance and a delegation of authority that is internal to the VA and will be moved to the VAAM. To ensure contractors are apprised of their rights, we propose to revise section 803.204 to add the responsibility of the Suspension and Debarring Official (SDO) for determining whether or not a violation of the Gratuities clauses has occurred and what action will be taken, as well as a paragraph that states that when the SDO determines that a violation has occurred and that debarment is being considered, the SDO shall follow the requirements at VAAR 809.406-3.
In subpart 803.3, Reports of Suspected Antitrust Violations, we propose to remove section 803.303, Reporting suspected antitrust violations, since it contains guidance to VA employees that is internal to the VA and will be moved to the VAAM.
In subpart 803.4, Contingent Fees, we propose to remove and reserve the entire subpart and to remove the underlying section 803.405, Misrepresentations or violations of the Covenant Against Contingent Fees, since it contains guidance to VA employees that is internal to the VA and will be moved to the VAAM.
In subpart 803.5, Other Improper Business Practices, we propose to remove section 803.502, Subcontractor kickbacks, since it provides direction to VA employees that is internal to the VA and will be moved to the VAAM.
In section 803.570, Commercial advertising, we propose to revise the language of subsection 803.570-1, Policy, to clarify the intent to prohibit advertising that implies a Government endorsement of the contractor's products or services.
In subpart 803.6, Contracts with Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them, we propose to remove and reserve the entire subpart and to remove the underlying section 803.602, Exceptions, since it delegates authority to authorize an exception to the policy in FAR 3.601. This delegation will be in the VA Acquisition Manual and is internal VAAM procedural guidance.
In subpart 803.7, Voiding and Rescinding Contracts, we propose to remove and reserve the entire subpart and to remove the underlying sections. We propose to remove section 803.703, Authority, since it is a delegation of authority. This delegation will be in the VAAM and is internal VA procedural guidance. We propose to remove section 803.705, Procedures, as it duplicates FAR 3.705. A short paragraph that directs VA Heads of Contracting Activities to follow the procedures of FAR 3.705 was added to the VAAM.
In subpart 803.8, Limitation on the Payment of Funds to Influence Federal Transactions, we propose to remove and reserve the entire subpart and to remove the underlying sections. We propose to remove section 803.804, Policy, and section 803.806, Processing suspected violations. This is internal VA procedural guidance and will be moved to the VAAM.
We propose to add subpart 803.11, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions. This implements part of FAR clause 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, by requiring the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement by certain contractor covered employees performing acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions in order to prohibit disclosure of non-public information accessed through performance on a Government contract. This also requires each contractor and subcontractor at any tier whose employees perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions to obtain the signed non-disclosure forms from each covered employee.
We propose to remove and reserve subpart 803.70, Contractor Responsibility to Avoid Improper Business Practices, and to remove its underlying section 803.7000, Display of the VA Hotline poster and its prescription at section 803.7001, Contract clause, because it is unnecessary and duplicates FAR coverage. FAR 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), as prescribed at FAR 3.1004(b), provides adequate coverage for the VA. Agency internal procedures regarding fill-in information for the clause will be covered in the VAAM.
In section 812.301, paragraph (b)(13), we propose to change the name of provision 852.214-74 to Marking of Bid Samples to better reflect the requirement of the provision.
In subpart 814.1, Use of Sealed Bidding, we propose to delete the subpart in its entirety, to include its underlying sections. We propose to delete section 814.104, Types of contracts, and section 814.104-70, Fixed-price contracts with escalation, as unnecessary since both simply require compliance with FAR 16.203-1 through 16.203-4 and no additional VAAR text is required.
In subpart 814.2, Solicitation of Bids, we propose to revise section 814.201(a)-(f) by: Removing paragraphs (a)-(b) since they deal with numbering of IFBs and consist of internal agency procedures which is more properly covered in VAAM subpart 804.16; and, by removing paragraphs (c) through (f) altogether under the existing section. The title of the section would remain, but no additional text is added.
We propose to add a new subsection, 814.201-2, Part I—The Schedule, to explain how award will be made on summary bids and bids on groups of items to ensure this is clear to the public. In this new subsection 814.201-2, we propose to add revised paragraphs originating from the old 814.201 to comport with FAR numbering and arrangement under the new subsection VAAR 814.201-2(b) to implement FAR 14.201-2(b).
In subsection 814.201-6, Solicitation provisions, we propose to remove as unnecessary paragraph (a), which addresses bid envelopes, since labeling of bids is a customary and usual commercial practice, and the use of the OF 17, which is optional, is no longer a standard practice. We propose to redesignate paragraph (b) as (a) and to revise item (1) to prescribe new provision 852.214-71, Restrictions on alternate item(s); item (2) to clarify the conditions for including the provision 852.214-72, Alternate items; and item (3) to prescribe the provision 852.214-73, Alternate packaging and packing, when bids will be allowed based on different packaging and packing. We also proposed to redesignate paragraph (c) as (b) and to add a prescription for the provision 852.214-74, Marking of bid samples.
We propose to add section 814.202, General rules for solicitation of bids and subsection 814.202-4, Bid samples, requiring samples to be from the manufacturer providing supplies or services under the contract. This ensures that the products that are actually proposed and would be delivered under the contract, if awarded, are the products that are submitted for evaluation. Paragraph (g), requires that bid samples be retained for the period of contract performance or until settlement of any claim that the Government may have against the contractor. Retention is intended for inspection purposes under FAR 14.202-4(g)(4).
We propose to delete section 814.203, Methods of soliciting bids, and subsection 814.203-1, Transmittal to prospective bidders, as the practice specified of furnishing a bid envelope or sealed bid label is out of date with existing practices.
We propose to delete section 814.204, Records of Invitations for Bids and Records of Bids, as it contains internal instructions to the VA and will be moved to the VAAM.
We propose to delete section 814.208, Amendment of Invitation for Bids as out of date with existing practices regarding sending amendments.
In subpart 814.3, Submission of Bids, we propose to delete section 814.301, Responsiveness of bids, since there is no authority to refer the question of timeliness to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) except in the context of a protest.
We propose to delete section 814.302, Bid submission, as duplicative of FAR 14.302(a) and therefore unnecessary.
We propose to revise section 814.304, Submission, modification, and withdrawal of bids, to delete internal procedures, to stipulate a limited time period for a late bidder to submit evidence of timeliness, and to renumber this paragraph (f) accordingly to comport with FAR and VAAR numbering conventions.
In subpart 814.4, Opening of Bids and Award of Contract, we propose to delete the entire subpart because the information is either redundant to the FAR and is adequately covered there or it is comprised of agency internal procedures that will be incorporated into the VAAM as noted specifically below.
We propose to delete section 814.401, Receipt and safeguarding of bids, because coverage in the VAAR is unnecessary as the FAR adequately covers.
We propose to delete sections 814.402, Opening of bids; 814.403, Recording of bids; 814.404, Rejection of bids; 814.404-1, Cancellation of invitations after opening; 814.404-2, Rejection of individual bids; 814.407, Mistakes in bids; 814.407-3, Other mistakes disclosed before award; and, 814.407-4, Mistakes after award, as these are agency internal procedures that will be incorporated into the VAAM.
We propose to delete section 814.404-70, Questions involving the responsiveness of a bid, as there is no authority to refer questions of bid responsiveness to the GAO other than in the context of a protest, and, the overall responsibility for this determination rests with the contracting officer. Coverage in FAR 14.301, Responsiveness of bids, is adequate and no further VAAR coverage is required.
We propose to delete sections 814.408, Award, and 814.408-70, Award when only one bid is received, because coverage in the VAAR is unnecessary as it is adequately covered by FAR 14.408-1(b).
We propose to delete section 814.408-71, Recommendation for award (construction) as the procedures are no longer in use within the Office of Construction and Facilities Management.
We propose to delete section 814.409, Information to bidders, as unnecessary since the requirement not to disclose is contained in FAR part 3 and need not be duplicated in the VAAR.
In subpart 822.3, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, we propose to revise section 822.304, Variations, tolerances, and exemptions, to use plain language to state the conditions that must be met to permit use of the variation to Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards (the statute) (historically known as the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act), granted by the Secretary of Labor regarding the payment of overtime under contracts for nursing home care for Veterans.
We propose to revise section 822.305, Contract clause, to change the title of
In subpart 822.4, Labor Standards for Contracts Involving Construction, we propose to remove and reserve subpart 822.4, Labor Standards for Contracts Involving Construction, since this subpart contains procedural guidance on the types of labor standards involved in construction contracting, internal agency guidance to the contracting officer, etc., and is more appropriate for inclusion in the VAAM.
We propose to remove the underlying section 822.406, Administration and enforcement and subsection 822.406-11, Contract terminations, which falls under this subpart since it contains procedural guidance and will be moved to the VAAM.
In subpart 852.2, we propose to revise clause 852.203-70, Commercial Advertising, to use plain language, remove gender-specific wording, and to clarify the intent to prohibit advertising that implies a Government endorsement of the contractor's products or services.
We propose to remove clause 852.203-71, Display of Department of Veterans Affairs Hotline Poster, because the VA will instead use FAR clause 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), as prescribed at FAR 3.1004. The FAR clause permits insertion of fill-in language to identify an agency's hotline poster and VA will include language in its internal agency procedures detailing the requirement to insert the information regarding its agency specific hotline poster.
We propose to remove provision 852.214-70, Caution to Bidders—Bid Envelopes, because the practices described within the provision are obsolete with the advent of posting on the Government wide point of entry (GPE) via the Federal Business Opportunities (
We propose to revise the individual prescription references for the following clauses based on the restructuring of 814.201-6: 852.214-71, Restrictions on Alternate Item(s); 852.214-72, Alternate Item(s); and 852.214-73, Alternate Packaging and Packing.
We propose to revise the title, text and prescription language of provision 852.214-74 that now reads, Bid Samples, to Marking of Bid Samples to describe better what the provision is about and to distinguish it from a FAR provision that is called “Bid Samples.” We use plain language to describe the principal purpose, which is to ensure that bidder's packages that include bid samples are clearly marked and identified with the words Bid Samples, as well as complete lettering/numbering and description of the related bid item(s), the number of the IFB, and the name of the bidder submitting the bid samples. We are also removing language stating that the preparation and transportation of the bid sample must be prepaid by the bidder as this language is unnecessary because FAR clause 52.214-20, Bid Samples, already contains language covering the bidder's responsibilities in this regard. We also propose to revise the prescription language for this provision at 814.201-6(b) which was renumbered to comport with FAR and VAAR numbering and arrangement.
We propose to revise clause 852.222-70, Contract Work-Hours and Safety Standards Act—Nursing Home Care Contract Supplement, to change the title to Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards—Nursing Home Care for Veterans, to better reflect the substance and coverage of the clause and to align the name of the clause with the revised current reference in lieu of the historical title of the act. This revision will also clarify that the clause has flow-down requirements and applies to subcontractors at any tier when the stated conditions in the VAAR clause are met.
Title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 8, Department of Veterans Affairs, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this proposed rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority and publication of the Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) for the cited applicable parts. Other than future amendments to this rule or governing statutes for the cited applicable parts, or as otherwise authorized by approved deviations or waivers in accordance with FAR subpart 1.4, Deviations from the FAR, and as implemented by VAAR subpart 801.4, Deviations from the FAR or VAAR, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with the rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking as pertains to the cited applicable VAAR parts.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review defines “significant regulatory action” to mean 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.”
VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information at 48 CFR 814.201-6(a) and
This proposed 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. 601-612. This proposed rule will generally be small business neutral. The overall impact of the proposed rule will be of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual business resulting from these rule updates. On this basis, the adoption of this proposed 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. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
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 proposed rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal Governments or on the private sector.
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 May 1, 2017 for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Government procurement.
Antitrust, Conflict of interest, Government procurement.
Government procurement.
Government procurement.
Government procurement, Labor.
Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 48 CFR, chapter 8, parts 801, 802, 803, 812, 814, 822, and 852 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
(a) The SDO shall determine whether or not a violation of the Gratuities clause, 52.203-3 has occurred and what action will be taken under FAR 3.204(c).
(c) When the SDO determines that a violation has occurred and that debarment is being considered, he or she shall follow procedures at 809.406-3.
VA policy prohibits contractors from making references in its commercial advertising to VA contracts in a manner that states or implies the Government approves or endorses the product or service or considers it superior to other products or services. The intent of this policy is to preclude the appearance of bias toward any product or service.
(a) By use of the contract clause at 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, the contracting officer shall require each contractor whose employees perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently Governmental functions to obtain from each covered employee a signed non-disclosure agreement to prohibit disclosure of non-public information accessed through performance of a Government contract. See FAR 3.1103(a)(2)(iii).
38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
(b) * * *
(13) 852.214-74, Marking of Bid Samples.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
(b)
(1) When the contracting officer determines that it will be to the Government's advantage to make an award on the basis of a summary bid, the IFB shall include the following statement in Part I—The Schedule, Section B:
The award will be made on either the bid price for individual items or the summary bid price summary for all items, whichever results in the lowest price to the Government. Therefore, to assure proper evaluation of all bids, a bidder quoting a summary bid price must also quote a price on each individual item included in the summary bid price.
(2) When a contracting officer determines that it will be to the Government's advantage to make an award by group or groups of items, the IFB shall include the following statement in Part I—The Schedule, Section B:
Award shall be made on the basis of the bid price for each identified group of items. The individual price of each line item in the group does not have to be the lowest bid received for that item. This may apply when the items in the group or groups are readily available from sources to be solicited; and one of the following applies—
(i) Furniture or fixtures are required for a single project and uniformity of design is desirable.
(ii) The articles required will be assembled and used as a unit.
(a) In an invitation for bid for supplies, equipment, or services (other than construction), the contracting officer shall define the extent to which VA will authorize and consider alternate bids.
(1) The contracting officer shall include the provision at 852.214-71, Restrictions on Alternate Items(s), in the invitation when VA will consider an alternate item only where acceptable bids on a desired item are not received or the bids do not satisfy the total requirement. (For construction projects, VA will consider for acceptance an alternate specified only as a part of the basic item.)
(2) The contracting officer shall include the provision at 852.214-72, Alternate Items, in the invitation, when VA will consider an alternate item on an equal basis with the item specified. (For construction projects, VA will consider for acceptance an alternate specified only as a part of the basic item.)
(3) In addition to either of the provisions referenced in paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this subsection, the contracting officer shall include the provision at 852.214-73, Alternate Packaging and Packing, in the invitation when bids will be allowed based on different packaging, unit designation, etc.
