Food Safety and Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) all The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and –900 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of paint deterioration on the surface of the main landing gear (MLG) and the early onset of corrosion in the trunnion bore of the MLG outer cylinder. This AD requires identifying affected parts, repetitive external surface detailed inspections for damage of affected parts, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires a detailed inspection and bushing replacement of the trunnion bore, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 29, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 29, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone: 562–797–1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6450; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and –900 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Messier Services Asia Pte Ltd (MS Asia) explained that this maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) facility, located in Singapore, has disclosed to Boeing that between November 2007 and December 2011, painting performed by MS Asia on certain landing gear legs as part of its overhaul service for Boeing did not fully conform to Boeing instructions and specifications. MS Asia stated that this painting error was disclosed to Boeing for Model 737 airplane landing gears identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2015 (“SASB 737–32–1486, R1”).
MS Asia refuted and continues to refute that the painting has generated the potential onset of corrosion discovered on the MLG. MS Asia explained that it had the opportunity to demonstrate to Boeing the absence of links between these two events and is willing to reiterate its technical demonstration to the FAA. MS Asia asserted that the NPRM makes an incorrect statement and conclusion, and is without technical evidence that the root cause of the corrosion detected on the trunnion bore and the associated risk of fracture is the consequence of the incorrect paint scheme application.
MS Asia also stated that the NPRM is creating confusion when it refers to SAFRAN Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, and that the painting issues only affect gears overhauled by MS Asia during the period of November 2007 to December 2011. MS Asia asserted that no painting issues have affected landing gears overhauled by the MRO entity of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty outside the
From these statements, we infer that MS Asia is requesting we withdraw the NPRM. We do not agree.
Landing gear components include materials that are very sensitive to corrosion and cracking and are not tolerant of improper maintenance. In particular, high strength steel, once corroded, can readily develop cracks which could then propagate very rapidly and render inspection programs ineffectual. This is why it is imperative that protective finishes be applied as specified.
The determination of a connection between improper finish application and the potential onset of corrosion was made by Boeing in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, with review and concurrence by the FAA. This connection has also been validated by extensive fleet experience.
MS Asia provided no definitive data to substantiate its statement that there is not such a connection between its painting (application of unqualified primer) and corrosion. It should also be noted that this painting was only one of several discrepancies noted that indicated improper maintenance. There is no refutation of the finding that the components were not overhauled in accordance with Boeing instructions and specifications. These instructions and specifications, or their equivalent, are in turn included in operators' maintenance programs that are approved by the governing regulatory authority.
We are willing to review data MS Asia might wish to submit regarding this AD. However, this issue has been determined to be a safety issue by both Boeing and the FAA, and the FAA has also determined that it is not appropriate to withdraw the NPRM. If a future review of submitted data substantiates MS Asia's claim that the root cause of the corrosion detected on the trunnion bore and the associated risk of fracture is not the consequence of the incorrect paint scheme application, then we may grant relief through either additional rulemaking or a global alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
We have not revised this final rule regarding a connection between improper finish application and the potential onset of corrosion.
We note that the dates of the discrepant overhaul specified in paragraph (g) of this AD differ from the dates given in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, and in MS Asia's comments. The dates in paragraph (g) of this AD were determined by an investigation of MS Asia's maintenance records by an FAA inspector. After that review of maintenance records by an FAA field office, we concur with MS Asia's statement that this improper rework is limited to their facility in Singapore. We have revised this final rule to refer to MS Asia instead of SAFRAN Messier-Bugatti-Dowty to avoid confusion regarding affected parts.
Boeing and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requested that we clarify why the NPRM did not address actions specified in the service information for the NLG.
We agree that there is a need to clarify. The discrepant rework described in the Boeing service information does specify the NLG as well as the MLG. We note that in the Boeing service information, inspections of the MLG were specified for safety and were so labeled. However, inspections of the NLG were not determined by Boeing to be a safety issue. Those NLG inspections were labeled as economic inspections. This determination is consistent with the FAA's safety determination. Issues involving potential collapse of the NLG are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but are typically determined not to be safety issues. In the event of failure of the NLG, the flight crew normally retains adequate directional control of the airplane via differential braking, engine thrust, and/or rudder. This is not the case for MLG collapses. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we include Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, in the applicable investigative and corrective actions identified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the replacement of the MLG outer cylinder in accordance with Part 7 should be allowed as an option for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.
We have confirmed that Boeing's requested change to paragraph (i) of this AD is not needed since Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, is already cited in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD as terminating action for the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
EASA stated that the NPRM does not explicitly state that replacement with a new part is acceptable unless the new part belongs to “Appendix D (wrong batch).”
We are not sure what EASA intended by the term “new.” This would ordinarily indicate a brand new part obtained from the design approval holder or authorized supplier that has never previously been placed into service. However, we infer from EASA's statement that it intends the term to mean a different part than what is currently installed on the airplane. If this is the case, then this issue is already addressed in the service information. For example, for replacement of the entire MLG, Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, specifies that such replacement be accomplished with a serviceable MLG. By definition, the components listed in Appendix D of SASB 737–32–1486, R1 are not serviceable. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
SunExpress requested clarification that overhaul of affected components/assemblies specified in the service information is terminating action for inspections. SunExpress stated that the service information has a note specifying to not reinstall a removed component and/or MLG on another airplane until overhaul is completed.
United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise paragraph (l) of the proposed AD to allow operators to install affected parts as long as they have been overhauled using the component maintenance manual and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1. UAL stated that the wording in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD implies that all affected serial numbers would need FAA approval for repair/overhaul.
In addition, SunExpress requested clarification as to whether each sub-part or sub-assembly under an MLG component installation is also affected individually. SunExpress asked if, for example, a sub-part (
We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We find that the instructions in the service information for overhaul, as specified in the NPRM, already address the commenters' concerns. However, we agree that additional clarification would be helpful. We have revised paragraph (l) of this AD to specify, in part, that an MLG may not be installed unless that MLG has been overhauled as specified in the applicable corrective actions of paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
In addition, to address SunExpress's comment concerning component installations, we provide the following clarification. Based on accepted maintenance practices, a part number would include all of the components that make up that part. It is incumbent upon the operator to either inspect or do a records review to identify those parts affected by this AD. Any parts identified, including all components of those parts, are affected. As stated previously, we have revised paragraph (l) of this AD to provide clarification.
SunExpress requested that we revise the proposed compliance time for the MLG inspections from 24 months to 36 months to accommodate its maintenance schedule. SunExpress pointed out that the longer compliance time would be financially beneficial for operators.