(b) The contracting officer shall include the provision at 852.214-74, Marking of Bid Samples, in the invitation, along with the provision at FAR 52.214-20, Bid Samples, when the contracting officer determines that samples are necessary to the proper awarding of a contract.
(a)
(g)
(1) Samples from successful bids shall be retained for the period of contract performance.
(2) If the contracting officer anticipates a claim regarding the contract, the contracting officer shall require that the bid samples be retained until the claim is resolved. If there are no outstanding claims regarding the contract, the contracting officer may authorize disposal of the samples at the end of the contract term in accordance with the bidder's instructions.
(3) The contracting officer shall require that samples from unsuccessful bids be retained until award. After award, these samples may be disposed of in accordance with the bidder's instructions.
(f) A notification to late bidders shall specify the final date by which VA must receive evidence of timeliness. This date shall be within five calendar days of the date an electronic notice is sent to the bidder, or within ten calendar days of receipt by the bidder of a notice sent by other than electronic means.
29 CFR 5.15(d); 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
For contracts providing nursing home care for veterans, the Secretary of Labor has allowed a variation to the requirements of Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards (the statute) (40 U.S.C. 3701,
(a) Due to operational necessity or convenience a work period of 14 consecutive days may be accepted in lieu of the workweek of 7 consecutive days for the purpose of computing overtime compensation, pursuant to an agreement or understanding arrived at between the contractor and the contractors' employees before performance of the work; and
(b) If the contractor's employees receive compensation for employment in excess of 8 hours in any workday and in excess of 80 hours in such 14-day period at a rate not less than 1
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.222-70, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards—Nursing Home Care for Veterans, in solicitations and contracts for nursing home care for veterans. The contractor shall flow down this clause and insert in in all subcontracts, at any tier.
38 U.S.C. 501, 8127-8128, and 8151-8153; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
As prescribed in 803.570-2, insert the following clause:
The contractor shall not make reference in its commercial advertising to Department of Veterans Affairs contracts in a manner that states or implies the Department of Veterans Affairs approves or endorses the contractor's products or services or considers the contractor's products or services superior to other products or services.
(End of clause)
As prescribed in paragraph 814.201-6(a)(1), insert the following provision:
Bids on [ ] * will be considered only if acceptable bids on [ ] ** are not received or do not satisfy the total requirement.
* Contracting officer will insert an alternate item that is considered acceptable.
** Contracting officer will insert the required item and item number.
(End of provision)
As prescribed in paragraph 814.201-6(a)(2), insert the following provision:
Bids on [ ] * will be given equal consideration along with bids on [ ] ** and any such bids received may be accepted if to the advantage of the Government. Tie bids will be decided in favor of [ ]. **
* Contracting officer will insert an alternate item that is considered acceptable.
** Contracting officer will insert the required item and item number.
(End of provision)
As prescribed in paragraph 814-201-6(a)(3), insert the following provision:
The bidders offer must clearly indicate the quantity, package size, unit, or other different feature upon which the quote is made. Evaluation of the alternate or multiple alternates will be made on a common denominator such as per ounce, per pound, etc., basis.
(End of provision)
As prescribed in paragraph 814.201-6(b), insert the following provision:
Any bid sample(s) furnished must be in the quantities specified in the solicitation. Cases or packages must be plainly marked `Bid Sample(s)” with the complete lettering/numbering and description of the related bid item(s), the number of the Invitation for Bids, and the name of the bidder submitting the bid sample(s).
(End of provision)
As prescribed in 822.305, insert the following clause:
(a) No Contractor and subcontractor under this contract shall prohibit the payment of overtime wages to their employees for work in excess of 40 hours in any workweek, which would otherwise be a violation of Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards (the statute) (40 U.S.C. 3701,
(1) The Contractor or subcontractor is primarily engaged in the care of nursing home patients residing on the contractor's or subcontractor's premises;
(2) There is an agreement or understanding between the Contractor or subcontractor and their employees, before performance of work, that a work period of 14 consecutive days is acceptable in lieu of a work period of 7 consecutive days for the purpose of overtime compensation;
(3) Employees receive overtime compensation at a rate no less than 1
(4) Pay is otherwise computed in accordance with the requirements of
(b)
(End of clause)
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by June 16, 2017. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is sponsoring a public meeting on June 26, 2017. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 40th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) taking place in Geneva, Switzerland, between July 17 and 22, 2017. The Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service and Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Food Safety, recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 40th Session of the CAC and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 26, 2017, from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 107-A, Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 40th Session of the CAC will be accessible via the Internet at the following address:
The U.S. Delegate to the 40th Session of the CAC invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 40th Session of the CAC by conference call, please use the call-in-number and the participant code listed below:
The participant code will be posted on the Web page below:
Attendees may register to attend the public meeting by emailing
The CAC was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, the CAC seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade; promotes coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations; determines priorities and initiates and guides the preparation of draft standards through and with the aid of appropriate organizations; finalizes the standards elaborated and publishes them in a
The following items on the Agenda for the 40th Session of the CAC will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Reports of the 72nd and 73rd Sessions of the Executive Committee;
• Reports of the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees;
• Amendments to the Procedural Manual;
• Final adoption of Codex texts;
• Adoption of Codex texts at Step 5;
• Revocation of Codex texts;
• Proposals for New Work;
• Discontinuation of Work;
• Amendments to Codex Standards and Related Texts;
• Regular Review of Codex Work Management (Electronic Working Groups);
• Matters arising from the Reports of the Commission, the Executive Committee, and the Subsidiary Bodies;
• Codex Budgetary and Financial Matters;
• FAO/WHO Scientific Support to Codex: Report on Activities and Future Work;
• FAO/WHO Scientific Support to Codex: Budgetary and Financial Matters;
• Matters Arising from FAO and WHO: Policy and Related Matters;
• Matter Arising from FAO and WHO: Capacity Development Activities;
• Relations between the CAC and other International Organizations;
• Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons, and Members of the Executive Committee elected on a Geographical Basis and Appointment of the Coordinators;
• Designation of Countries responsible for Appointing the Chairpersons of Codex Subsidiary Bodies; and
• Other Business.
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the June 26, 2017, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 40th Session of the CAC (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication
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 Florida Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, for the purpose of holding an orientation and discussing potential project topics.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 888-389-5988, conference ID: 3393414.
Jeff Hinton, 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: 888-389-5988, conference ID: 3393414. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by July 6, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 3:00 p.m. (MDT) on Thursday, June 15, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the progress made on the report on elder abuse and next steps.
Thursday, June 15, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. (MDT)
To be held via teleconference:
Malee V. Craft, DFO,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-877-877-852-6579; Conference ID: 1301259. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-877-877-852-6579, Conference ID: 1301259. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, April 10, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA or the Agency), Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a proposed extension of an information collection request approved through November 30, 2017, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before July 17, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Ksenia E. Shadrina, Program Analyst, Performance and National Programs Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
The mission of EDA is to lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. EDA accomplishes this mission by helping our partners across the nation, including states, regions, and communities create wealth and minimize poverty by promoting a favorable business environment to attract private capital investment and jobs through world-class capacity building, planning, infrastructure, research grants, and strategic initiatives. Further information on EDA's program and grant opportunities can be found at
In order to effectively administer and monitor its economic development assistance programs, and to comply with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA; Pub. L. 103-62), EDA must collect specific data from its grant recipients to report on the Agency's performance in meeting its stated goals and objectives. The purpose of this notice is to seek comments from the public and other Federal agencies on a request for an extension of EDA's currently approved GPRA collection forms which are scheduled to expire on November 30, 2017.
EDA collects performance data through a series of four program specific forms (information on EDA's Public Works, Economic Adjustment Assistance, and Revolving Loan programs are collected via form ED-915; information from Economic Development Districts and Indian Tribes are collected via the ED-916; University Centers are required to report on the ED-917; and, Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers are required to fill out a ED-918) that ask respondents to report on items such as the number of jobs created and retained as well as the private investment generated per EDA investment. Respondents are required to submit the applicable form to the EDA Regional Office for compilation and transmission to EDA headquarters.
As a part of this renewal process, EDA plans to make minor clarifying edits to some of the questions on the ED-916, ED-917, and ED-918 and to the instruction sections of the ED-915, ED-916, and ED-917. None of these minor edits are expected to increase the time burden on the respondent nor do the modifications change the type or amount of collected information.
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and may be included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective May 17, 2017.
Emily Maloof at (202) 482-5649, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On March 28, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated a countervailing duty investigation (CVD) on certain aluminum foil from the People's Republic of China.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.
On May 4, 2017, the petitioners
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT or Committee), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet in an open session on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time and Wednesday, June 14, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The VCAT is composed of not fewer than 9 members appointed by the NIST Director, a majority of whom are eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations.
The VCAT will meet on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time and Wednesday, June 14, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held in the Portrait Room, Administration Building, at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the
Serena Martinez, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1060, telephone number 301-975-2661. Mrs. Martinez's email address is
15 U.S.C. 278, as amended, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
The purpose of this meeting is for the VCAT to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include an update on major programs at NIST, as well as presentations and discussions on safety and security at NIST. It will also include an update on three preparatory working groups; the Preparatory Work Group on Trade, the Preparatory Work Group on Innovation and Competitiveness through Fundamental Measurement Research and Development, and the Preparatory Work Group on Communications. The agenda will also include discussion on how NIST can prioritize its measurement science research and development efforts to maximize current impact and ensure continued impact in the years to come. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On Wednesday, June 14, approximately one-half hour in the morning will be reserved for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the NIST Web site at
All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Serena Martinez by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, June 6, 2017. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Mrs. Martinez. Mrs. Martinez's email address is
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The 102nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) will be held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from Sunday, July 16, 2017, through Thursday, July 20, 2017. This notice contains information about significant items on the NCWM Committee agendas but does not include all agenda items. As a result, the items are not consecutively numbered.
The meeting will be held on Sunday, July 15, 2017, through Wednesday, July 19, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and on Thursday, July 20, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting schedule is available at
This meeting will be held at the Omni William Penn Hotel, 530 William Penn Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.
Dr. Douglas Olson, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. You may also contact Dr. Olson at (301) 975-2956 or by email at
Publication of this notice on the NCWM's behalf is undertaken as a public service; NIST does not endorse, approve, or recommend any of the proposals or other information contained in this notice or in publications produced by the NCWM.
The NCWM is an organization of weights and measures officials of the states, counties, and cities of the United States, and representatives from the private sector and federal agencies. These meetings bring together government officials and representatives of business, industry, trade associations, and consumer organizations on subjects related to the field of weights and measures technology, administration, and enforcement. NIST participates to encourage cooperation between federal agencies and the states in the development of legal metrology requirements. NIST also promotes uniformity in state laws, regulations, and testing procedures used in the regulatory control of commercial weighing and measuring devices, packaged goods, and for other trade and commerce issues.
The NCWM has established multiple committees, task groups, and other working bodies to address legal metrology issues of interest to regulatory officials, industry, consumers, and others. The following are brief descriptions of some of the significant agenda items that will be considered by some of the NCWM Committees at the NCWM Annual Meeting. Comments will be taken on these and other issues during public comment sessions. This meeting also includes work sessions in which the Committees may also accept comments for clarification on issues, and where they will finalize recommendations for possible adoption at this meeting. The Committees may also withdraw or carry over items that need additional development.
These notices are intended to make interested parties aware of these development projects and to make them aware that reports on the status of the project will be given at the Annual Meeting. The notices are also presented to invite the participation of manufacturers, experts, consumers, users, and others who may be interested in these efforts.
The Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T Committee) will consider proposed amendments to NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” Those items address weighing and measuring devices used in commercial applications, that is, devices used to buy from or sell to the public or used for determining the quantity of products or services sold among businesses. Issues on the agenda of the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R Committee) relate to proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality” and NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.”
The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 44:
Scales Code Paragraph S.1.2.2. Verification Scale Interval currently requires any Class I and II scale and dynamic monorail scale provided with a scale division value (d) that differs from the verification scale interval (e), to comply with the expression: d < e ≤ 10 d.
The S&T Committee will consider a proposal that adds a new subparagraph beneath the Section heading “S.1.2.2. Verification Scale Interval” which would require the value of the displayed scale division “d” to be equal to the value of the verification scale interval “e” on Class I and II scales used in a direct sale application (
The S&T Committee will consider a proposal requiring additional sales information be recorded by cash registers interfaced with a weighing element for items that are weighed at a checkout stand. These systems are currently required to record the net weight, unit price, total price, and the product class or, in a system equipped with price look-up capability, the product name or code number. The change proposed adds “tare weight” to the list of sales information already required.
In February 2016, the NCWM formed a new task group (TG) to consider a
Members of the TG met face to face for the first time at the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2016. It was agreed at that meeting to eliminate from the proposal any mention of a law enforcement application and focus solely on WIM systems intended for use in commercial applications. The primary focus of the TG since the July 2016 meeting has been to concentrate on the development of test procedures that can be used to verify the accuracy of a slow-speed WIM system while taking into consideration the different axle and tandem axle configurations of the vehicles that will typically be weighed by the system.
The S&T Committee will consider a proposal recognizing the use of calibrated transfer standards (also called “master meters”) in the verification and calibration of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices. Currently, most official tests of these devices are conducted using volumetric proving methods. The proposal outlined in this item includes requirements for a minimum test draft when using “master meters” in both service-related and official testing.
The S&T Committee will consider a proposal recognizing the use of calibrated transfer standards (also called “master meters”) in the verification and calibration of Mass Flow Meters. Currently, most official tests of these devices are conducted using gravimetric test procedures. The proposal outlined in this item includes requirements for a minimum test draft when using “master meters” in both service-related and official testing.
For several years, the NIST U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) on Taximeters has discussed possible approaches for amending the NIST Handbook 44, Taximeters Code to specifically recognize GPS-based time and distance measuring systems that are used to assess charges for transportation services such as those provided by taxicabs. Appropriate specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for these devices must be developed for manufacturers and users of these devices, as well for weights and measures officials. Such requirements help ensure accuracy and transparency for customers and a level playing field for transportation service companies, enabling consumers to make value comparisons between competing services. In 2016, the USNWG on Taximeters submitted a proposal through multiple regional weights and measures associations to establish a separate NIST Handbook 44 code to address “Transportation Network Measurement Systems (TNMS).” Changes to the current NIST Handbook 44, Taximeters Code have also been proposed by the USNWG to recognize taximeters that are now being designed to operate using similar features and functionality as TNMS; these changes have been proposed in a separate item. The S&T Committee will present these proposals for a vote at the upcoming 2017 NCWM Annual Meeting.
The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130 or NIST Handbook 133:
The L&R Committee is recommending adoption of a revision to the uniform method of sale for precious metals that will enhance the ability of consumers to know whether they are getting a fair price for their precious metals. This proposal will allow a consumer to make an informed decision in doing an equitable trade or purchase and make value comparisons. This proposal is not for precious metals traded on the commodity market. If adopted, the proposal will require sellers to prominently display a table indicating grams and ounces, percentage of metal in mixtures, unit price, and if selling by SI a conversion chart to troy ounces.
The current test procedure in NIST Handbook 133, Section 4. Polyethylene Sheeting has provided a test procedure for only polyethylene sheeting and some bag type products. The L&R Committee is recommending for adoption a proposal to expand the current requirements to also include polyethylene bags (
15 U.S.C. 272(b).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice; application for an enhancement of survival permit.
NMFS has received an application for an enhancement of survival permit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a request for entry into an associated Safe Harbor Agreement (Agreement) between the applicant and NMFS. The proposed enhancement of survival permit and Agreement are intended to promote the survival and recovery of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon (
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the action proposed in the application or related matters must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on June 16, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document and requests for a public hearing by any of the following methods. Please identify comments as relating to the “Hart Ranch Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement.”
•
•
Information NMFS received as a part of the application is available upon request by contacting the NMFS West Coast Region (WCR) at its California Coastal Office in Arcata, California.
Jim Simondet, NOAA Fisheries California Coastal Office, 707-825-5171, email:
Enhancement of survival permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Under a Safe Harbor Agreement, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Any interested party may submit data, views, arguments, or a request for a hearing with respect to the permit application and proposed Safe Harbor Agreement. Anyone requesting a hearing on a matter pursuant to this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate (see
The Hart Ranch (Applicant) is requesting an enhancement of survival permit and approval of an associated proposed Agreement that was developed by NMFS and the Applicant. The enhancement of survival permit will facilitate implementation of the Agreement, which is expected to promote the recovery of the covered species on non-federal property within the Little Shasta River on the Hart Ranch. The Little Shasta River is a tributary to the Shasta River, (a tributary to the Klamath River) in Siskiyou County, California. The proposed duration of the Agreement and the associated enhancement of survival permit is 10 years. The proposed enhancement of survival permit would authorize the incidental taking of SONCC coho salmon that may be associated with covered activities, including beneficial management activities, routine ranch management activities, and the potential future return of the enrolled property to baseline conditions at the end of the Agreement, as defined in the Agreement. The Agreement specifies the beneficial management activities to be carried out on the enrolled property and a schedule for implementing those activities. The Agreement is expected to promote the recovery of SONCC coho salmon within the Hart Ranch.
The Safe Harbors policy encourages landowners to improve habitat for listed species on their property. Under the policy, NMFS determines a habitat baseline condition and any increase in a listed species population above that baseline condition that results from the landowner's voluntary stewardship efforts would not increase their regulatory responsibility or affect future land-use decisions. NMFS reviewed each present baseline and elevated baseline determination. The Agreement also contains a monitoring component that requires the Applicant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and that the baseline levels of habitat for the covered species occurs on the enrolled property. Results of the monitoring efforts will be provided to NMFS by the Applicant in an annual report for the duration of the 10-year permit term.
Upon approval of this Agreement, and consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and NMFS's joint Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717, June 17, 1999), NMFS will issue an enhancement of survival permit to the Applicant. The
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and 50 CFR part 17 of federal regulations. The final permit decision will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish a notice announcing its final action in the
Office of the Secretary (OS), 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 June 16, 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 Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6110.
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 the Secretary (OS), 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 June 16, 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 Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6110.
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
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision to a currently approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 17, 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 Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377.
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 the Secretary (OS), 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 June 16, 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 Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6110.
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 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, June 7, 2017, 1:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. EST, Thursday, June 8, 2017, 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203.
Matthew Rosenbaum, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-1060 or email:
The meeting agenda may change to accommodate EAC business. For EAC agenda updates, see the EAC Web site at:
You may submit comments, identified by “Electricity Advisory Committee Open Meeting,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The following electronic file formats are acceptable: Microsoft Word (.doc), Corel Word Perfect (.wpd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls), and Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt). If you
DOE is responsible for the final determination concerning disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it in accordance with the DOE's Freedom of Information regulations (10 CFR 1004.11).
Delivery of the U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE may be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE, therefore, encourages those wishing to comment to submit comments electronically by email. If comments are submitted by regular mail, the Department requests that they be accompanied by a CD or diskette containing electronic files of the submission.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, June 7, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Thursday, June 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
Red Lion Columbia Center, Ballroom V, 1101 North Columbia Center Boulevard, Kennewick, WA 99336.
Kristen Holmes, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, H5-20, Richland, WA 99352; Phone: (509) 376-5803; or Email:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Hanford, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristen Holmes at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Kristen Holmes at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open teleconference.
This notice announces a teleconference of the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Monday, June 12, 2017; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT).
This meeting will be held via webcast using Zoom. Instructions for Zoom can be found on the BERAC meeting Web site at:
Dr. Tristram West, Designated Federal Officer, BERAC, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, SC-23/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. Phone (301) 903-5155; fax (301) 903-5051 or email:
• Review and discuss the draft Grand Challenges report based on the charge letter dated March 3, 2016 (
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:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed an application filed by the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) to permanently amend the reservoir elevation rule curve contained in Article 401 of the license for the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project No. 1494. The amendment would allow GRDA to keep water surface elevations in the project's reservoir, Grand Lake O' the Cherokees (Grand Lake), up to two feet higher August 16 through October 31 each year. The project is located on the Neosho (Grand) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma.
Staff prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) for the application which analyzes the potential environmental effects of approving the requested permanent change to the Article 401 rule curve and concludes that such an approval, with specified environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A copy of the Final EA is available for review at the Commission's Public Reference Room or may it be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
For further information, contact B. Peter Yarrington at (202) 502-6129 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of EUI Affiliate LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 31, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status 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:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the information collection FERC-725R (Mandatory Reliability Standards: BAL Reliability Standards) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by June 16, 2017.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0268 should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. RD17-1-000, by the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The reduction to total annual burden and cost will be 330 hours and $18,370.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Reuel Energy LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 31, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
1. By letter filed March 15, 2017, Notch Butte Hydro Company, Inc. informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Geo-Bon #2 Hydropower Project No. 7548, originally issued April 13, 1984
2. Koosh, Inc. is now the exemptee of the Geo-Bon #2 Hydropower Project No. 7548. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Koosh, Inc., PO Box 59, Gooding, ID 83330.
Take notice that on May 03, 2017, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. (“CIG”), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.213(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and CIG's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-21-000. CIG requests authorization to reclassify thirteen injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells to observation wells at the Latigo Natural Gas Storage Field (Latigo) located in Arapahoe County, Colorado and at the Flank Natural Gas Storage Field (Flank) located in Baca County, Colorado, all as more fully set forth in the request, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The proposed application is referred to as the CIG's Well Conversion Application. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Specifically CIG proposes to reclassify seven (7) I/W wells at Latigo and six (6) I/W wells at Flank to observation status. CIG states the proposed reclassification of these I/W wells involves no change in the certificated physical parameters of either storage field.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Francisco Tarin Director, Regulatory Affairs Department, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904 or phone (719) 667-7517.
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after 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 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 filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time 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
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 commenter 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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.'s application for amendment of license for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2743) and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA). The project is located on the Terror and Kizhuyak Rivers in Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska. The project occupies federal lands administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.
The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed construction of two diversion dams within the Upper Hidden Basin Creek drainage, a 1.7-mile-long tunnel and canal system diverting water to Terror Lake, and a 4-mile-long spur road, and concludes that authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or it may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
All comments must be filed within 30 days of the date of this notice and should reference Project No. 2743. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's efiling system at
For further information, contact Dr. Jennifer Ambler by telephone at 202-502-8586 or by email at
Take notice that on May 8, 2017, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans), located at 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), seeking authorization to plug and abandon an injection—withdrawal well due to safety concerns in Equitrans' Hunters Cave Storage Field in Greene County, Pennsylvania. There will be no elimination or decrease in service to customers as a result of the proposed abandonment of facilities. Also, there will be no impact on the Hunters Cave Storage Field's certificated parameters, 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 regarding this application should be directed to Paul W. Diehl, Counsel, Midstream, at Equitrans, L.P., 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, at (412) 395-5540; or email at
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 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
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 commenter's 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 commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, 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 ill 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 via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Take notice that on May 9, 2017, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e (2017) and Rules 206 and 212 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212 (2017) the New Jersey Boroughs of Milltown, Park Ridge, and South River (Complainants) filed a complaint against Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Respondent) asserting that the base return on equity used in calculating transmission Formula Rates under the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission Tariff is unjust and unreasonable, as more fully explained in the complaint.
Complainants certifies that copies of the complaint were served on Respondent via electronic mail through its counsel.
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 intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Keni Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 31, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on March 27, 2017. Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC provided public notice of its request on March 30, 2017. In a letter dated May 11, 2017, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; 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 Kentucky 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 Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 539. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30, 2020.
p. Register online at
Take notice that on April 28, 2017, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed in the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Northern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-401-000, for authorization to construct, own, and operate a total of 13.8 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline loop in two non-contiguous segments and appurtenant facilities in Boone and Polk Counties, Iowa, and abandon two short segments of pipeline in Polk County, Iowa (Des Moines B-line Loop Project), 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 prior notice request should be directed to Michael T Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates and External Affairs for Northern, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, or phone (402) 398-7103, or by email at
Specifically, Northern states that the proposed project is a proactive measure to uphold pipeline integrity on Des Moines A-line. Northern states that it needs to reduce operating pressure on that line from 490 psig to 380 psig. To replace lost capacity associated with the lowered operating pressure, Northern proposes to install (1) approximately 11.2 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline loop starting at Northern's existing Ogden compressor station, and (2) approximately 2.6 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline loop starting at Northern's existing Royal Estates reducing station. Northern also proposes to remove (3) 20 feet of 8-inch-diameter station piping and (4) 5 feet of the 16-inch-diameter Des Moines B-line, both at the Royal Estates reducing station. Northern further states that with the exception of a segment of pipeline that will be installed adjacent to the road right of way, the pipeline loops will be placed adjacent to the existing Des Moines B-line. To maintain Northern's contractual obligations, the operating pressure on Des Moines A-line will be reduced once the Des Moines B-line Loop Project is placed in-service. The estimated cost of the project is $32.5 million.
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) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Take notice that on June 29, 2017, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a technical conference on Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EDT), in the Commission Meeting Room at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A detailed agenda will be issued and published on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site
The purpose of this technical conference is to understand the state of liquidity in the physical natural gas markets, to explore current trends in physical natural gas trading and price reporting and how the use of natural gas indices have evolved over time, to obtain industry's views on the current level of confidence in natural gas indices and price formation, and finally, to consider whether there is a need to improve natural gas market liquidity and price reporting and, if so, how. Staff plans to discuss these issues with buyers and sellers of physical natural gas, natural gas pipelines, ISO/RTOs or public utilities that use natural gas indices in their tariffs, market monitors, index developers, energy exchanges, academics and market experts. Staff recognizes that a number of factors influence market liquidity, and encourages the participation of interested parties to speak about price discovery, liquidity evaluation, and market activity measurement in the physical natural gas markets, among other things influencing the natural gas markets.
All attendees are encouraged to preregister at
The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available from Ace Reporting Company and may be purchased online at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about the technical conference, please contact:
Take notice that Chugach Electric Association, Inc., permittee for the proposed Snow River Hydroelectric Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on March 22, 2017, and would have expired on February 29, 2020.
The preliminary permit for Project No. 14810 will remain in effect until the close of business, June 10, 2017. But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collections described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 17, 2017.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Manny Cabeza at the FDIC address noted above.
Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:
1.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall increase in burden hours is a result of an increase in the number of Small Banks electing to voluntarily respond in certain categories. The increase is also, in small part, due to an adjustment in the agency's estimate of the time required to submit strategic plan applications from 275 hours per respondent to 400 hours per respondent.
2.
There is no change in the method or substance of this information collection. There has been a net increase in the estimated total annual burden primarily because of an upward adjustment in the agency's estimate of the number of consumers at FDIC-supervised institutions that elect to opt-out of affiliate marketing information sharing. The increase in burden due to the adjustment in the estimated number of consumers affected was offset by the fact that banks have completed the implementation phase of the information collection; the estimated ongoing time per response for affected institutions decreasing from 18 hours at implementation to 2 hours ongoing.
3.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. At present no FDIC-supervised institution is engaging in activities that would make them subject to the information collection requirements. FDIC originally estimated that 3 institutions would be impacted by the rule. The agency is reducing the estimated number of respondents to one (1) as a placeholder in case an institution elects to engage in covered activities in the future. There has been no change in the frequency of response or in the estimated number of hours required to respond. Because of the reduction in the estimated number of respondents from three (3) to one (1), the estimated annual burden has decreased.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 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; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific guidances. The guidances provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment(s) on these draft guidances before it begins work on the final version of such guidances, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 17, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. Under that process, draft guidances are posted on FDA's Web site and announced periodically in the
FDA is announcing the availability of a new draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
FDA is announcing the availability of revised draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on, among other things, the product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidances at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that the drug product listed in this document was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8363.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
FDA has become aware that the drug product listed in the table in this document is no longer being marketed.
FDA has reviewed its records and, under § 314.161, has determined that the drug product listed in this document was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDA listed in this document are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to that NDA. Additional ANDAs that refer to this product may also be approved by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
This is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866 and does not impose any additional burden on regulated entities.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
Thursday, June 22, 2017: 8:30 a.m.-3:15 p.m.
The times and topics are subject to change. Please refer to the posted agenda for any updates.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors for Clinical Sciences and Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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 contract proposals, 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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Department of Homeland Security.
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council will meet on June 5, 2017 in Washington, DC to review and discuss draft recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council will meet on Monday, June 5, 2017, from 10:00
The meeting will be held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center (Wilson Center) for Scholars, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW., 6th Floor, Moynihan Board Room, Washington, DC 20004. All visitors to the Wilson Center must bring a Government-issued photo ID.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, send an email to
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Council prior to the adoption of the recommendations as listed in the
•
•
•
•
One thirty-minute public comment period will be held during the meeting on June 5, 2017 after the conclusion of the presentation of draft recommendations, but before the Council deliberates. Speakers will be requested to limit their comments to three minutes. Contact the Office of Academic Engagement as indicated below to register as a speaker.