We do not agree with SunExpress's request to extend the compliance time. The operator provided no technical justification for revising this compliance time. Stress corrosion cracking of the external surfaces of the MLG is a significant safety issue, and we have determined that the proposed inspection threshold is warranted, based on the effectiveness of the inspection procedure and the FAA transport airplane risk assessment.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered the safety issues as well as the recommendations of the manufacturer, the availability of necessary parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspection within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal maintenance schedules of most affected operators. We considered the manufacturer's recommendation as well as the time necessary to complete the rulemaking process, and found that a 24-month initial compliance time should fall well within the time that the majority of operators have regular maintenance visits scheduled. In light of these factors, we have determined that the 24-month initial compliance time, as proposed, is appropriate. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1. The service information describes procedures for identifying affected parts, repetitive external surface detailed inspections for damage of affected parts, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, the service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection and bushing replacement of the trunnion bore, and related investigative and corrective actions. The service information also describes procedures for certain airplanes for a detailed inspection of the trunnion bore, and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for certain on-condition actions (MLG external surface repair, MLG component replacement, outer cylinder repair, and MLG replacement) specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
The previous information is based on known affected airplanes. However, the MLG may have been overhauled outside of the Boeing Exchange Program as specified in the “Clarification of Affected MLGs” section of this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 29, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and –900 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of paint deterioration on the surface of the main landing gear (MLG) and early onset of corrosion in the trunnion bore of the MLG outer cylinder. We are issuing this AD to prevent stress corrosion cracking of the external surfaces of the MLG, which could result in a fracture of the MLG and consequent MLG collapse.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2015 (“SASB 737–32–1486, R1”), except as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD in order to identify affected parts.
(1) Inspect the MLG to determine if it has any component installation or side strut assembly having a part number and serial number listed in Appendix D of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1; except that the “Variable Number” column of Appendix D is to be disregarded in determining affected part and serial numbers. An MLG that has any MLG component installation or side strut assembly having a part number and serial number listed in Appendix D of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1 is an affected part. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the MLG component installation and side strut assembly can be conclusively identified from that review.
(2) Do a records review to determine if the MLG has been overhauled by Messier Services Asia Pte Ltd (MS Asia) outside of the Boeing Exchange program from June 1, 2009, to July 31, 2013. If it is determined that the MLG has been overhauled by MS Asia outside of the Boeing Exchange program from
If any affected part is identified during the inspection or records review required by paragraph (g) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, except as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, do detailed inspections of the external surfaces of the MLG, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Parts 1, 3, and 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1. All applicable related investigative and corrective actions must be done before further flight.
For airplanes that are identified as Groups 1 and 2, Configuration 1, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, and that have an affected part identified during the inspection or records review required by paragraph (g) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, except as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, do a detailed inspection and bushing replacement of the MLG trunnion bore, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Parts 2, 5, and 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
(1) MLG replacement in accordance with Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD for that MLG only.
(2) MLG component replacement in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD for that component only.
(3) MLG outer cylinder replacement in accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, terminates the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD for that component only.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, 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.
(2) Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014, as revised by SASB 737–32–1486, R1, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install the following on any airplane identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, unless either the MLG or MLG component has first been overhauled as specified in the corrective actions of paragraphs (h) and (i), as applicable, of this AD, or the MLG or MLG component has been overhauled using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
(1) An MLG or MLG component having a part number and serial number identified in Appendix D of SASB 737–32–1486, R1.
(2) An MLG that was overhauled between June 1, 2009, and July 31, 2013, by MS Asia.
(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (n) 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, Seattle 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 (k)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (m)(4)(i) and (m)(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.
For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6450; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, dated November 6, 2014.
(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–32–1486, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2015.
(3) For Boeing 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 90740–5600; telephone: 562–797–1717; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–22–12 for all Airbus Model A330–243, –243F, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes. AD 2012–22–12 required inspecting piccolo tubes and mount links, the aft side of the forward bulkhead, and outer boundary angles (OBAs); and doing corrective actions if necessary. This new AD retains certain requirements of AD 2012–22–12, and adds inspections of certain areas of the forward bulkhead, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of air intake cowls, worn and detached attachment links, fractured thermal anti-ice (TAI) piccolo tubes, and loose or missing attachment rivets of the inner boundary angles (IBAs) and OBAs of the forward bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 29, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 29, 2017.
For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
For Rolls-Royce service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce Plc, Technical Publications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; telephone 44 (0) 1332 245882; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936; Internet
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1138; fax 425–227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012–22–12, Amendment 39–17248 (77 FR 67263, November 9, 2012) (“AD 2012–22–12”). AD 2012–22–12 applied to all Airbus Model A330–243, –243F, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive, 2016–0086R1, dated May 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model 330–243, –243F, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During shop visit, cracks were found in several primary structural parts of Rolls Royce (RR) Trent 700 engine air intake cowls, specifically in the forward bulkhead web, web stiffeners and outer boundary angles (OBA). In addition, several attachment links were found severely worn, and some became detached. In two cases, the thermal anti-ice (TAI) piccolo tube was found fractured. Investigation results show that the cracks are most likely due to acoustic excitation and vibration.
A broken piccolo tube, if not detected and corrected, in conjunction with forward air intake cowl bulkhead damage, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer barrel, possibly resulting in damage to the engine or reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330–71–3025, making reference to RR SB RB.211–71–AG416, to provide inspection instructions, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2011–0062 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012–22–12] to require repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI) [borescope] of the piccolo tube and affected mount links, the aft side of forward bulkhead, inner boundary angles (IBA) and OBA of the RR Trent 700 air intake cowl assemblies, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Since EASA AD 2011–0062 was issued, some occurrences were reported of finding attachment rivets of the IBA and OBA either pulled, loose, or missing during inspection. It was determined that the affected IBA and OBA rivets may not have been previously inspected if operators accomplished the required inspection in accordance with the instructions of RR SB RB.211–71–AG416 at original issue.
To address this potentially missed inspection, Airbus published SB A330–71–3033, providing instructions for a one-time detailed inspection of the IBA and OBA attachment rivets, to be accomplished if the previous inspection was accomplished using the instructions of RR SB RB.211–71–AG416 at original issue. Airbus also published SB A330–71–3025 Revision 2, adding an inspection of the IBA and OBA attachment
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD partially retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011–0062, which is superseded, and requires an additional [special] detailed inspection [borescope] of IBA and OBA forward bulkhead attachment rivets. This [EASA] AD also introduces an optional terminating action (Airbus mod 204615, embodied in production, which can be embodied in service with Airbus SB A330–71–3032) for the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.
This [EASA] AD is revised to improve clarity, including Airbus and RR SB references and inserting Notes to identify the Part Numbers (P/N) of the affected engine air intake nose cowl assemblies.
Related investigative actions include inspecting for cracked or fractured piccolo tubes and for broken piccolo tube links. Corrective actions include replacing the engine air intake cowl assembly and repair of pulled, loose, or missing rivets.
The compliance times for the related investigative and corrective actions range from before further flight to within 100 flight cycles, depending on the findings of the inspections.
The repetitive inspection interval for the IBAs, OBAs, and forward bulkhead varies depending on inspection findings, and ranges between 200 and 5,000 flight cycles. The repetitive inspection interval for the piccolo tubes and links is 2,500 flight cycles.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330–71–3025, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspections of the piccolo tube and mount links, the aft side of the forward bulkhead, the IBAs, OBAs, and the forward bulkhead on the engine air intake cowl assemblies; and related investigative and corrective actions.
Airbus also has issued Service Bulletin A330–71–3032, dated December 10, 2014. This service information describes procedures for a modification that improves the air intake primary structure and adds a new piccolo tube supporting structure on the engine air intake cowl assemblies.
In addition, Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330–71–3033, dated December 14, 2015. This service information describes procedures for an inspection for pulled, loose, and missing attachment rivets of the IBAs and OBAs of the forward bulkhead, and corrective actions.
Rolls-Royce has issued Service Bulletin RB.211–71–H205, dated July 7, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the nose cowl assembly acoustic panels.
Rolls-Royce also has issued Service Bulletin RB.211–71–H847, dated December 2, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the air intake nose cowl assembly, forward bulkhead assembly, TAI spray ring, and the TAI spray ring supporting hardware.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 29, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012–22–12, Amendment 39–17248 (77 FR 67263, November 9, 2012) (“AD 2012–22–12”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330–243, –243F, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of air intake cowls on Rolls-Royce Trent engines, worn and detached attachment links, and fractured thermal anti-ice (TAI) piccolo tubes, and loose, or missing attachment rivets of the inner boundary angles (IBAs) and the outer boundary angles (OBAs) of the forward bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct degraded structural integrity of the engine nose cowl, which in the case of forward bulkhead damage in conjunction with a broken piccolo tube, could lead to damage to the engine and operation in icing conditions with reduced TAI performance.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
The engine air intake nose cowl assemblies affected by this AD have part numbers (P/N) SJ30020, P/N SJ30361, P/N SJ30687, P/N SJ30810, and P/N SJ30811, as specified in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211–71–H205, dated July 7, 2014.
(1) The engine air intake nose cowl assemblies having P/N SJ30020, P/N SJ30361, and P/N SJ30687 can be modified (reworked and re-identified as P/N SJ30810 (for P/N SJ30020 and P/N SJ30361) and P/N SJ30811 (for P/N SJ30687)), as specified in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211–71–H205, dated July 7, 2014.
(2) The engine air intake nose cowl assemblies having P/N SJ30810 and P/N SJ30811 can be modified (reworked and re-identified as P/N SJ30820 and P/N SJ30821, respectively), as specified in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211–71–H847, dated December 2, 2014.
For airplanes in pre-Airbus Modification 204615 and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3032 configuration: At the applicable times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection of the piccolo tube and affected mount links, the aft side of the forward bulkhead, and the IBAs and OBAs of the affected engine air intake cowl assemblies specified in paragraph (g) of this AD; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3025, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3025, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2015. Repeat the inspections of the piccolo tube and affected mount links, the aft side of the forward bulkhead, and the IBAs and OBAs of the engine air intake cowl assemblies thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3025, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2015. Accomplishment of corrective actions does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.
(1) For any engine air intake cowl assembly that has accumulated fewer than 5,000 flight cycles since its first installation on an airplane as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 24 months after the engine air intake cowl assembly has accumulated 5,000 total flight cycles.
(2) For any engine air intake cowl assembly that has accumulated 5,000 or more flight cycles since its first installation on an airplane as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3025, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2015, specifies to contact Bombardier Aerospace—Shorts for instructions, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Modification of an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3032, dated December 10, 2014, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for the modified airplane only.
As of the effective date of this AD, any pre-Airbus Modification 204615 part may be installed on any airplane provided that, at the earlier of the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD following installation, the actions required by
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3025, dated January 10, 2011, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2012–22–12; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3025, Revision 01, dated October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD; provided that, within 1,050 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, a special detailed inspection for pulled, loose, and missing attachment rivets of the IBAs and OBAs of the forward bulkhead is accomplished; and all applicable corrective actions are done; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3033, dated December 14, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishment of corrective actions does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012–22–12 are not approved as AMOCs with this AD.
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016–0086R1, dated May 13, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3025, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3032, dated December 10, 2014.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330–71–3033, dated December 14, 2015.
(iv) Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211–71–H205, dated July 7, 2014.
(v) Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211–71–H847, dated December 2, 2014.
(3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) For Rolls-Royce service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Plc, Technical Publications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; telephone 44 (0) 1332 245882; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936; Internet
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Model 560XL airplanes. This AD requires inspections of the fuel tube and right alternating current (AC) generator wires. This AD was prompted by reports of inadequate separation between the electrical wire bundle and fuel tube. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 9, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 9, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by April 10, 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 final rule, contact Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316–517–6215; fax 316–517–5802; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Craig Henrichsen, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics, ACE–119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316–946–4110; fax: 316–946–4107; email:
We have been notified by Textron Aviation Inc. of a windshield heat failure reported by a flight crew. During follow-on troubleshooting activities, the maintenance crew discovered an open circuit breaker in the tail cone area after finding the AC generator electrical wires chafed against a motive flow fuel tube that was leaking. Additional inspections by the operator found two more airplanes with chafing damage to the wires and fuel tube. Textron Aviation Inc. also found evidence of damage to the electrical wire bundle on two other airplanes. Further inspections have found inadequate separation between the electrical wire bundle and fuel tube on 19 airplanes in service. The airplane quality inspection failed to identify the wire separation problem prior to airplane delivery. Inadequate separation between the fuel tube and electrical wire bundle, if not corrected, could result in chafing, a possible fuel leak, and electrical arcing, which could lead to a fuel ignition source and possible uncontrolled fire in the tail cone of the airplane.
We reviewed Textron Aviation Service Letter SL560XL–24–07, including Attachment, dated January 13, 2017. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the fuel tube and right AC generator wires, applicable adjustments, and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. This AD also requires sending the inspection results to Textron Aviation Inc. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this AD. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found.
This AD is considered to be interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the damage, and eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because inadequate separation between the electrical wire bundle and fuel tube could result in chafing, electrical arcing, and a possible fuel leak, leading to a fuel ignition source and possible uncontrolled fire in the tail cone of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 639 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs or replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs or replacements:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 9, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 560XL airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Textron Aviation Service Letter SL560XL–24–07, dated January 13, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.
This AD was prompted by reports of inadequate separation between the electrical wire bundle and fuel tube. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct inadequate separation and consequent chafing, which could result in electrical arcing and a fuel leak, leading to a fuel ignition source and possible uncontrolled fire in the tail cone of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 25 flight hours or 180 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do general visual inspections of the fuel tube and right alternating current (AC) generator wires for evidence of damage, do all applicable adjustments, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Textron Aviation Service Letter SL560XL–24–07, including Attachment, dated January 13, 2017. All applicable adjustments and corrective actions must be done before further flight.
Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Textron Aviation Inc. as specified in Textron Aviation Service Letter SL560XL–24–07, including Attachment, dated January 13, 2017, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the effective date of this AD.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Craig Henrichsen, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics, ACE–119W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316–946–4110; fax: 316–946–4107; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Textron Aviation Service Letter SL560XL–24–07, including Attachment, dated January 13, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316–517–6215; fax 316–517–5802; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–16–08 for certain BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146–RJ series airplanes. AD 2012–16–08 required repetitive inspections for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the fuselage skin adjacent to the discharge valves, and repair and application of additional sealant in the affected area if necessary. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2012–16–08, expands the applicability, and requires an additional one-time inspection for the presence of water traps/air driers to determine which airplanes must be inspected. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking and surface anomalies of the fuselage skin at the water trap/air drier unit of the forward discharge valve due to corrosion, and the determination that airplanes on which a certain auto-pressurization modification was incorporated during production were excluded from the applicability of AD 2012–16–08, but are also affected by this condition. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 29, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 29, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of September 18, 2012 (77 FR 48420, August 14, 2012).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Theodore Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1175; fax 425–227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015–0180, dated August 28, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146–RJ series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An operator reported finding cracking and surface anomalies (bulges and/or dents) of the fuselage skin at the water trap/air drier unit of the forward discharge valve, located between fuselage frame (FR) 22 and FR23 and between stringers 22 and 23. Further investigation established that these surface anomalies were due to corrosion beneath the water trap/air drier unit that has resulted in cracking of the fuselage skin
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the fuselage skin, possibly resulting in loss of cabin pressure and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2011–0099 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012–16–08] to require repetitive detailed visual inspections (DVI) of the fuselage skin adjacent to the front and rear discharge valves to check for bulging, surface anomalies and cracking, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s), and the application of additional sealant in the affected area.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was found that aeroplanes that have incorporated auto-pressurisation modification No. HCM50259A during production, which were excluded from the Applicability, were also affected by this condition.