Lindsay Burton, Office of Academic Engagement/Mailstop 0385; Department of Homeland Security; 245 Murray Lane SW.; Washington, DC 20528-0440, email:
Notice of this meeting is given under the
Office of Compliance and Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-Day notice and request for comments; New Collection, 1670—NEW.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Compliance and Security, will submit the following Information Collection Request 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 17, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0011, 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.
Public Law 107-296, The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title II, recognizes DHS's role in integrating relevant critical infrastructure and cybersecurity information, analyses, and vulnerability assessments (whether such information, analyses, or assessments are provided or produced by the Department or others) in order to identify priorities for
The NPPD Office of Compliance and Security will collect, using an electronic form, information about each potential visitor to NPPD facilities and the nature of each visit. The Office of Compliance and Security will use collected information to make a risk-based decision to allow visitor access to NPPD facilities.
This is a new 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,
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75845) and determined on February 6, 2017 that it would conduct expedited reviews (82 FR 12237, March 1, 2017).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on May 12, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4687 (May 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
May 24, 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-1333 (Final) (Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by June 7, 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 25, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-575 and 731-TA-1360-1361 (Preliminary) (Tool Chests and Cabinets from China and Vietnam). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on May 26, 2017; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be complete and filed on June 5, 2017.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
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.
On May 11, 2017, a proposed Settlement Agreement was lodged with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in the case entitled
The Centaur Insurance Company (“Centaur”) is in rehabilitation under the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division. In that proceeding, the United States has asserted claims totaling $10 million on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency under an insurance policy issued by Centaur to LCP Chemicals, Inc. (“LCP”) in 1982 (the “Policy”). The Policy is an Excess Umbrella Liability policy with a liability limit of $10 million in excess of $11 of underlying liability. The claims under the Policy are based on LCP's liability to EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601,
The Settlement Agreement will require the Rehabilitator to pay EPA $8,750,000, to be allocated as follows: $2,916,667 for the Brunswick Site, $2,916,667 for the Moundsville Site, and $2,916,666 for the Linden Site. In exchange for this payment, the United States, on behalf of EPA, promises not to file a civil action against the Rehabilitator or Centaur for all liabilities under the Policy arising under CERCLA for the Brunswick Site, the Moundsville Site, the Linden Site, or any other site. The Settlement Agreement preserves the United States' right to file (a) any claim based on any other insurance policy issued by Centaur, (b) any claim by EPA under the Policy based on statutes other than CERCLA, and (c) any claims of federal agencies other than EPA under the Policy.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Please enclose a check or money order for $1.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 11 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate:
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC, 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry P. Hale, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of July 5, 2016, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Order approving a request, submitted by Shipping International, Inc. (SII), working under a power of attorney signed by Airgas USA, LLC, seeking the NRC's consent to the direct and indirect transfers of control of Export License XMAT427. In addition, SII requested approval of a conforming license amendment to reflect the new name of the holder of the license from Airgas Specialty Gases, Inc., to Airgas USA, LLC.
The Order was issued on April 26, 2017.
Please refer to NRC-2017-0114 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrea R. Jones, Office of International Programs, telephone: 301-287-9072, email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As of April 1, 2016, Airgas Specialty Gases, Inc. (“ASG”), a Texas corporation and holder of one U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) export license (XMAT427), was merged into Airgas USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, with Airgas USA, LLC, being the surviving entity and ASG not existing as a separate legal entity after the merger. Prior to this restructuring, both ASG and Airgas USA, LLC, were subsidiaries of Airgas, Inc. On May 23, 2016, Airgas, Inc. was acquired by L'Air Liquide, S.A. (“Air Liquide”), a public company in France. American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. and Air Liquide International S.A., which were subsidiaries of Air Liquide before the May 23, 2016, acquisition, continued to exist. Following the May 23, 2016, acquisition, Airgas USA, LLC, remained a wholly-owned subsidiary of Airgas, Inc., but Airgas, Inc. became a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. is owned by American Air Liquide, Inc. (97.33033% ownership) and Carba Holdings, AG (2.66967% ownership), both of which are owned by Air Liquide International S.A. Air Liquide International S.A. is a direct subsidiary of Air Liquide (the ultimate parent company).
On December 5, 2016, after a review of records associated with ASG's indirect and direct transfers of control and records associated with the export of nuclear material to China on May 9, 2016, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to ASG (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16245A279). The NRC determined that three violations of NRC requirements occurred. The violations involved: (1) The direct transfer of control of XMAT427 without Commission approval as required by Title 10 of the
On January 3, 2017, Shipping International, Inc. (SII), working under a power of attorney signed by Airgas USA, LLC, responded to the NOV, and included (1) the reason for the violation; (2) the corrective actions taken; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved (ADAMS Accession No. ML17006A026). The corrective actions included:
1. No exports under XMAT427, until written approval has been received from the Commission.
2. Submission of a new application requesting approval for the transfers of control and an amendment to reflect the new name of the licensee, from ASG to Airgas USA, LLC.
On January 26, 2017, the NRC responded to SII's January 3, 2017, response to the NOV and concluded that the completed and proposed actions met the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17019A026).
By letter dated January 31, 2017, (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17034A058 and ML17034A075), as supplemented by information provided via electronic communication, draft application, and the attachment dated January 4, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17059D006); electronic communication and the attachment dated December 12, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17059D011); electronic communication and the attachments dated November 30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17111A620, ML17033A277, and ML17033A281); electronic communication, draft application, and the attachment dated September 6, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17059D013); electronic communication and the attachment dated August 26, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17059D012); and electronic communication and draft application dated July 29, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17081A278), SII requested approval of the indirect and direct transfers of control of XMAT427. In addition, SII requested approval of a conforming amendment to reflect the new name of the licensee, from ASG to Airgas USA, LLC. SII's request for the NRC's consent to the transfers of control was submitted pursuant to Section 184 of the AEA and 10 CFR 110.50(d).
The letter from SII requesting NRC approval of the transfers and an amendment to export license XMAT427 was made publicly available on the NRC's public Web site on February 3, 2017. No requests for a hearing or comments were received.
As previously stated, pursuant to Section 184 of the AEA, no license granted under 10 CFR part 110 shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license to any person unless the Commission, after securing full information, finds that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of the AEA, and gives its consent in writing. Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.50(d), a specific license may be transferred, disposed of, or assigned to another person only with the approval of the Commission by license amendment. Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.51(a)(1), an application requesting amendment of a specific license shall be filed on NRC Form 7, “
The Commission will approve an application for direct and indirect transfers of control of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfers are otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. SII, acting on behalf of Airgas USA, LLC, has represented that with respect to XMAT427, (1) there will be no change in personnel, facilities, equipment, or procedures; (2) all records will be kept in the same facilities; and (3) the transferee will abide by all constraints, conditions, and requirements of the licensed program and will abide by the regulations in 10 CFR 110.53. After review of the information in SII's request dated January 31, 2017, and relying on SII's statements and representations contained in its electronic communications and supplemental information, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license and that the direct and indirect transfers of control are consistent with the applicable provisions of the AEA, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission. The NRC staff has further determined that the request for the proposed conforming license amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the AEA, and the NRC's regulations set forth in 10 CFR part 110. The transfers of control of the license and issuance of the conforming license amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security, or to the health and safety of the public, and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 184 of the AEA and 10 CFR 110.50(d),
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated January 31, 2017 (which can be found using ADAMS Accession Numbers ML17034A058 and ML17034A075) and SII's supplemental communications dated January 4, 2017, December 12, 2016, November 30, 2016, September 6, 2016, August 26, 2016, and July 29, 2016. These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD 20852, and available online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG-0090, Volume 39, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2016.” The report describes those events that the NRC or an Agreement State identified as abnormal occurrences (AOs) during fiscal year (FY) 2016,
NUREG-0090, Volume 39, is available May 17, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0115 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:
•
•
•
Vered Shaffer, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 1-630-829-9862, email:
Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (Public Law 93-438), defines an “abnormal occurrence” as an unscheduled incident or event that the NRC determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The AO report (ADAMS Accession No. ML17125A084) describes those events that the NRC identified as AOs during FY 2016, based on the criteria defined in Appendix A of the report.
The report describes eight events at Agreement State-licensed facilities and three events at an NRC-licensed facilities. One Agreement State licensee event involved radiation exposure to an embryo/fetus, and one involved radiography operations. One event reported by an NRC licensee occurred at a fuel cycle facility. The remaining two reported NRC-licensee events and the six reported Agreement State licensee events occurred at medical facilities and are “medical events” as defined in part 35 of title 10 of the
Agreement States are the 37 States that currently have entered into formal agreements with the NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (Pub. L. 83-703), to regulate certain quantities of AEA-licensed material at facilities located within their borders.
The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-68) requires that the NRC report AOs to Congress annually. The full report, NUREG-0090, Volume 39, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2016,” is also available electronically on the NRC's Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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), Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Open Season Express Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System and the Open Season Web site, Open Season Online.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 17, 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. 3206-0201). 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,
Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Open Season Express Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System, and the Open Season Web site, Open Season Online, are used by retirees and survivors. They collect information for changing FEHB enrollments, collecting dependent and other insurance information for self and family enrollments, requesting plan brochures, requesting a change of address, requesting cancellation or suspension of FEHB benefits, asking to make payment to the Office of Personnel Management when the FEHB payment is greater than the monthly annuity amount, or for requesting FEHB plan accreditation and
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) USAJOBS.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 16, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Chief Information Officer, Employee Services IT PMO, USAJOBS, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: John Still or send them via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Chief Information Officer, Employee Services IT PMO, USAJOBS, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: John Still, or by sending a request via electronic mail to
USAJOBS is the Federal Government's centralized source for most Federal jobs and employment information, including both positions that are required by law to be posted at that location and positions that can be posted there at an agency's discretion. The Applicant Profile and Resume Builder are two components of the USAJOBS application system. USAJOBS reflects the minimal critical elements collected across the Federal Government to begin an application for Federal jobs under the authority of sections 1104, 1302, 3301, 3304, 3320, 3361, 3393, and 3394 of title 5, United States Code. 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. 3206-0219) 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,
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.
I. Introduction.
II. Docketed Proceeding(s).
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
On January 27, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Fund under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4), which governs the listing and trading of index fund shares based on fixed income securities indexes. The Shares will be offered by the VanEck Vectors ETF Trust (“Trust”).
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Fund and its investment strategy, including the Fund's portfolio holdings and investment restrictions.
According to the Exchange, the Fund will seek to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free National Municipal Index (“Index”).
• A 75% weight in the Muni Investment-Grade Rated/$75 Million Deal Size Index in order to gain exposure to investment grade municipal bonds (
• A 25% weight in the Muni High Yield/$20 Million Deal Size Index in order to gain exposure to non-investment grade municipal bonds (
All bonds included in the Index must have a fixed rate, a dated date (
According to the Exchange, the Fund normally invests at least 80% of its total assets in securities that comprise the Fund's benchmark index. The Index is comprised of publicly traded municipal bonds that cover the U.S. dollar-denominated investment grade and high yield tax-exempt bond market. The Fund's 80% investment policy is non-fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval upon 60 days' prior written notice to shareholders.
While the Fund normally will invest at least 80% of its total assets in securities that compose the Index, as described above, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in the other financial instruments described below.
The Fund may invest its remaining assets in the following instruments: Municipal bonds not included in the Index; money market instruments, including repurchase agreements or other funds which invest exclusively in money market instruments; convertible securities; structured notes; certain derivative instruments described below; and, to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, affiliated and unaffiliated funds, such as open-end or closed-end management investment companies, including other exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”).
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Index for the Fund does not meet all of the generic listing requirements of BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4) applicable to index fund shares based on fixed income securities indexes. The Exchange states that the Index meets all such requirements except for those set forth in BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(b).
According to the Exchange, as of November 30, 2016, there were 50,615 issues in the Index, and 86.49% of the weight of the Index components was comprised of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding $100 million or more for all maturities of the offering. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $1.5 trillion and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $30.4 million. Further, the most heavily weighted component represented 1.57% of the weight of the Index and the five most heavily weighted components represented 3.93% of the weight of the Index. Finally, 63.8% of the Index weight consisted of issues with a rating of AA/Aa2 or higher.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by June 7, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 21, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in Amendment No. 1,
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt Qualified Contingent Cross Orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is filing this proposal to adopt Qualified Contingent Cross Orders (“QCC Orders”), as described below.
The purpose of this filing is to adopt rules related to QCC Orders. The proposed rule change is based on the rules of other options exchanges, including an International Securities Exchange (“ISE”) proposal that was previously approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
The Exchange is currently a party to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (“Linkage Plan”), and has implemented Exchange rules in conjunction with that plan, which are set forth in Rule 15000 of the Exchange's Rules (the “Linkage Rules”). Similar to Regulation NMS under the Act, the Linkage Plan requires, among other things, that the Exchange establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent “Trade-Throughs.”
The purpose of the proposed change is to provide market participants with the ability to submit to the Exchange Qualified Contingent Cross Orders, an order type offered by multiple other options exchanges.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule paragraph (c)(6) to Rule 7110 to govern the operation of Qualified Contingent Cross Orders. As proposed, a Qualified Contingent Cross Order would be an originating order to buy or sell at least 1,000 standard option contracts, or 10,000 mini-option contracts, that is identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade (as that term is proposed to be defined in IM-7110-2), coupled with a contra-side order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. As proposed under IM-7110-2, a “qualified contingent trade” is a transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed as agent or principal, where: (1) At least one component is an NMS stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act; (2) all components are effected with a product or price contingency that either has been agreed to by all the respective counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (3) the execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all other components at or near the same time; (4) the specific relationship between the component orders (
Additionally, as proposed, Qualified Contingent Cross Orders would be allowed to execute automatically on entry without exposure provided the execution: (i) Is not at the same price as a Public Customer
The Exchange will track and monitor QCC Orders to determine which is the originating side of the order and which is the contra-side(s) of the order to ensure that Participants are complying with the minimum 1,000 contract size limitation (or 10,000 mini-option contract minimum) on the originating side of the QCC Order. The Exchange will check to see if Participants are aggregating multiple orders to meet the 1,000 contract minimum on the originating side (or 10,000 mini-option contract minimum) of the trade in violation of the requirements of the rule.
With regard to order entry, a Participant will have to mark the originating side as the first order in the system and the contra-side(s) as the second. The Exchange will monitor order entries to ensure that Participants are properly entering QCC Orders into the system.