In addition, and in order to simplify instructions for applicability, BAE Systems (Operations) Limited issued Revision 4 of Inspection Service Bulletin (ISB) No. 21–162, introducing a one-time inspection to identify if water trap/air driers are installed.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011–0099, which is superseded, expands the Applicability and requires the additional one-time inspection as specified in the latest ISB revision.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 4, dated January 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a visual inspection of the internal fuselage at the location of the water trap/air driers to determine if water trap/air driers are installed; an external detailed visual inspection for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the fuselage skin adjacent to the forward and rear discharge valve outlets; repair; and sealant application.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has also issued the following service information, which describes procedures for structural repairs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100–200, Revision 68, dated October 15, 2014.
• Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 46, dated October 15, 2014.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2012–16–08 and retained in this AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012–16–08 is $680 per product.
We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $2,720, or $680 per product.
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 29, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012–16–08, Amendment 39–17155 (77 FR 48420, August 14, 2012) (“AD 2012–16–08”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
(1) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146–100A, –200A, and –300A airplanes.
(2) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model Avro 146–RJ70A, 146–RJ85A, and 146–RJ100A airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking and surface anomalies of the fuselage skin at the water trap/air drier unit of the forward discharge valve due to corrosion, and the determination that airplanes on which auto-pressurization modification No. HCM50259A was incorporated during production were excluded from the applicability of AD 2012–16–08, but are also affected by this condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking that could propagate towards the forward discharge valve outlet and result in the failure of the fuselage skin, leading to a possible sudden loss of cabin pressure and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012–16–08, with specific delegation approval language. For all airplanes except airplanes that have incorporated auto-pressurization modification HCM50259A during production: Within 12 months after September 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012–16–08), do a detailed inspection to check for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the fuselage skin adjacent to the discharge valve outlets (one frame fore and aft, one stringer above and below), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.
(1) If any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking of the fuselage skin is found to be within the criteria defined in Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100–200, Revision 66, dated October 15, 2011 (for Model 146–100A and –200A, and Avro 146–RJ70A and 146–RJ85A airplanes); or Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 44, dated October 15, 2011 (for Model 146–300A and Avro 146–RJ100A airplanes): Before further flight, repair the damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions specified in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010.
(2) If any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking of the fuselage skin is found exceeding the criteria as specified by Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100–200, Revision 66, dated October 15, 2011 (for Model 146–100A and –200A, and Avro 146–RJ70A and 146–RJ85A airplanes); or Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 44, dated October 15, 2011 (for Model 146–300A and Avro 146–RJ100A airplanes): Before further flight, repair the condition according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012–16–08, with no changes. For all airplanes except airplanes on which auto-pressurization modification HCM50259A was incorporated during production: Within 24 months after September 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012–16–08), unless a repair has already been accomplished in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD, apply additional PR1422A–2 or PR1764B–2 edge sealant between the water trap/air drier and the fuselage skin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010. Application of additional sealant does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive detailed inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Accomplishment of a repair as required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane to determine whether water traps/air driers are installed, in accordance with paragraph 2.C of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 4, dated January 28, 2015 (“ISB.21–162 R4”). If there are no water traps/air driers installed on an airplane, then no further inspections are required by this AD, except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.
For airplanes that have water traps/air driers installed, determined as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish a detailed visual inspection for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the external fuselage skin adjacent to the discharge valve outlets (one frame bay fore and aft, one stringer above and below), in
If, during any detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking is found, before further flight, accomplish the applicable corrective action as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) this AD.
(1) If any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking is found to be within the criteria as specified in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of paragraph 2.G. of ISB.21–162 R4.
(i) For Model BAe 146–100A and –200A airplanes, and Model Avro 146–RJ70A and 146–RJ85A airplanes: Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100–200, Revision 68, dated October 15, 2014.
(ii) For Model BAe 146–300A airplanes and Model Avro 146–RJ100A airplanes: Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 46, dated October 15, 2014.
(2) If any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking is found exceeding the criteria as specified in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA DOA.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, unless a repair has already been accomplished as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, apply additional sealant, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of paragraph 2.C.(3) of ISB.21–162 R4. Application of additional sealant on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD for that airplane.
Accomplishment of a repair on the forward (FWD) or aft (AFT) position as required by paragraph (k) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD for that FWD or AFT position.
For airplanes that do not have water traps/air driers installed, determined as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: If water traps/air driers are installed in service after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this AD on that airplane within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this AD; except where paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD refer to “the effective date of this AD,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the installation of water traps/air driers.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for inspections and sealant applications required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before September 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012–16–08), using BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, dated June 7, 2010.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for using criteria defined in the following subject of the applicable structural repair manual, as required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those criteria were used before September 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012–16–08), using Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General—Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100–200, Revision 65, dated September 15, 2010 (for Model 146–100A and –200A, and Avro 146–RJ70A and 146–RJ85A airplanes); or Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General—Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 43, dated September 15, 2010 (for Model 146–300A and Avro 146–RJ100A airplanes).
(3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the service information specified in paragraphs (o)(3)(i) through (o)(3)(iv) of this AD.
(i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, dated June 7, 2010.
(ii) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2012–16–08.
(iii) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 2, dated December 12, 2012.
(iv) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 3, dated January 15, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015–0180, dated August 28, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (r)(5) and (r)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 29, 2017.
(i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 4, dated January 28, 2015.
(ii) Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146 RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100–200, Revision 68, dated October 15, 2014.
(iii) Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 46, dated October 15, 2014.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 18, 2012.
(i) BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21–162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010.
(ii) Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of
(iii) Subject 53–00–00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146–RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 44, dated October 15, 2011. The revision level of this document is specified only in the Letter of Transmittal.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB–135BJ, EMB–135ER, EMB–135KE, EMB–135KL, EMB–135LR, EMB–145, EMB–145EP, EMB–145ER, EMB–145LR, EMB–145MP, EMB–145MR, and EMB–145XR airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of main airspeed indication discrepancies during flight; these discrepancies resulted from ice blockages in certain pitot total pressure lines. This AD requires an inspection for tube misalignment of the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assembly lines, and corrective actions if necessary; installation or replacement (as applicable) of a tube ribbon heater on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assembly lines; and revision of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide certain procedures and airspeed tables for the flightcrew. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 29, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 29, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170–Putim–12227–901 São Jose dos Campos–SP–Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927–5852 or +55 12 3309–0732; fax +55 12 3927–7546; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1175; fax 425–227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB–135BJ, –135ER, –135KE, –135KL, and –135LR airplanes; and Model EMB–145, –145ER, –145MR, –145LR, –145XR, –145MP, and –145EP airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2016–03–01, effective March 11, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB–135 airplanes, and Model EMB–145, –145ER, –145MR, –145LR, –145XR, –145MP, and –145EP airplanes. The MCAI states:
This [Brazilian] AD results from reports of main airspeed indication discrepancies during flight. The investigation has revealed that Pitot #1 and #2 total pressure line blockage may occur due to water accumulation and freezing during heavy rain conditions. We are issuing this [Brazilian] AD to prevent water accumulation and freezing in the Pitot #1 and Pitot #2 total pressure lines, which could result in erroneous main airspeed indications and reduce the ability of the flight crew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same type and affects flight
The required actions include a general visual inspection for tube misalignment of pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assembly lines. Corrective actions include replacement of affected pitot tubes with new pitot tubes. The required actions also include installation, or, for certain airplanes, replacement, of a tube ribbon heater on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assembly lines, and revision of the AFM to provide certain procedures and airspeed tables for the flightcrew. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.
We have revised this AD to refer to Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 03, dated February 6, 2015. The service information specifies that no additional work is needed if the actions in Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2014; or Revision 02, dated December 10, 2014; have been accomplished. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to provide credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD using Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2014; or Revision 02, dated December 10, 2014.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Embraer has issued the following service information.
• Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 03, dated February 6, 2015; and Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–30–0021, dated March 31, 2014. This service information describes procedures to inspect the pitot pressure tubes for misalignment, install new heaters, and perform repairs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Embraer Temporary Revision (TR) 19.1, dated April 22, 2014, to Volume 1 of the Embraer Legacy Aircraft Operations Manual (AOM) AOM–135/1542–01. This service information contains, among other things, the “Unreliable Airspeed Procedure” in the Emergency/Abnormal Procedures section and the “Unreliable Airspeed Tables” (corresponding to the airplane configuration) in the Performance section.
• Embraer TR 40.2, dated April 4, 2014, to Volume 1, of the Embraer EMB–145 AOM AOM–145/1114–01. This service information contains, among other things, the “Unreliable Airspeed Procedure” in the Emergency/Abnormal Procedures section and the “Unreliable Airspeed Tables” (corresponding to the airplane configuration) in the Performance section.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 668 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take up to 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $3,254 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be up to $2,457,572, or up to $3,679 per product.
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 29, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD.
(1) Model EMB–135ER, EMB–135KE, EMB–135KL, EMB–135LR, EMB–145, EMB–145EP, EMB–145ER, EMB–145LR, EMB–145MP, EMB–145MR, and EMB–145XR airplanes, as identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 03, dated February 6, 2015.
(2) Model EMB–135BJ airplanes, as identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–30–0021, dated March 31, 2014.
(3) Model EMB–135ER, EMB–135KE, EMB–135KL, EMB–135LR, EMB–145, EMB–145EP, EMB–145ER, EMB–145LR, EMB–145MR, EMB–145MP, and EMB–145XR airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 14501153 and subsequent.
(4) Model EMB–135BJ airplanes, MSNs 14501190 through 14501197 inclusive, 14501199 through 14501210 inclusive, 14501212 through 14501227 inclusive, 14501229 through 14501249 inclusive, and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and rain protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of main airspeed indication discrepancies during flight; these discrepancies resulted from ice blockages in certain pitot total pressure lines. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct water accumulating and freezing in the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 total pressure lines, which could result in erroneous main airspeed indications and consequent reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 03, dated February 6, 2015: Within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection for tube misalignment on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assemblies; do all applicable corrective actions; and install a new tube ribbon heater on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assemblies; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 03, dated February 6, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(2) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–30–0021, dated March 31, 2014: Within 5,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection for tube misalignment on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assemblies; do all applicable corrective actions; and install a new tube ribbon heater on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assemblies; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–30–0021, dated March 31, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 03, dated February 6, 2015: Within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection for tube misalignment on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assemblies; do all applicable corrective actions; and replace the tube ribbon heater with a new tube ribbon heater on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assemblies; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 03, dated February 6, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(2) For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–30–0021, dated March 31, 2014: Within 5,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection for tube misalignment on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assemblies; do all applicable corrective actions; and replace the tube ribbon heater with a new tube ribbon heater on the pitot number 1 and pitot number 2 tube assemblies; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–30–0021, dated March 31, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this AD: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the AFM to include the information in the “Unreliable Airspeed Procedure” in the Emergency/Abnormal Procedures section and the “Unreliable Airspeed Tables” (corresponding to the airplane configuration) in the Performance section, as specified in Embraer Temporary Revision (TR) 40.2, dated April 4, 2014, to Volume 1, of the Embraer EMB–145 Aircraft Operations Manual (AOM) AOM–145/1114–01 (“Embraer TR 40.2”).
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) of this AD: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the AFM to include the information in the “Unreliable Airspeed Procedure” in the Emergency/Abnormal Procedures section and the “Unreliable Airspeed Tables” (corresponding to the airplane configuration) in the Performance section, as specified in Embraer TR 19.1, dated April 22, 2014, to Volume 1 of the Embraer EMB–145 AOM AOM–135/1542–01 (“Embraer TR 19.1”).
The AFM revisions required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD may be done by inserting Embraer AOM TR 40.2 or Embraer AOM TR 19.1, as applicable, into the AFM. When the applicable Embraer AOM TR has been included in general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in Embraer AOM TR 40.2 or Embraer AOM TR 19.1, as applicable, and the applicable Embraer AOM TR may be removed from the AFM.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, dated December 19, 2013; Revision 01, dated March 31, 2014; or Revision 02, dated December 10, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2016–03–01,
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Embraer Service Bulletin 145–30–0056, Revision 03, dated February 6, 2015.
(ii) Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG–30–0021, dated March 31, 2014.
(iii) Embraer Temporary Revision 19.1, dated April 22, 2014, to Volume 1 of the Embraer Legacy Aircraft Operations Manual AOM–135/1542–01.
(iv) Embraer Temporary Revision 40.2, dated April 4, 2014, to Volume 1, of the Embraer EMB–145 Aircraft Operations Manual AOM–145/1114–01.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227–901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927–5852 or +55 12 3309–0732; fax +55 12 3927–7546; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Direct final rule.
In accordance with section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, in April 2011 the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission, or CPSC) published a consumer product safety standard for toddler beds. The standard incorporated by reference the ASTM voluntary standard for toddler beds, with several modifications. The CPSIA sets forth a process for updating standards that the Commission has issued under the authority of section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In accordance with that process, we are publishing this direct final rule, revising the CPSC's standard for toddler beds to incorporate by reference a more recent version of the applicable ASTM standard.
The rule is effective on June 6, 2017, unless we receive significant adverse comment by March 24, 2017. If we receive timely significant adverse comments, we will publish notification in the
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2017–0012, by any of the following methods:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504–7923.
Daniel E. Dunlap, Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814–4408; telephone: 301–504–7733; email:
Section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA also sets forth a process for updating CPSC's durable infant or toddler standards when the voluntary standard upon which the CPSC standard was based is changed. Under that process, when an organization revises the voluntary standard, it must notify the Commission. Unless the Commission determines within 90 days of receiving the notice that the revision does not improve the safety of the product, the revised standard is considered to be the new CPSC standard effective 180 days from the date the Commission received notice of the revision (or a later date specified by the Commission).
A “toddler bed” is defined in ASTM F1821–16 as any bed sized to accommodate a full-size crib mattress having minimum dimensions of 51
ASTM F1821–15, approved in February 2015, and published in March 2015, revised ASTM F1821–13. ASTM notified the Commission about this revision on April 6, 2015. This revision contained two significant changes.