The Exchange anticipates implementing the proposed change during the second quarter of 2017. The Exchange will provide notice of the exact implementation date, via Circular, prior to implementing the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The proposed rules are consistent with the protection of investors in that they are designed to prevent Trade-Throughs. In addition, the proposed rule change would promote a free and open market by permitting the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges for these types of orders. In this regard, competition would result in benefits to the investing public, whereas a lack of competition would serve to limit the choices that participants have for execution of their options business. As noted above, the proposed operation of Qualified Contingent Cross Orders on the Exchange is substantially similar in all material respects to the operation of such orders on such other exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to adopt QCC Orders will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposed functionality is open to all market participants. Further, the proposed rule will allow the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges that currently offer QCC Orders, thus alleviating the burden on competition that would arise if such exchanges were permitted to continue offering such functionality and the Exchange was not. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes 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.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
(a) This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph (A) of section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act
(b) This proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change as required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest and does not impose any significant burden on competition. The Exchange's proposal to accept QCC Orders is not a novel concept but rather, is based on the acceptance of such orders on multiple other options exchanges.
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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to: (i) Lower the rate for fee code RT; and (ii) add the RMPT/RMPL Tier 2.
The Exchange proposes to decrease the fee for orders yielding fee code RT, which is appended to orders routed using the ROUT
The Exchange offers one tier under footnote 4, the RMPT/RMPL Tier under which a Member receives a discounted fee of $0.0008 per share for orders yielding fee codes PT
The Exchange proposes to implement the above changes to its fee schedule immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the fee for orders that yield fee code RT represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities in that it continues to be designed to cover the costs of routing incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange believes the decreased fee will attract additional liquidity to the Exchange as orders routed using the ROUT routing strategy first check the Exchange for available shares before routing and any unexecuted returned shares are posted to the Exchange. While the affected Members' orders will be charged a lower fee due to the proposal, the revenue received by the Exchange will continue to be used to fund the Exchange generally, including the cost of maintaining and improving the technology used to handle and route orders from the Exchange as well as programs that the Exchange believes help to attract additional liquidity and thus improve the depth of liquidity available on the Exchange. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believe that the addition of the RMPL/RMPT Tier 2 is also reasonable and equitable because it is similar to the RMPL/RMPT Tier 1 and its inclusion of the RMPL and RMPT routing strategies results in the equal treatment of those orders under the Exchange's tiered pricing structure. The proposed new RMPT/RMPL Tier 2 should also attract additional midpoint liquidity to the Exchange, resulting in increased price improvement opportunities for orders seeking an execution at the midpoint of the NBBO on the Exchange or elsewhere.
In addition, volume-based rebates such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) the value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns; and (iii) the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that the proposed tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates, because it will provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on the Exchange.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or from pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. The proposed rates would apply uniformly to all Members, and Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Further, excessive fees would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow and members rather than burdening competition. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (“Fee Schedule”) to adopt a new pricing tier, Tape C Tier 3. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective May 1, 2017. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule, as described below, and implement the fee changes on May 1, 2017.
The Exchange proposes to introduce a new pricing tier level—Tape C Tier 3—for securities with a per share price of $1.00 or above.
As proposed, a new Tape C Tier 3 credit of $0.0002 per share
Under the proposed new Tape C Tier 3, ETP Holders and Market Makers would also be charged a fee of $0.0029 per share for orders that take liquidity from the Book in Tape C Securities. For all other fees and credits, Tiered or Basic Rates apply based on a firm's qualifying levels.
For ETP Holders that qualify for the proposed new Tape C Tier 3, Tiered or Basic Rates would apply to all other fees and credits, based on the firm's qualifying levels, and if an ETP Holder qualifies for more than one tier in the Fee Schedule, the Exchange would apply the most favorable rate available under such tiers. The proposed Tape C Tier 3 provides an incremental credit, similar to current Tape C Tier 1 and Tape C Tier 2 pricing tiers, and therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt rule text within each of the Tape C tiers to note that ETP Holders and Market Makers can only qualify for one of the Tape C incremental credits. ETP Holders and Market Makers that qualify, for example, for the proposed Tape C Tier 3 credit cannot also qualify for either the Tape C Tier 1 incremental credit or the Tape C Tier 2 incremental credit. Using the above example, if an ETP Holder's Tape C Baseline % CADV was 0.500%, and the ETP Holder had a Tape C Adding ADV of at least 0.900% and a Tape B Adding ADV of at least 3.5% of Tape B CADV, the ETP Holder would meet the requirements of Tape C Tier 1, Tape C Tier 2 and the proposed Tape C Tier 3. As proposed, however, the ETP Holder would only receive the $0.0002 incremental credit for adding liquidity and the $0.0029 for taking liquidity associated with the proposed Tape C Tier 3 pricing tier; the ETP Holder would not be entitled to the Tape C Tier 1 and Tape C Tier 2 pricing tiers.
Additionally, the Exchange recently adopted a Tape C Tier 2 pricing tier that references the applicability of a $0.0002 per share credit to ETP Holders and Market Makers that qualify for that
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed Tape C Tier 3 is reasonable and equitably allocated because it would apply to ETP Holders and Market Makers that provide liquidity in Tape C Securities to the Exchange and is designed to incentivize these market participants to increase the orders sent directly to the Exchange and therefore provide liquidity that supports the quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency. The Exchange believes the new Tape C Tier 3 is equitable because the proposed new tier would be available to all similarly situated ETP Holders and Market Makers on an equal basis and the proposed new tier provides a credit that is reasonably related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. The Exchange further believes that the proposed Tape C Tier 3 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange has previously implemented pricing tiers that target a particular segment of securities, such as Tape A and Tape B Securities. The Exchange also believes that the requirement to execute providing volume in Tape B Securities during the billing month that is equal to at least 3.5% of Tape B CADV for the proposed Tape C Tier 3 is reasonable as it would provide incentives for adding liquidity in Tape B Securities and strengthen market quality in Tape B Securities. The Exchange further believes that the requirement to execute providing volume in Tape B Securities for the proposed Tape C Tier 3 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply uniformly to all similarly situated ETP Holders and Market Makers.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to permit ETP Holders and Market Makers to qualify for just one Tape C pricing tiers [sic]. As noted above, if an ETP Holder qualifies for more than one tier in the Fee Schedule, the Exchange would apply the most favorable rate available under such tiers. This method of billing is reasonable because it results in the application of the most beneficial fees and credits for which an ETP [sic] qualifies when an ETP Holder qualifies for more than one pricing tier.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change regarding Tape C credits would create an added incentive for ETP Holders and Market Makers to execute additional orders on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because providing incentives for orders in exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered national securities exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-exchange execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection.
The Exchange believes that relocating rule text related to the $0.0033 per share cap from the Tape C Tier 1 pricing tier to the Tape C Tier 2 pricing tier removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by providing clarity and adding transparency to the Exchange's rules. The Exchange also believes that relocating the rule text would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency. The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to the Fee Schedule is both reasonable and equitable because ETP Holders and Market Makers would benefit from clear guidance in the rule text describing the manner in which the Exchange's fees and credits would be assessed.
Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones currently in place on the Exchange, and as proposed herein, have been widely adopted in the cash equities markets and are equitable because they are open to all ETP Holders and Market Makers on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that the proposed introduction of Tape C Tier 3 will provide such enhancements in market quality on the Exchange's equity market by incentivizing increased participation.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act; under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act; and under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) under the Act. The requested order would: (a) Permit certain registered open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment companies, business development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Act, and unit investment trusts (collectively, “Underlying Funds”) that are within and outside the same group of investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act; and (b) permit certain registered open-end management investment companies relying on rule 12d1-2 under the Act to invest in certain financial instruments.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Benjamin D. Schmidt, Aspiriant, LLC, 1111 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1700, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6773, or David Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) each Fund
2. Applicants further request an exemption under section 6(c) from rule 12d1-2 under the Act to permit any Fund that relies on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act (“Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund”) and that otherwise complies with rule 12d1-2 under the Act, to also invest, to the extent consistent with its investment objective, policies, strategies and limitations, in financial instruments that may not be securities within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of the Act (“Other Investments”).
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that is not in the same “group of investment companies” as the Fund of Funds 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), (B), and (C) of the Act. Applicants assert that permitting a Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund to invest in Other Investments as described in the application would not raise any of the concerns that section 12(d)(1) of the Act was intended to address.
3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify the date of Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”).
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.
Rule 3317(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements)
The Exchange is now proposing to amend Commentary .08 to Rule 3317 to delay the date by which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly available on the Exchange's Web site from April 28, 2017 to August 31, 2017.
In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that the public data will be made available for free “on a disaggregated basis by trading center” on the Web sites of the Participants and the Designated Examining Authorities.
Phlx has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be the date of filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-capitalization companies. Phlx believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide the Exchange with additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data made publicly available will not identify the trading center that generated the data.
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 proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and all Participants are filing similar proposals to extend the publication date of Appendix B data.
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 burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19(b)-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative on the date of filing.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is intended to mitigate confidentiality concerns raised in connection with Section VII(A) of the Plan, which provides that the data made publicly available will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data. The Exchange states that the additional time would allow consideration of a methodology to mitigate concerns related to the publication of Appendix B data.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will synchronize the timing for publication of Appendix B data for all Participants, which should enhance the consistency and usefulness of the data.
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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-33 and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4770 to modify the date of Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”).
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.
Rule 4770(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements)
Nasdaq is now proposing to amend Commentary .08 to Rule 4770 to delay the date by which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly available on Nasdaq's Web site from April 28, 2017 to August 31, 2017.
In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that the public data will be made available for free “on a disaggregated basis by trading center” on the Web sites of the Participants and the Designated Examining Authorities.
Nasdaq has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be the date of filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-capitalization companies. Nasdaq believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide Nasdaq with additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data made publicly available will not identify the trading center that generated the data.
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 proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and all Participants are filing similar proposals to extend the publication date of Appendix B data.
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 burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19(b)-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative on the date of filing.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is intended to mitigate confidentiality concerns raised in connection with Section VII(A) of the Plan, which provides that the data made publicly available will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data. The Exchange states that the additional time would allow consideration of a methodology to mitigate concerns related to the publication of Appendix B data.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will synchronize the timing for publication of Appendix B data for all Participants, which should enhance the consistency and usefulness of the data.
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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-044 and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule with respect to quoting bandwidth allowance. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The Fees Schedule currently sets forth the quoting bandwidth allowance for a Market-Maker Trading Permit for the Regular Trading Hours (“RTH”) session (“RTH MM Trading Permit”) and a Market-Maker Trading Permit for the Extended Hours Trading (“ETH”) session (“ETH MM Trading Permit”). The bandwidth allowance is referenced as a maximum number of quotes over the course of the trading session. Currently, the quoting bandwidth allowance for a RTH MM Trading Permit is equivalent to a maximum of 40,500,000 quotes over the course of the trading sessions and the quoting bandwidth allowance for an ETH MM Trading Permit is equivalent to a maximum of 37,500,000 quotes over the course of the trading session. Additionally, to the extent a Market-Maker is able to submit electronic quotes in a Hybrid 3.0 class (such as an LMM that streams quotes in the class or a Market-Maker or LMM that streams quotes in a series of a Hybrid 3.0 class that trades on the Hybrid Trading System), the Market-Maker receives the quoting bandwidth allowance to quote in, and only in, that class.
The Exchange proposes to increase the quoting bandwidth for RTH and ETH MM Trading Permits that are used for an appointment in S&P 500 Index options (“SPX”) (including SPXW) (
Lastly, the Exchange notes that it is not increasing the quoting bandwidth allowance for the Quoting and Order Entry Bandwidth Packets, as the Exchange does not believe it is necessary. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to clarify in the Fees Schedule that the quoting allowance provided with a Quoting and Order Entry Bandwidth Packet is the same as the quoting allowance that is provided with Market-Maker Trading Permits not used for an appointment in SPX/SPXW.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that amending the Fees Schedule to accurately reflect the increase in quoting bandwidth allowance, alleviates confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that increasing quoting bandwidth for MM Trading Permits with an SPX/SPXW appointment helps ensure that Market-Makers have an adequate capacity and ability to continue to make active markets, which also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest. Lastly, the Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase quoting bandwidth for Trading Permits with SPX/SPXW appointments as the number of series that need to be quoted in SPXW has increased due to the
CBOE 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 Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change applies to all Market-Makers with Market-Maker Trading Permits used for a SPX/SPXW appointment and is merely updating the Fees Schedule to accurately reflect an increase in quoting bandwidth. Also, while quoting bandwidth was increased only for Trading Permits with SPX/SPXW appointments, Market-Makers with these appointments now have an increased number of series they need to quote due to the migration of the SPXPM symbol to SPXW. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because it only applies to trading on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity options platform (“EDGX Options”) to: (i) Modify fees for Qualified Contingent Cross Orders (“QCC”),
QCC Order Pricing
The Exchange proposes to amend QCC fees and rebates to reflect the value of the execution opportunities provided by the QCC functionality. Thus, the Exchange proposes to modify the fees and rebates corresponding to the fee codes that were originally adopted in connection with QCC, as described below.
As noted above, The Exchange proposes to modify the rebates provided to QCC orders, to only apply to QCC Agency Orders in which one side of the transaction includes a Non-Customer order. The Exchange proposes that the rebate applicable to QCC orders be defined as the “QCC Initiator Rebate” and its scope be refined to only apply to QCC Agency orders in which at least one side of the transaction is a Non-Customer order.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new footnote 7 to describe the rebate paid by the Exchange to a Member that submits a QCC Agency Order to the Exchange when at least one side of the transaction is of Non-Customer capacity and to define this rebate as the QCC Initiator Rebate. As proposed, and consistent with other pricing on the Exchange, the Exchange would provide the QCC Initiator Rebate to all Members submitting QCC Agency Orders to the Exchange, including a Member who
In connection with the proposed change and the adoption of footnote 7, footnote 5 would be appended to fee code QM
Currently fee codes PM and NM apply to orders in Market Maker
Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to add fee codes PT and NT, which would apply to orders which remove liquidity in Market Maker Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot orders, respectively. Similar to the current fee codes PM and NM, orders appended with fee codes PT and NT would be assessed a fee of $0.19 per contract.
Footnote 1 of the fee schedule sets forth six tiers, each providing enhanced rebates ranging from $0.10 to $0.25 per contract to a Member's order that yields fee code PC or NC upon satisfying monthly volume criteria. The Exchange proposes to eliminate Tiers 4 and 6 as they did not result in incentivizing additional order flow as designed. In connection with the change the Exchange proposes to update the standard rates table to reflect the removal of the $0.25 rebate applicable to Tiers 4 and 6.