• Section 5.10—
• Section 6.5—
As mentioned, the 2015 version should have modified, but inadvertently did
ASTM F1821–16, approved and published on October 1, 2016, revised ASTM F1821–15. ASTM notified the Commission of this revision on December 8, 2016. This revision contains the test requirements for the side rails, which were missing from ASTM F1821–15. Section 7.5 now includes end structures and side rails in the testing requirements. Section 7.5.1 explains how to test potential entrapment hazards in end structures, and section 7.5.2 explains how to test potential entrapment hazards in side rails. The Commission considers the addition of performance and test requirements for potential entrapment in side rails to improve the safety of toddler beds. Thus, the Commission is allowing the revised version, ASTM F1821–16, to become the new CPSC mandatory standard for toddler beds.
In accordance with section 104(b)(4) of the CPSIA, the revised ASTM standard for toddler beds becomes the new CPSC standard 180 days after the date the CPSC received notification of the revision from ASTM. This rule revises the incorporation by reference in 16 CFR part 1217, to reference ASTM F1821–16.
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble to the final rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section B of this preamble summarizes the major provisions of ASTM F1821–16 standard that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1217. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties and interested parties may purchase a copy of the standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959 USA, phone: 610–832–9585;
Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program or, for children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accredited by the Commission to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted in the preceding discussion, standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.
Because toddler beds are children's products, samples of these products must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the Commission. These products also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements in section 101 of the CPSIA, the phthalates prohibitions in section 108 of the CPSIA, the tracking label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer registration form requirements in the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act.
In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the CPSA, the Commission has previously published a notice of requirements (NOR) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing toddler beds (76 FR 22030 (April 20, 2011)). The NOR provided the criteria and process for our acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing toddler beds to 16 CFR part 1217 (which incorporated ASTM F1821–13 with several modifications). The NOR is listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.” 16 CFR part 1112.
No change to the NOR in 16 CFR part 1112 is required for the Commission's revision to 16 CFR part 1217 updating the reference to ASTM F1821–16 because the NOR currently in effect already requires that the accreditation scope include a reference to 16 CFR part 1217. Laboratories would begin testing to the new standard when it goes into effect. Therefore, the Commission considers the existing accreditations that the Commission has accepted for testing to this standard also to cover testing to the revised standard. The existing NOR for this standard will remain in place, and CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies are expected to update the scope of the testing laboratories' accreditation to reflect the revised standard in the normal course of renewing their accreditation.
The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Commission concludes that when the Commission updates a reference to an ASTM standard that the Commission has incorporated by reference under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, notice and comment is not necessary.
Under the process set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when ASTM revises a standard that the Commission has previously incorporated by reference as a Commission standard for a durable infant or toddler product under section 104(b)(1)(b) of the CPSIA, that revision will become the new CPSC standard unless the Commission determines that ASTM's revision does not improve the safety of the product. Thus, unless the Commission makes such a determination, the ASTM revision becomes CPSC's standard by operation of law. The Commission is allowing ASTM F1821–16 to become CPSC's new standard. The purpose of this direct final rule is merely to update the reference in the Code of Federal Regulations so that it accurately reflects the version of the standard that takes effect by statute. Public comment will not impact the substantive changes to the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety standard under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. Under these circumstances, notice and comment is not necessary. In Recommendation 95–4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment.
Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on June 6, 2017. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change.
Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA.
The toddler beds standard contains information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The revision made no changes to that section of the standard. Thus, these revision will not have any effect on the information collection requirements related to that standard.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act (at section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA) refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety standards,” thus implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.
Under the procedure set forth in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety, Toys.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission amends 16 CFR chapter II as follows:
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L. 112–28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
Each toddler bed shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F1821–16, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toddler Beds, approved October 1, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference listed in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of this ASTM standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959 USA; phone: 610–832–9585;
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the lower deck of the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to support the Shamrock Run event. This deviation allows the lower span of the Steel Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to allow for the safe passage of participates in the Shamrock Run event across the bridge.
This deviation is effective from 10:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. on March 19, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG–2017–0098, 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 Shamrock Run event. 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 lower deck will remain in closed-to-navigation position. When the lower is in the closed-to-navigation position, the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The deviation period is from 10:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. on March 19, 2017. The normal operating schedule for the Steel Bridge is in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(ii).
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 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 lower 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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
On December 23, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion (81 FR 94295) and a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion (81 FR 94262) for the North Penn Area 6 Superfund Site located in Lansdale Borough,
This withdrawal of the direct final rule (81 FR 94262) is effective as of February 22, 2017.
Huu Ngo, Remedial Project Manager (3HS21), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215) 814–3187; email:
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
On January 19, 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services published in the
This regulation is effective February 17, 2017. The effective date of the final rule amending 42 CFR part 100 published at 82 FR 6294, January 19, 2017, is delayed until March 21, 2017.
Dr. Narayan Nair, Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8N146B, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone (855) 266–2427. This is a toll-free number.
The January 20, 2017 memorandum from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2017 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This quota adjustment is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provision. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial quotas for North Carolina and Virginia.
Effective February 21, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281–9180.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the initial 2017 allocations were published on December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93842).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 11,030 lb (5,003 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was requested by North Carolina to repay landings by a North Carolina-permitted vessel that landed in Virginia under a safe harbor agreement.
The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2017 are now: North Carolina, 1,542,203 lb (699,532 kg); and Virginia, 1,217,402 lb (552,204 kg); based on the initial quotas published in the 2017 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications.
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
We are approving specifications for the 2017 Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery, including an annual catch limit and total allowable landings limit. We are also projecting quotas for 2018–2019. This action is necessary to establish allowable red crab harvest levels that will prevent overfishing and allow harvesting of optimum yield. This action is intended to establish the allowable 2017 harvest levels, consistent with the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan.
The final specifications for the 2017 Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery are effective March 24, 2017, through February 28, 2018.
Copies of the specifications document, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at:
Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9122.
The Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery is managed by the New England Fishery Management Council. The Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan (FMP) includes a specification process that requires the Council to recommend, on a triennial basis, an acceptable biological catch (ABC), an annual catch limit (ACL), and total allowable landings (TAL). The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) provides a recommendation to the Council for these catch limits. The Council makes a recommendation to NMFS that cannot exceed the recommendation of its SSC.
The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. We are responsible for reviewing these recommendations to ensure that they achieve the FMP objectives and are consistent with all applicable laws, and may modify them if they do not. Following this review, we then publish proposed specifications in the
The FMP was implemented in 2002 and was originally managed under a target total allowable catch (TAC) and days-at-sea (DAS) system that allocated DAS equally across the small fleet of limited access permitted vessels. Amendment 3 to the FMP removed the trip limit restriction, and replaced the target TAC and DAS allocation with a catch limit structure consistent with the ACL and accountability measure requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 3 (76 FR 60379; September 29, 2011) established status determination criteria, including an overfishing definition, and set the 2011–2013 red crab specifications with an ABC equal to the long-term average landings of the directed red crab fishery (1,775 mt). While the overfishing limit (OFL) could not be determined, the SSC concluded that “an interim ABC based on long-term average landings is safely below an overfishing threshold and adequately accounts for scientific uncertainty.” These specifications were continued for fishing years 2014–2016 (79 FR 24356; April 30, 2014) using the same rationale.