The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its fee schedule on May 1, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposed fees and rebates related to QCC Orders are reasonable and fair and equitable as the fees will allow the Exchange to continue to offer QCC Order functionality, which is functionality offered on other options exchanges, with pricing that is comparable to that offered by other options exchanges. The Exchange further believes that this pricing structure is non-discriminatory, as it applies equally to all Members. In addition, the Exchange believes this proposal is reasonable because, while orders for other market participants (Non-Customers) will be assessed a fee, the Exchange is reducing this fee; further, orders for Customers will receive free executions and Members submitting QCC Agency Orders will receive a rebate where one side of the transaction is a Non-Customer order. The Exchange believes the proposed QCC Initiator Rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the Exchange and other options exchanges have generally established pricing structures that are intended to encourage additional QCC order flow.
The Exchange believes that its proposals to add fee codes PT and NT related specifically to orders which remove liquidity and modify the definition of PM and NM related specifically to orders which add liquidity are fair and equitable and reasonable because the proposed fees for orders appended with fee codes PT, NT, PM and NM are identical and consistent with pricing previously offered by the Exchange as well as competitors of the Exchange and do not represent a significant departure from the Exchange's general pricing structure. Instead, the changes and additions will simply allow the Exchange to further differentiate between different types of executions for purposes of transparency to Members as well as potential future pricing changes. Also, the proposed changes to fee codes are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply equally to all Members.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that eliminating the Customer Volume Tiers 4 and 6 under footnote 1 is reasonable, fair, and equitable because the these tiers were not providing the desired result of incentivizing Members to increase their participation in Customer orders on the Exchange. As such, the Exchange also believes that the proposed elimination of these tiers would be non-discriminatory in that they currently apply equally to all Members and, upon elimination, would
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to fees related to QCC Orders will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposed functionality is open to all market participants. The proposals to provide a rebate for certain QCC Agency Orders through the QCC Initiator Rebate and to reduce fees for QCC Contra Orders are competitive proposals intended to incentivize the entry of additional orders into QCC. Further, the pricing is designed to be competitive with pricing on other options exchanges and QCC functionality is a competitive offering by the Exchange. Further, the Exchange does not believe that the changes to eliminate pricing incentives that have been ineffective, to modify fee code descriptions or add fee codes will impose any burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee schedule changes 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.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2017-21, and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
LCH SA is proposing to amend its (i) CDS Margin Framework and (ii) CDSClear Default Fund Methodology to incorporate terms and make conforming changes to provide for credit default swaps (“CDS”) on the CDX.NA.HY index to be cleared by LCH SA.
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify LCH SA's CDS Margin Framework and CDSClear Default Fund Methodology to allow LCH SA to clear additional CDS contracts on the CDX.NA.HY index consisting of North America high-yield reference entities. Specifically, LCH SA proposes to amend Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 of its CDS Margin Framework and Section 2 and 3 of the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology. Each of these changes is described in further detail below.
With respect to the CDS Margin Framework, the heading in Section 3 and the fourth column in the table in Section 3.1.1 will be amended to clarify that the summary of the margin framework also applies to CDX HY contracts.
Section 4.1 of the CDS Margin Framework, setting forth the short charge component of LCH SA's margin methodology, will be amended to describe the purpose of the short charge component within LCH SA's margin methodology and to adjust the calculation to account for CDX.NA.HY index contracts. The purpose of the short charge component is to address the probability of a credit event occurring during the period from the default of a Clearing Member to liquidation of the defaulting Clearing Member's portfolio,
Conforming changes will be made throughout Section 4.1.1, which describes the “net short exposure” calculation, to accommodate CDX.NA.HY contracts and to clarify that to obtain margin in Euros all USD denominated variables are converted to Euros utilizing the current USD/Euro foreign exchange rate and calibrated haircut based upon historical data. Similarly, conforming changes will be made in Section 4.1.2 of the CDS Margin Framework, which describes the “top exposure” component of the short charge and Section 4.1.3 of the CDS Margin Framework, which describes the process by which LCH SA identifies the “riskiest” entities in determining the short charge, to incorporate terms for CDX.NA.HY index contracts and to clarify the calculation as it applies to high yield indices. Clarification changes will be made in Section 4.1.4 of the CDS Margin Framework to summarize the calculation for the short charge amount.
Section 4.3 of the CDS Margin Framework will be deleted in its entirety because the substance of that section will be contained in Section 4.1, as described above.
In addition, LCH SA also proposes to amend Section 5.1 of the CDS Margin Framework, which sets forth the wrong way risk (“WWR”) component of LCH SA's methodology. Currently, LCH SA considers the correlation between the default of a Clearing Member and the default(s) of one or more other financial institutions as part of its WWR management. Specifically, the current approach leverages on the Short Charge framework by calculating the top two net short exposures of financial entities in a Clearing Member's portfolio following the algorithm described above for the Short Charge margin. LCH SA then compares these top two net short exposures of financial entities to the short charge margin and imposes the greater of those two as the adjusted jump-to-default charge, to address the WWR arising from the correlation between a Clearing Member default and the default(s) of one or more financial entities in the Clearing Member's portfolio. The proposed rule change does not substantively change this approach but amends Section 5.1 of the CDS Margin Framework to clarify that, when the top two net short exposures in respect of financial entities exceeds the short charge margin, as described above, LCH SA will impose a charge equal to such excess to address the jump-to-default WWR.
Other conforming changes in the CDS Margin Framework will be made in Sections 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 to clarify that the those sections also apply to high yield indices.
With respect to the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology, Section 2.3 will be amended to facilitate clearing of CDS contracts on the CDX High Yield index and to modify the existing stressed short charge component of the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology. Currently, the stressed short charge covers the greater of (x) the top net short exposure plus the top two net short exposures amongst the three entities most likely to default in the Clearing Member's portfolio and (y) the top two net short exposures which are senior financial entities plus the top net short exposures amongst the three senior financial entities most likely to default in the Clearing Member's portfolio. The proposed rule change will take the default of high yield entities into account and add a third prong to the stressed short charge calculation, which will take the greater of (x) and (y), each as described above, and (z) the top two net short exposure which are high yield entities plus the top two net short exposures amongst the three high yield entities most likely to default in the Clearing Member's portfolio.
Finally, Section 3.8 of the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology, which describes the correlation between index families and series, will be updated to reflect additional data.
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change and the clearing of CDX.NA.HY contracts is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the
In addition, the proposed amendments to LCH SA's CDS Margin Framework and CDSClear Default Fund Methodology also satisfy the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22, including Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2), (b)(3), (e)(4) and (e)(6).
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-005 and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 30, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Shares of the Fund are currently listed and traded on the Exchange under Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which provides generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares.
According to the Exchange, the Fund seeks to provide a steady income stream
According to the Exchange, the Fund may invest in Fixed Income Instruments,
While the Fund, under normal market conditions, invests at least 80% of its net assets in the securities and financial instruments described above, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in foreign currency transactions on a spot (cash) basis.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment) deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance.
The Fund is diversified within the meaning of the 1940 Act.
The Fund intends to qualify annually and elect to be treated as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Fund will not concentrate its investments in a particular industry, as that term is used in the 1940 Act, and as interpreted, modified, or otherwise permitted by a regulatory authority having jurisdiction from time to time.
As noted above, the Shares are currently listed and traded on the Exchange under Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which provides generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares. Commentary .01(e) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 currently requires that, on both an initial and ongoing basis, no more than 20% of the Fund's assets may be invested in OTC derivatives (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of the OTC derivatives). The Exchange now proposes that up to 50% of the Fund's assets (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value) may be invested in OTC derivatives that are used to reduce currency, interest rate, or credit risk arising from the Fund's investments, including forwards, OTC options, and OTC swaps. The Fund's investments in OTC derivatives other than OTC derivatives used to hedge the Fund's portfolio against currency, interest rate, or credit risk will be limited to 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio, calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of such OTC derivatives.
According to the Exchange, other than Commentary .01(e), the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes that up to 50% of the Fund's assets (calculated as the aggregate gross
The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission also believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Exchange has obtained a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit-breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
The Exchange states that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. The Exchange states that the Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer but the Adviser is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented and will maintain a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition of and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. Further, the Commission notes that the Reporting Authority that provides the Disclosed Portfolio must implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the actual components of the portfolio.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that:
(1) Other than Commentary .01(e), the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
(2) Up to 50% of the Fund's assets (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value) may be invested in OTC derivatives that are used to reduce currency, interest rate, or credit risk arising from the Fund's investments, including forwards, OTC options, and OTC swaps. The Fund's investments in OTC derivatives other than OTC derivatives used to hedge the Fund's portfolio against currency, interest rate, or credit risk will be limited to 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio, calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of such OTC derivatives.
(3) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at
(4) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
(5) The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, certain CEFs, certain exchange-traded bank capital securities, certain exchange-traded options, and certain futures with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in such securities and financial instruments from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in such securities and financial instruments from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange is able to access from FINRA, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine. FINRA also can access data obtained from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board relating to certain municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the Shares.
(6) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(7) For initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
The Exchange represents that all statements and representations made in the filing regarding (1) the description of the portfolio; (2) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets; or (3) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in the rule filing constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's statements and representations, including those set forth above and in Amendment No. 2.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 2 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 2 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4770 to modify the date of Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”).
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.
Rule 4770(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements)
BX is now proposing to amend Commentary .08 to Rule 4770 to delay the date by which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly available on the Exchange's Web site from April 28, 2017 to August 31, 2017.
In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that the public data will be made available for free “on a disaggregated basis by trading center” on the Web sites of the Participants and the Designated Examining Authorities.
BX has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be the date of filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-capitalization companies. BX believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide BX with additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data made publicly available will not identify the trading center that generated the data.
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 proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and all Participants are filing similar proposals to extend the publication date of Appendix B data.
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 burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19(b)-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative on the date of filing.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is intended to mitigate confidentiality concerns raised in connection with Section VII(A) of the Plan, which provides that the data made publicly available will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data. The Exchange states that the additional time would allow consideration of a methodology to mitigate concerns related to the publication of Appendix B data.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will synchronize the timing for publication of Appendix B data for all Participants, which should enhance the consistency and usefulness of the data.
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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-022 and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 519C.
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 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to adopt new section (c) entitled “Detection of Loss of Communication,” to codify the use of current functionality in the Exchange's System
MIAX PEARL Members may connect to the System using the MEO Interface and/or the FIX Interface. These two connection protocols are not mutually exclusive and Members, specifically Market Makers (“MMs”)
These Interface ports provide the mechanism by which Members maintain a connection to the Exchange and through which a Member communicates its quotes and/or orders to the System. Market Makers may submit quotes
Members connect to their assigned MEO port using the MIAX Session Management Protocol (“SesM”). The SesM protocol uses Heartbeat
The Exchange offers Members three different types of MEO port connections. A Full Service Port Bulk (“FSP
Members have the ability to group MEO ports together by port and/or Market Participant ID (“MPID”) for the purpose of establishing groups of connections to tailor Cancel on Disconnect functionality to the Member's business needs.
Examples for illustration purposes are provided below.
Group 1 is configured for Cancel on Disconnect; Group 2 is not.
Assuming that the Firm is connected on all ports:
Both groups are configured for Cancel on Disconnect, and MPID_3 is in both groups.
Assuming the Member is connected on all ports:
Members connect to their assigned FIX port using the MIAX PEARL FIX Orders Interface (“FOI”) which is a flexible interface that uses the FIX protocol for both application and session level messages. As per the FIX protocol, a connection is established by the Member submitting a logon message to the Exchange. This logon message establishes the Heartbeat interval that will be used by the session. This value must be greater than zero seconds and the same value must be used by both the Member and the Exchange.
Within the logon message a Member can enable “Auto Cancel on Disconnect” for all orders sent through a session by setting a flag in the logon message. This would result in all eligible orders
Upon missing a single Heartbeat, FOI will send a
The Auto Cancel on Disconnect functionality is designed to react to external connection loss scenarios only. Therefore, it does not cancel orders in the event of a MIAX PEARL system failure. The execution reports resulting from cancels or trades during the period a Member is disconnected can be received upon a subsequent reconnection by the Member on the same trading day.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt new Interpretations and Policies .01 to enumerate order types that are not eligible for removal by the Auto Cancel on Disconnect functionality. Proposed Interpretation and Policies .01 will state that Good `Til Cancelled (“GTC”)
The Exchange also proposes to adopt new Interpretations and Policies .02 to define (i) what a “Heartbeat” message is and how it used by the Exchange, and (ii) the requirements for establishing a “Loss of Communication” on the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes amending the definition of “MEO Interface” and “FIX Interface,” in Rule 100, to clarify the function and capability of each interface.
The functionality discussed above is designed to mitigate potential risks associated with a loss of communication to the Exchange. In today's market, Market Makers' quotes are rapidly changing and can have a lifespan of only milliseconds. Therefore, if a Member is disconnected for any period of time, and its quotes remained in the System, it is very possible that the quotes would be stale by the time the Member was able to reestablish connectivity. Consequently, any resulting execution of such quotes is more likely to be erroneous or unintended. Conversely, the Exchange notes that orders tend to be static in nature and often rest on the Book. Certain orders, such as GTC orders are intended to rest on the Book for an extended period of time. As such, there is a lower risk of erroneous or unintended executions resulting from orders that remained in the System after a Member experienced a loss of communication.
The Exchange believes that while information relating to connectivity and loss of communication is already available to Members via technical specifications, codifying this information in the rule text will provide additional transparency and further reduce the potential for confusion.
MIAX PEARL believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and protect investors and the public interest by providing Market Makers with a mechanism by which quotes may be removed in the event of a loss of connectivity with the System. Market Makers provide liquidity to the market place and have obligations unlike other Members.
This risk protection feature is important because it will enable Market Makers to avoid risks associated with inadvertent executions in the event of a loss of communication with the Exchange. The proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory among Members, as it is available equally to all Members utilizing MEO. The obligation of Market Makers on the Exchange to provide continuous two-sided quotes in their assigned series on a daily basis
The disconnect feature of FIX connections is mandatory, however Members have the option to enable the cancellation of all orders for an entire session or select orders for cancellation on an order-by-order basis, which would result in the cancellation of orders submitted over a FIX port when such port disconnects. It is appropriate to offer two different removal features to all Members utilizing FIX, as these Members may desire that their orders remain on the order book despite a technical disconnection, so as not to miss any opportunities for execution of such orders while the FIX session is disconnected. Offering to cancel all orders, specifically selected orders, or no orders, upon disconnect allows the Member to customize the functionality to align to its business needs. Offering this type of order cancellation functionality to Members is consistent with the Act because it enables Members to avoid risks associated with inadvertent executions in the event of a loss of communication with the Exchange. The order cancellation functionality is designed to mitigate the risk of missed and/or unintended executions associated with a loss in communication with the Exchange. The proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory among Members, as it is available equally to all Members utilizing FIX.