The biological and management reference points currently in the FMP are used to determine whether overfishing is occurring or if the stock is overfished. However, these reference points for red crab do not currently meet Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 criteria. As a result, there is insufficient information on the species to establish the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), or OFL. ABC is defined in terms of landings instead of total catch because there is insufficient information to estimate dead discards of red crab.
Recent landings, landings per unit of effort, port samples, discard
At the end of each fishing year, we evaluate catch information and determine if the quota has been exceeded. If a quota is exceeded, the regulations at 50 CFR 648.262(b) require a pound-for-pound reduction in a subsequent fishing year, through notification consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. We will publish a notice in the
The 2017 fishing year starts on March 1, 2017. The FMP allows for the previous year's specifications to remain in place until replaced by a subsequent specifications action. As a result, the 2016 specifications, also 1,775 mt, remain in effect until replaced by the specifications included in this final rule.
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on January 3, 2017. No comments were received on the proposed rule.
There are no changes from the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This action does not contain a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule: Extension of comment period.
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is extending by 30 days the public comment period for this proposed rule, which was published on January 19, 2017.
Comments on the proposed rule published on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7149) must be received on or before Wednesday, April 19, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this proposed rule by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jeff Canavan, Deputy Director, Labeling and Program Delivery Staff, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop Code 3784, Patriots Plaza 3, 8–161A, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250–3700; Telephone (301) 504–0879; Fax (202) 245–4792.
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, to the heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” FSIS is extending by 30 days the public comment period of the proposed rule entitled “Revision of Nutrition Facts Labels for Meat and Poultry Products and Updating Certain References Amounts Customarily Consumed” that was published in the
FSIS is proposing to amend the nutrition labeling requirements for meat (including fish of the order Siluriformes) and poultry products to better reflect the most recent scientific research and dietary recommendations, to improve the presentation of nutrition information to assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices, and for consistency with recent regulatory changes finalized by the Food and Drug Administration.
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 (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.),
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014–20–09 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. AD 2014–20–09 currently requires an inspection for missing clamps that are required to provide positive separation between the alternating current (AC) feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2014–20–09, it was determined that certain airplane serial numbers are not subject to the identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD would remove airplanes from the AD applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 10, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Q–Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE–172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7301; fax 516–794–5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On September 23, 2014, we issued AD 2014–20–09, Amendment 39–17982 (79 FR 59630, October 3, 2014) (“AD 2014–20–09”), for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. AD 2014–20–09 was prompted by reports of missing clamps that are required to provide positive separation between the AC feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension. AD 2014–20–09 requires an inspection for missing clamps that are required to provide positive separation between the AC feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We issued AD 2014–20–09 to detect and correct chafing of the AC feeder cable. A chafed and arcing AC feeder cable could puncture the adjacent hydraulic line, which, in combination with the use of the alternate extension system, could result in an in-flight fire.
Since we issued AD 2014–20–09, it was determined that certain airplane serial numbers are in a Pre-modification MS 4M153025 configuration, which allows sufficient space between the AC feeder cables and the landing gear alternate extension hydraulic line do not pose an in-flight fire risk. Therefore, these airplanes are not subject to the identified unsafe condition.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2013–16R1, effective July 26, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During production checks, it was found that the appropriate clamps required to provide positive separation between the AC feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension were omitted. The AC feeder cable could sag and be in direct contact with the swage fitting of the landing gear alternate extension hydraulic line, resulting in chafing of the AC feeder cable. The chafed and arcing AC feeder cable could puncture the adjacent hydraulic line. In combination with the use of the alternate extension system, this could result in an in-flight fire.
The original issue of this [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate the incorporation of [Bombardier] service bulletin (SB) 84–24–53 to * * * [do a general visual inspection for the presence of correctly installed clamps] and rectify, as necessary, for proper clamp installation.
Bombardier, Inc. has revised SB 84–24–53 to remove serial numbers 4001 through 4034 from the Effectivity section, as it was determined that these serial numbers are Pre-Mod MS 4M153025, which allowed sufficient space between the AC feeder cables and the landing gear alternate extension hydraulic line to not pose an in-flight fire risk. Accordingly, revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to revise the
The related investigative action is a general visual inspection of the AC power feeder cables and the hydraulic line for damage due to chafing. The corrective actions include repair of chafed parts and replacement of missing clamps. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–24–53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for installation of clamps between the AC feeder cables and hydraulic line, and related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014–20–09, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $170 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014–20–09 is $17,680 per product.
This proposed AD merely removes certain airplanes and, therefore, adds no new actions or economic burden.
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 April 10, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014–20–09, Amendment 39–17982 (79 FR 59630, October 3, 2014) (“AD 2014–20–09”).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–400, –401, and –402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4035 through 4347 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.
This AD was prompted by reports of missing clamps that are required to provide positive separation between the alternating current (AC) feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of the AC feeder cable. A chafed and arcing AC feeder cable could puncture the adjacent hydraulic line, which, in combination with the use of the alternate extension system, could result in an in-flight fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014–20–09, with revised service information having reduced Effectivity. Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after November 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014–20–09), whichever occurs earlier: Do a general visual inspection for correctly installed clamps between the AC feeder cables and hydraulic line, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–24–53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. After the effective date of this AD, only Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–24–53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015, may be used.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before November 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014–20–09), using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–24–53, dated May 11, 2012; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–24–53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2013–16R1, effective July 26, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) AE 3007C and 3007C1 model turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by analysis and by cracks found in the high-pressure turbine (HPT) wheel during an inspection. This proposed AD would require replacement of the affected HPT wheels at new, lower life limits. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 10, 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 Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB–01–06, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317–230–3774; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847–294–7836; fax: 847–294–7834; 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 learned from RRC that cracks were found in the HPT wheel during an inspection. Investigation determined that, for certain part number (P/N) HPT wheels, incomplete shot peening in the internal shaft fillet resulted in reduced fatigue life. For other affected P/N HPT wheels, the polishing wheel used in the manufacturing process created an unfavorable surface finish, known as “Black Wheel Polish,” that could lead to crack initiation. We are, therefore, lowering the life limits for these affected HPT wheels. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in uncontained failure of the HPT wheels, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed RRC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AE 3007C–A–72–318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016.
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 replacement of the affected HPT wheels at new, lower life limits.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 307 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 10, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) AE 3007C and 3007C1 turbofan engines with 1st stage high-pressure turbine (HPT) wheels, part number (P/N) 23062373, 23065891, or 23070664; or with 2nd stage HPT wheels, P/N 23063462, 23065892, 23069116, 23069592 (except those serial numbers (S/Ns) noted in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD), or 23074643, installed.
(2) This AD does not apply to RRC AE 3007C and 3007C1 turbofan engines with 2nd stage HPT wheels, P/N 23069592, with S/Ns listed in Table 6 of RRC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AE 3007C–A–72–318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine/turboprop Engine, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by analysis and by cracks found in the HPT wheel during an inspection. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the HPT wheels, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all RRC AE 3007C or C1 engines with an installed 1st stage HPT wheel, P/N 23062373, 23065891, or 23070664, or 2nd stage HPT wheel, P/N 23063462, 23065892, 23069116, 23069592 (except those S/Ns excluded by paragraph (c)(2) of this AD) or 23074643, after the effective date of this AD, remove the affected wheels before exceeding the new life limits identified in paragraph C., Table 1 of RRC ASB AE 3007C–A–72–318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not return to service any engine with an HPT turbine wheel, with an affected P/N and an S/N, with a wheel life that exceeds the new life limits identified in paragraph C., Table 1 of RRC ASB AE 3007C–A–72–318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016.