The disconnect feature is mandatory under the FIX protocol. The Exchange will disconnect Members from the Exchange and not cancel orders if the Auto Cancel on Disconnect functionality is not enabled. This feature is consistent with the Act because it provides FIX users the ability to disconnect from the Exchange and assess the current market conditions to make a determination concerning their risk exposure. The Exchange notes that in the event Auto Cancel on Disconnect functionality is not enabled and such orders need to be cancelled after a disconnection occurs, an Exchange participant can contact Exchange staff to have its orders cancelled from the System.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by codifying risk protections for orders and quotes. The Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act because it adds another risk protection tool for Members that may mitigate the risk of potential erroneous or unintended executions associated with a loss in communication which protects investors and the public interest. Further, the Exchange believes clarifying the definition of each interface type provides clarity and transparency in the Exchange's Rules. The Exchange believes codifying existing functionality by rule will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market by adding precision and ease of reference to the Exchange's Rules, thus promoting transparency and clarity for Members.
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 Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intra-market competition because every Member of the Exchange has the opportunity to benefit from the functionality described in the proposed rule.
The Exchange provides two separate and distinct mechanisms for communicating with the Exchange, MEO and FIX. MEO Ports support the submission of quotes to the Exchange and are used primarily by Market Makers who have heightened quoting obligations because of their role. Members are provided the ability to configure their MEO Ports to leverage the functionality provided by the Exchange to remove quotes and orders to align to their risk tolerance. Because of the volume of series that a Market Maker is obligated to quote, the Exchange believes that removing all quotes for an affected matching engine on behalf of a Market Maker who has lost its last MEO connection to that engine to be in the best interest of both the Market Maker, to mitigate risk; and the Exchange, to ensure a fair and orderly market.
FIX users may set a timeframe for disconnection that is appropriate for their risk tolerance. Offering functionality to cancel all, some, or none, of the orders in the System upon establishing a loss of communication does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition as Members do not equally bear the same risks of potential erroneous or unintended executions. Further, FIX users have greater control over their orders and may designate a number of different Time in Force instructions which can be used to determine the duration an order rests on the Book, from Immediate-or-Cancel, which is executed in whole or part upon receipt, with any unexecuted portion being cancelled; to a Good `Til Cancelled order, which may rest on the Book until it is executed, cancelled by the user, or until the underlying option expires.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that other option exchanges offer similar functionality.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act to permit a registered closed-end investment company to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains more frequently than
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Morrison C. Warren, Esq., RiverNorth DoubleLine Strategic Opportunity Fund, Inc., Chapman and Cutler LLP, 111 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603, and Marc Collins, Esq., RiverNorth Capital Management LLC, 325 North LaSalle Street, Suite 645, Chicago, Illinois 60654.
Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel at (202) 551-6853, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Section 19(b) of the Act generally makes it unlawful for any registered investment company (“fund”) to make long-term capital gains distributions more than once every twelve months. Rule 19b-1 under the Act limits to one the number of capital gain dividends, as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“Code,” and such dividends, “distributions”), that a fund may make with respect to any one taxable year, plus a supplemental distribution made pursuant to section 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of the total amount distributed for the year, plus one additional capital gain dividend made in whole or in part to avoid the excise tax under section 4982 of the Code.
2. Applicants believe that investors in certain closed-end funds may prefer an investment vehicle that provides regular current income through a fixed distribution policy (“Distribution Policy”). Applicants propose that the Fund be permitted to adopt a Distribution Policy, pursuant to which the Fund would distribute periodically to its stockholders a fixed monthly percentage of the market price of the Fund's common stock at a particular point in time or a fixed monthly percentage of net asset value (“NAV”) at a particular time or a fixed monthly amount per share of common stock, any of which may be adjusted from time to time.
3. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 to permit a Fund to distribute periodic capital gain dividends (as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code) as frequently as twelve times in any one taxable year in respect of its common stock and as often as specified by, or determined in accordance with the terms of, any preferred stock issued by the Fund. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may exempt any person or transaction from any provision of the Act to the extent that 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.
4. Applicants state that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application, which generally are designed to address the concerns underlying section 19(b) and rule 19b-1, including concerns about proper disclosures and shareholders' understanding of the source(s) of a Fund's distributions and concerns about improper sales practices. Among other things, such terms and conditions require that (1) the board of directors or trustees of the Fund (the “Board”) review such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed determination of whether to adopt the proposed Distribution Policy and that the Board periodically review the amount of the distributions in light of the investment experience of the Fund, and (2) that the Fund's shareholders receive appropriate disclosures concerning the distributions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold its regular business meeting on June 16, 2017, in Entriken, Pennsylvania. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the
The meeting will be held on Friday, June 16, 2017, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Lake Raystown Resort, River Birch Ballroom, 3101 Chipmunk Crossing, Entriken, PA 16638.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, ext. 1312.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Informational presentation of interest to the Juniata Subbasin area; (2) election of officers for FY 2018; (3) the proposed Water Resources Program for fiscal years 2018 and 2019; (4) amendment of the
Projects, the fee schedule, the request of waiver by EOG Resources Inc., and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan listed for Commission action are those that were the subject of a public hearing conducted by the Commission on May 11, 2017, and identified in the notice for such hearing, which was published in 82 FR 17497, April 11, 2017. The rulemaking was published in 81 FR 64814, September 21, 2016, and subject to four public hearings on November 3, 2016; November 9, 2016; November 10, 2016; and December 8, 2016, and a public comment period that closed on January 30, 2017.
The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting. Comments on the Regulatory Program projects, the fee schedule, the request for waiver by EOG Resources Inc., and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were subject to a deadline of May 22, 2017. Written comments pertaining to other items on the agenda at the business meeting may be mailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically through
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its findings on the Noise Compatibility Program submitted by the Melbourne Airport Authority (MAA) under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act.” These findings are made in recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). On December 12, 2016, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the MAA under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. On April 25, 2017, the FAA approved the Melbourne International Airport (MLB) noise compatibility program. All of the recommendations of the program were approved. No program elements relating to new or revised flight procedures for noise abatement were proposed by the airport operator.
The effective date of the FAA's approval of the MLB Noise Compatibility Program is April 25, 2017.
Allan Nagy, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822, phone number: (407) 812-6331. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.
This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for MLB, effective April 25, 2017.
Under Section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.
Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150 is a local program, not a Federal Program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport operator with respect to which measure should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of 14 CFR part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in 14 CFR part 150 and the Act, and is limited to the following determinations:
a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of 14 CFR part 150;
b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal government; and
d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.
Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport Noise Compatibility Program are delineated in 14 CFR part 150, Section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require environmental review of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a
The MAA submitted to the FAA on September 9, 2016, the Noise Exposure Maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning Study conducted from October 2012 through September 9, 2016. The MLB Noise Exposure Maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on December 1, 2016. Notice of this determination was published in the
The MLB Study contains a proposed Noise Compatibility Program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from the years 2016 to 2021. It was requested that FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described in Section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the Program on December 1, 2016, and was required by a provisions of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180-days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.
The submitted program contained seven (7) proposed actions for noise mitigation on the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and 14 CFR part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was approved by the FAA effective April 25, 2017.
Outright approval was granted for the five (5) specific program elements that require FAA Action. No FAA Action is required for the remaining two (2) program elements which may be implemented by the MAA outside of the Part 150 Process. The FAA Approved elements consist of: Element AM-1, Noise Compatibility Program Management: This element recommends the MAA Airport Manager manage the implementation of the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP Section 12.1.1); Element AM-2, Community Involvement: This element recommends that the MAA continues accepting noise complaints via phone and email and that the MAA creates a Web page on noise abatement that can be accessed from the main Airport Web page (NCP Section 12.1.2); Element AM-3, Airport Noise Abatement Signage: This element recommends that the MAA purchases and installs noise abatement reminder signs at the ends of each runway to raise pilot awareness of noise sensitive land uses in proximity to the airport (NCP Section 12.1.3); Element AM-4, Develop a Jeppesen-style Insert on Noise Abatement Programs at MLB: This element recommends that the MAA voluntarily work with MLB ATCT, flight schools, and the FAA to publish Jeppesen-style pilot handouts notifying pilots of the noise abatement measures in place at MLB for better pilot awareness and compliance with the NCP's recommended noise abatement measures (NCP Section 12.1.4); Element AM-5, Noise Program Update: This element recommends that MAA staff should continue to routinely examine operating characteristics of MAA to determine if significant changes have occurred that would require an update to the most recent FAA approved Noise Exposure Maps (NCP Section 12.1.5).
These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval (ROA) signed by the FAA on April 25, 2017. The ROA, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative office of the Melbourne Airport Authority. The ROA will also be available on-line at:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for LaGuardia Airport under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act are in compliance with applicable requirements.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is May 5, 2017.
Eastern Region Airports Division (AEA-600), Andrew Brooks, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, AEA-600, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434, Telephone: (718) 553-3330.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for LaGuardia Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of 14 CFR part 150, effective January 13, 2004. Under 49 U.S.C. Section 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations during a forecast period that is at least five (5) years in the future, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation submitted by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The documentation that constitutes the “Noise Exposure Maps” (NEM) as defined in Section 150.7 of part 150 includes a 2016 Base Year NEM, Figure 5-1, and a 2021 Future Year NEM, Figure 5-2, located in Chapter 5 of the NEM Report. Details of the NEM contours are provided by Runway end in Figures 5-3 through 5-6 of Chapter 5. The figures contained within Chapter 5 are scaled to fit within the report context; however, the official, to scale, 2016 Base Year NEM and 2021 Future Year NEM are both located in Appendix M of the official NEM Report submittal. The Noise Exposure Maps contain current and forecast information
As discussed in Chapter 6 of the NEM Report, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey provided the general public the opportunity to review and comment on the NEMs. This public comment period opened on September 22, 2016 and closed on October 24, 2016. A public workshop for the Draft NEMs was held on September 29, 2016. All comments received during the public comment period and throughout the development of the NEMs, as well as responses to these comments, are contained in Appendix L of the NEM Report.
Following the closure of the public review period, on March 1, 2017, Delta Air Lines announced that the airline would cease McDonnell Douglass 88 aircraft operations at LGA, effective March 2, 2017, using Airbus 320, Boeing 737, and McDonnell Douglass 90 aircraft instead. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey reviewed the potential effect of this change to the Future Year 2021 fleet mix on the Future Year 2021 NEM, as detailed in the Cover Letter of the NEM submittal package. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey determined that the change in fleet mix will not result in substantial, new noncompatible use nor would it significantly reduce noise over existing noncompatible uses contained within the 2021 DNL 65 contour area. However, due to anticipated changes to the limits of the Future Year 2021 DNL 65 contour, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has committed to reflect any changes to the Future Year 2021 NEM associated with the change to Delta's fleet mix in the forthcoming Noise Compatibility Plan submittal as well as inform the public regarding this change via the project Web site at
The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on May 5, 2017.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under Section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of Section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under Section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section 150.21 of FAR part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
RTCA PMC RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.
The meeting will be held May 31, 2017 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann 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 RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting. 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 Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by June 16, 2017.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2017-0011.
Mr. David Bartz, (512) 536-5906, Office of Program Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 300 East 8th Street, Suite 826, Austin, Texas 78701. Office hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by July 17, 2017
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number FHWA-2017-0012 by any of the following methods:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Esther Strawder, 202-366-6836, Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from: 8:30a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The results will also be useful for States and FHWA in their efforts to develop programs and make improvements in roadway safety management.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by June 16, 2017.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2017-0010.
Karen Scurry, 609-637-4207, Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 202, West Trenton, NJ, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The existing provisions of Title 23 U.S.C. Sections 130, Railway-Highway Crossings Program,, as well as implementing regulations in 23 CFR 924, remain in effect. Included in these combined provisions are requirements for State DOTs to annually produce and submit to FHWA by August 31 reports related to the implementation and effectiveness of their HSIPs, that are to include information on: (a) Progress being made to implement HSIP projects and the effectiveness of these projects in reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries [Sections 148(h)]; and (b) progress being made to implement the Railway-Highway Crossings Program and the effectiveness of the projects in that program [Sections 130(g) and 148(h)], which will be used by FHWA to produce and submit biennial reports to Congress. To be able to produce these reports, State DOTs must have safety data and analysis systems capable of identifying and determining the relative severity of hazardous highway locations on all public roads, based on both crash experience and crash potential, as well as determining the effectiveness of highway safety improvement projects. FHWA provides an online reporting tool to support the annual HSIP reporting process. Additional information is available on the Office of Safety Web site at
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of proposed MOU, request for comments.
The FHWA and the State of Utah, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (State), propose a renewal of the State's participation in the State Assumption of Responsibility for Categorical Exclusions. This program allows FHWA to assign to States its authority and responsibility for determining whether certain designated activities within the geographic boundaries of the State, as specified in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. An amended MOU would renew the State's participation in the program. The MOU will be amended by incorporating the following change: FHWA may terminate the State's participation in this program if FHWA provides the State a notification of noncompliance, and a period of not less than 120 days to take corrective action as FHWA determines necessary, and if the state fails to take satisfactory corrective action as determined by FHWA (Section 1307 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation [FAST] Act [Pub. L. 114-94]).
Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by DOT Document Management System (DMS) Docket Number [FHWA-2017-0009], by any of the methods described below. Electronic or facsimile comments are preferred because Federal offices experience intermittent mail delays from security screening.
For access to the docket to view a complete copy of the proposed MOU, or to read background documents or comments received, go to
For FHWA: Mr. Edward Woolford, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, 2520 West 4700 South, Suite 9A, Salt Lake City, UT 84129; by email at
1. Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q (determinations of project-level conformity if required for the project).
2. Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 4901-4918.
3. Compliance with the noise regulations in 23 CFR 772.
4. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, and Section 1536.
5. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.
6. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703-712.
7. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. 306101
8. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. 3201.
9. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 469-469c.
10. American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996.
11. Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 18 U.S.C. 1170.
12. Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), 7 U.S.C. 4201-4209.
13. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1377 (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319).
14. Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 3501-3510.
15. Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451-1465.
16. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-6.
17. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403.
18. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287.
19. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 3921-3931.
20. TEA-21 Wetlands Mitigation, 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m), 133 (b)(11).
21. FHWA wetland and natural habitat mitigation regulations at 23 CFR part 777.
22. Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128.
23. Section 4(f), 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C., 303.
24. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 16 U.S.C. 4601-4604 (known as section 6(f)).
25. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675.
26. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
27. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k.
28. Planning and Environmental Linkages, 23 U.S.C. 168, with the exception of those FHWA responsibilities associated with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.
29. Programmatic Mitigation Plans, 23 U.S.C. 169 with the exception of those FHWA responsibilities associated with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.
30. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593, Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007, Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 13112, Invasive Species).
The MOU allows the State to act in the place of the FHWA in carrying out the functions described above, except with respect to government-to-government consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes. The FHWA will retain responsibility for conducting formal government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes, which is required under some of the above-listed laws and executive orders. The State also may assist the FHWA with formal consultations, with consent of a tribe, but the FHWA remains responsible for the consultation. This assignment includes transfer to the State of Utah the obligation to fulfill the assigned environmental responsibilities on any proposed projects meeting the criteria in Stipulation I(B) of the MOU that were determined to be CEs prior to the effective date of the proposed MOU but that have not been completed as of the effective date of the MOU. This is the proposed third renewal of the State's participation in the program and incorporate changes in the termination process from the FAST Act. FHWA may terminate the State's participation in this program if FHWA provides the State a notification of noncompliance, and a period of not less than 120 days to take corrective action as FHWA determines necessary, and if the state fails to take satisfactory corrective action as determined by FHWA. In previous versions of the MOU the period for the State to take corrective action was 30 days.
The FHWA will consider the comments submitted on the proposed MOU when making its decision on whether to execute this renewal MOU. The FHWA will make the final, executed MOU publicly available.
23 U.S.C. 326; 42 U.S.C. 4331, 4332; 23 CFR 771.117; 40 CFR 1507.3, 1508.4.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327, and the United States National Park Service, Death Valley National Park (NPS).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans and NPS, that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, State Route
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before October 16, 2017. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For Caltrans: Angela Calloway, Office Chief, District 9 Environmental; Caltrans District 9; 500 S. Main St., Bishop, CA 93514; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.; (760) 872-2424;
For NPS: Jonathan Penman-Brotzman, Compliance Program Manager, Office of Environmental Compliance; National Park Service, Death Valley National Park; P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, CA 92328; Tuesday-Friday 8 a.m.-5 p.m.; (760) 786-3227;
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans and NPS have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of California: The project proposes to realign approximately 0.6 mile of SR 190 to the east of the current alignment near Towne Pass in Death Valley National Park. A new highway easement will be acquired from Death Valley National Park. The current six curves will be reduced to three. The realignment will improve both vertical and horizontal curves to meet a minimum design speed of 55 miles per hour and increase stopping sight distance to 600 feet. Paved shoulders will be constructed throughout the project area and side slopes will be flattened or stabilized to create a catchment adjacent to the roadway, thus reducing the potential for rockfall. Federal Project Number 00PE014. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, approved on May 3, 2017, in the Caltrans' Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on May 3, 2017 and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The EA, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the address provided above. The Caltrans EA and FONSI can also be viewed and downloaded from the internet at
The NPS concurred that the proposed project would result in a
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors meeting.
The meeting will be held on May 25, 2017, from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in this meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act).
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on May 5, 2017.
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410 (not toll free numbers).
The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site at
On May 5, 2017, OFAC's Acting Director determined that the property and interests in property of the following persons are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act and placed them on the SDN List.
1. PADROS DEGREGORI, Gino Dusan (a.k.a. PADROS DEGREGORI, Gino Dussan; a.k.a. “FLACO”), Lima, Peru; DOB 20 Oct 1977; alt. DOB 15 Oct 1977; POB Piura, Peru; citizen Peru; Gender Male; Passport 3096570 (Peru) issued 04 Jan 2005 expires 04 Jan 2010; alt. Passport 2395877 (Peru); RUC # 10068051059 (Peru); National ID No. 06805105-9 (Peru) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: R INVER CORP S.A.C.; Linked To: G & M AUTOS S.A.C.; Linked To: SBK IMPORT S.A.C.). Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(4) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(4), for playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
2. ZEGARRA MARTINEZ, Guillermo Jean Pierre, Pasaje Ismael Pozo 159, Torres De San Borja, Lima, Peru; DOB 06 Jan 1984; POB Lima, Peru; Gender Male; Passport 4085740 (Peru) issued 12 Dec 2012 expires 17 Dec 2017; Driver's License No. Q-412185038 (Peru); RUC # 10421850386 (Peru); National ID No. 42185038-6 (Peru) (individual) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to sections 805(b)(2) and/or (3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(2) and/or (3), for materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of Gino Dusan PADROS DEGREGORI, and/or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Gino Dusan PADROS DEGREGORI.
1. G & M AUTOS S.A.C. (a.k.a. G AND M AUTOS S.A.C.), Copacabana 162, La Molina, Lima 12, Peru; RUC # 20513664339 (Peru) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by Gino Dusan PADROS DEGREGORI.
2. R INVER CORP S.A.C., Avenida Los Precursores Numero 288 Dpto. 203 Urb. Maranga (Piso 2), San Miguel, Lima, Peru; RUC # 20562939068 (Peru) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by Gino Dusan PADROS DEGREGORI.
3. SBK IMPORT S.A.C., Calle Brigida Silva de Ochoa Numero 370, San Miguel, Lima, Peru; Avenida Los Precursores Numero 288, Urb. Maranga, San Miguel, Lima, Peru; RUC # 20520935461 (Peru) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by Gino Dusan PADROS DEGREGORI.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act), Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers”. Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of a person currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on May 9, 2017.
The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site at
On May 9, 2017, OFAC removed from the SDN List the persons listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act or Executive Order 12978.
1. BASTO DELGADO, Irma Mery, c/o C.I. OKCOFFEE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. OKCOFFEE INTERNATIONAL S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o CUBICAFE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. DISTRIBUIDORA DE SERVICIOS COMBUSTIBLES Y MINERIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o FUNDACION PARA EL BIENESTAR Y EL PORVENIR, Medellin, Colombia; c/o HOTELES Y BIENES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o UNION DE CONSTRUCTORES CONUSA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o R D I S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 05 Apr 1967; Cedula No. 20904590 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
2. CIFUENTES VILLA, Dolly de Jesus, c/o C.I. GLOBAL INVESTMENTS S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o CIFUENTES URIBE Y COMPANIA S.C.S., Medellin, Colombia; c/o ECOVIVERO EL MATORRAL E.U., Medellin, Colombia; c/o ROBLE DE MINAS S.A., Medellin, Colombia; Calle 36AA Sur No. 26A-35, Medellin, Colombia; DOB 14 Jun 1964; Cedula No. 43020313 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
3. EL BEZRI, Ahmad (a.k.a. EL BIZRI, Ahmad); DOB 09 Feb 1989; POB Saida, Lebanon; citizen Lebanon; Passport RL2452947 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ABOU MERHI COTONOU; Linked To: ABOU MERHI NIGERIA).
4. GONZALEZ JARAMILLO, Juan Fernando, c/o BIO FORESTAL S.A.,
5. MERHI, Atef Merhi Abou (a.k.a. ABOU-MERHI, Atef Merhi; a.k.a. MERHI, Atef Abou; a.k.a. MERHI, Atif Merhi Abou); DOB 06 Aug 1989; POB Saida, Lebanon; citizen Germany; Passport C1TRT3WNJ (Germany) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL; Linked To: ABOU MERHI CHARITY INSTITUTION; Linked To: ORIENT QUEEN HOMES).
6. MERHI, Hana Merhi Abou (a.k.a. MERHI, Hana Abou); DOB 31 Mar 1987; POB Germany; citizen Germany; Passport 332501999 (Germany) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ABOU-MERHI CRUISES SAL; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL; Linked To: ABOU MERHI CHARITY INSTITUTION; Linked To: ORIENT QUEEN HOMES).
7. MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou (a.k.a. ABOU MERHI, Merhi; a.k.a. MERHI, Merhi Abou); DOB 05 Jul 1964; POB Hilalie, Lebanon; citizen Lebanon; Passport RL0575682 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI CRUISES SAL; Linked To: QUEEN STATIONS; Linked To: ORIENT QUEEN HOMES; Linked To: ABOU MERHI COTONOU; Linked To: ABOU MERHI NIGERIA; Linked To: ABOU MERHI HAMBURG; Linked To: LEBANON CENTER; Linked To: ABOU MERHI CHARITY INSTITUTION).
8. NASR, Wajdi Youssef; DOB 25 Sep 1974; POB Lebanon; citizen Lebanon; Passport 2243913 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ABOU MERHI HAMBURG).
9. NASREDDINE, Houeda Ahmad (a.k.a. ABOU MERHI, Houeida; a.k.a. ABOU MERHI, Huweid; a.k.a. ABOU MERHI, Huweida; a.k.a. NASREDDINE, Houeida Ahmad); DOB 14 Aug 1965; POB Kfarhatta, Lebanon; citizen Lebanon; Passport RL0022792 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ABOU-MERHI CRUISES SAL; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL; Linked To: ABOU MERHI CHARITY INSTITUTION; Linked To: ORIENT QUEEN HOMES).
10. STJEPANOVIC, Savo; DOB 11 Apr 1976; POB Ljubljana, Slovenia; nationality Slovenia; Passport P00787190 (Slovenia); Registration ID 1104976500095 (Slovenia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SIS D.O.O.; Linked To: NORTHSTAR TRADING CORPORATION).
11. URIBE CIFUENTES, Ana Maria, Calle 7 Sur No. 23-91 Apto. 804, Medellin, Colombia; c/o CIFUENTES URIBE Y CIA. S.C.S., Medellin, Colombia; c/o ECOVIVERO EL MATORRAL E.U., Medellin, Colombia; DOB 01 Feb 1980; POB Medellin, Colombia; Cedula No. 43162647 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
1. ABOU MERHI CHARITY INSTITUTION, Merhi Abou Merhi Street, Hilaliye, Saida, Lebanon; Abou Merhi Street, Hilaliyah Area, Saida 175016, Lebanon [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
2. ABOU MERHI COTONOU, Commune De Semepkodji Quartier Djeffa 01B7885, Cotonou, Benin [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
3. ABOU MERHI GROUP, Weygand Street, Atrium Building, Central District, Beirut, Lebanon [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou).
4. ABOU MERHI HAMBURG (a.k.a. ABOU MERHI LINIENAGENTUR GMBH), Borstelmannsweg 145 D, Hamburg 20537, Germany; Hermann-Blohm-Strasse 3, Hamburg 20457, Germany [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
5. ABOU MERHI NIGERIA (a.k.a. ABOU MERHI NIGERIA LIMITED), Grimaldi Port Complex Tin Can Island Port, Lagos, Nigeria [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
6. ABOU-MERHI CRUISES SAL, The Atrium Building, Property Number 1455/26, Weygand Street, Beirut Central District Area, Nejmeh Sector, Beirut, Lebanon [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
7. ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL (a.k.a. ABOU MERHI LINES; a.k.a. ABOU MERHI LINES SAL; a.k.a. ABOU MERHI LINES SAL OFF-SHORE), Atrium Building, Mosquee Al-Omari Street, Nejmeh Area, Marfaa Sector, Beirut, Lebanon; Atrium Building, Weygand Street, Central District, Nejmeh Sector, Beirut, Lebanon [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
8. CIFUENTES URIBE Y CIA. S.C.S., Calle 16C No. 42-70, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 811036756-7 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
9. ECOVIVERO EL MATORRAL E.U., Calle 36AA Sur No. 26A-35, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; Carrera 48 No. 15 Sur-45, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 811027555-5 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
10. LEBANON CENTER, 176 Wasfi Tall Street, The Gardens, Amman, Jordan [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
11. MATAMBRE DE LO MEJOR, Carrera 75 No. 24C-25, Bogota, Colombia; Matricula Mercantil No 1664511 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
12. ORIENT QUEEN HOMES (a.k.a. ABOU MERHI HOSPITALITY SAL), John Kennedy Street 56526, Beirut, Lebanon [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
13. QUEEN STATIONS, Merhi Abou-Merhi Street, Saida, Lebanon [SDNTK] (Linked To: ABOU MERHI GROUP).
14. SIS D.O.O., 19 Spruha, Trzin 1236, Slovenia; Registration ID 5919070 (Slovenia); Tax ID No. SI91729181 (Slovenia) [SDNTK].
1. CITY OF ANTWERP (3FRY8) Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8709133; MMSI 356459000 (vessel) [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL).
2. CITY OF LUTECE (9HRJ6) Malta flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8017970; MMSI 248781000 (vessel) [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL).
3. CITY OF MISURATA (3EMY5) Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7920857; MMSI 354134000 (vessel) [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL).
4. ORIENT QUEEN II (3FDJ9) Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8701193; MMSI 373703000 (vessel) [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL).
Additionally, on May 9, 2017, OFAC updated the SDN List for the person listed below, whose property and interests in property continue to be blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
1. AYALA BARRERA, Rubi Yiceth, c/o HERJEZ LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MATAMBRE DE LO MEJOR, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 13 Feb 1982; Cedula No. 52784570 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
-to-
AYALA BARRERA, Rubi Yiceth; DOB 13 Feb 1982; Cedula No. 52784570 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: HERJEZ LTDA.).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 0f 1995, this notice announces that the National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), (202)461-5870 or email
• Change to the Applicant Definition, who can apply for a Government headstone, marker or medallion;
• Information about the Presidential Memorial Certificate (PMC) program and the option to receive a PMC in addition to the headstone, marker or medallion;
• Changes in eligibility for a medallion, consistent with section 301 of Public Law 114-315;
• Addition of language that clarifies that “mandatory” and “optional” inscription items are provided in English, and that “additional” inscription items may be provided in English or non-English text that consists of the Latin Alphabet or numbers;
• Addition of information on VA Form 40-1330 and VA Form 40-1330M related to whether the Veteran was previously determined by VA to be eligible for burial, and related to whether the request is initial or for a replacement headstone or marker;
• Addition of “Iraq” and “Afghanistan” as indicators of “War Service,” consistent with Public Law 114-315;
• Addition of Age at the Time of Death on VA Form 40-1330 and VA Form 40-1330M; and
• Addition of demographic information for statistical reporting purposes only on VA Form 40-1330 and VA Form 40-1330M.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0657” in any correspondence.
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0657” in any correspondence.
• Collects the name and title of affected VA and SAA employees known by the President (or Chief Administrative Official) of the school, as well as a description of these employees' association with that school.
• Collects information for each certifying official, owner, or officer who receives VA educational assistance based on an enrollment in that proprietary school: the name and title of these employees; VA file numbers; and dates of enrollment at the proprietary school
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
| 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 |