The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847–294–7836; fax: 847–294–7834; email:
(2) For RRC service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB–01–06, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317–230–3774; email:
(3) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the Miami Anchorage. The Miami Anchorage would be divided into two separate anchorage areas. This action is necessary to reduce potential damage to threatened coral posed by anchoring vessels. We invite your comments on this supplemental proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 24, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2015–0729 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST2 Benjamin R. Colbert, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305–535–4317, email
On December 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of study (80 FR 75020) that indicated we were evaluating amending the Miami Anchorage to divide the anchorage into two smaller anchorage areas. The proposed amendment was designed in coordination with a variety of local stakeholders, including the South East Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI). Comments provided by these stakeholders, academic research, and environmental reports raised concerns with the Coast Guard about the potential for damage to the Florida Reef in the Miami Anchorage. Examples of the body of work that influenced the Coast Guard in proposing the amendment may be found in the docket.
In response to the notice of study, the Coast Guard received four comments. These comments were addressed in an NPRM published on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28788). In response to the NPRM, we received four additional comments. Two of the comments, one by the local non-profit Miami Waterkeeper and the other by a private citizen, supported our planned modification of the Miami Anchorage. The third and fourth comments were submitted by the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association.
The Biscayne Bay Pilots Association (pilots) submitted a comment, through the Port of Miami, on May 17, 2016. This comment requested the Coast Guard to evaluate changes in the proposed anchorage, including shifting the outer anchorage west and shifting the southern boundary of the outer anchorage north. In response to these comments, the Coast Guard met with the Pilots to discuss the requests and the basis at which the Coast Guard arrived at the proposed anchorage configuration. During the meeting, the Coast Guard agreed that shifting the western boundary of the outer anchorage approximately 300 feet to the west would provide more room for large anchoring vessels. This change would not have any effect on coral or hardbottom as the sea floor in that area is sand.
On June 11, 2016, the Pilots submitted a follow up comment to the public docket expressing concern that the outer anchorage would expose vessels to increased current and waves and, they claim, could increase the chance a vessel would drag anchor. To properly assess environmental conditions and risk of an anchor drag, the Coast Guard consulted with the National Weather Service and Maersk Training Center. The National Weather Service conducted a study, analyzing the previous year's current in the vicinity of the anchorage. The Weather Service found that the average current in the area of the outer anchorage over the previous year was approximately 1.2 knots with current ranging plus or minus half a knot from the mean current 70 percent of the time. This information was provided to the Maersk Training Center in Svendborg, Denmark. Subject matter experts at the Training Center indicated that the conditions posed no significant hazard and that Masters would have the training and experience to set an anchor in the deeper waters of the outer anchorage.
In addition to consulting with experts, the Coast Guard has made minor changes to the proposed anchorage regulations that would further ensure the safety of all vessels anchoring in the outer anchorage. Vessels using the Miami Anchorage would be prohibited from anchoring with engines off or in a “dead ship” status and would be required to maintain a bridge watch with an English speaking deck officer. Finally, the Coast Guard will submit amendments to the local Coast Pilot to provide improved guidance to vessels planning to anchor in the outer anchorage.
In addition to the discussions with the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association and SEFCRI discussed above, the Coast Guard consulted with a number of other stakeholders and subject matter experts in the development of this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). Several biologists from the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern University supported the proposed changes to the Miami Anchorage. The Florida State Historical Preservation Officer determined that there were no known cultural resources
The Coast Guard is committed to continued outreach, consultation, and communication in order to ensure effective rulemaking and invites your comments to the proposed rule in this SNPRM. All comments referenced above, having been received directly and not submitted to the
In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to amend the Miami Anchorage by dividing the anchorage into two smaller anchorage areas. The amended coordinates would establish two anchorages with a combined area of approximately 1.5 square miles and reduce the total anchorage area by approximately 3 square miles. The amended anchorage areas would be established with the following coordinates:
Additionally, in response to comments received from the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association and others, the Coast Guard has proposed minor changes to the anchorage regulations. Vessels anchored in the Miami Anchorage will prohibited from anchoring with engines off or in a “dead ship” status and vessels will be required to seek permission of the Captain of the Port Miami prior to anchoring for longer than 72 hours. In addition to the above changes, we have reordered and reworded the proposed anchoring regulations.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
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 SNPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the relatively minor changes being proposed to the regulation. The regulation would ensure 1.5 square miles of anchorage areas continue to exist, vessels will be prohibited from anchoring with engines off or in a “dead ship” status, and vessels will be required to seek permission of the Captain of the Port Miami prior to anchoring for longer than 72 hours.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to use the anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves reducing an anchorage. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2–1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this SNPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2)
(2) Prior to entering the anchorage area, all vessels must notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, via the Biscayne Bay Pilots, on VHF–FM channel 12 or 16.
(3) All vessels within the designated anchorage must maintain a 24-hour bridge watch by a licensed or credentialed deck officer proficient in English, monitoring VHF–FM channel 16. This individual must confirm that the ship's crew performs frequent checks on the vessel's position to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor.
(4) Vessels may anchor anywhere within the designated anchorage area provided that: Such anchoring does not interfere with the operations of any other vessels currently at anchorage; and all anchor and chain or cable is positioned in such a manner to preclude dragging over reefs.
(5) No vessel may anchor in a “dead ship” status (that is, propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations) without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. Vessels experiencing casualties such as main propulsion, main steering or anchoring equipment malfunction or which are planning to perform main propulsion engine repairs or maintenance, must,
(6) No vessel may anchor within the designated anchorage for more than 72 hours without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. To obtain this approval, contact the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via the Biscayne Bay Pilots, on VHF–FM channel 12 or 16.
(7) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage area and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest of port safety or security.
(8) Commercial vessels anchoring under emergency circumstances outside the anchorage area must shift to new positions within the anchorage area immediately after the emergency ceases.
(9) Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United States so require, the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami, Florida, may direct relocation of any vessel anchored within the anchorage area. Once directed, such vessel must get underway at once or signal for a tug, and must change position as directed.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish two safety zones on the navigable waters of Newtown Creek, NY. The first safety zone is within 500 feet of the two barges and assist vessels to be used for the removal and loading of the existing center span from the Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1. The second is from approximately 370 yards south (upstream) of the Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1 and Newtown Creek's confluence with the East River at mile 0.0 during transport of the existing center span to an offsite location. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during the lowering and securing of the existing bridge's center span onto two barges within the Federal navigation channel and during the barge's outbound transit through Newtown Creek to the East River tentatively scheduled during April–May, 2017. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port New York or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 24, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2016–1048 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Sector New York Waterways Management Division; telephone 718–354–4195, email
The Coast Guard issued a Bridge Permit dated August 21, 2013 approving the location and construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge across Newtown Creek, mile 2.1, between the Boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, NY. The bridge carries Interstate 278, also known as the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway over Newtown Creek. On May 23, 2014 the New York State Department of Transportation awarded a $554 million dollar contract to design and build the replacement bridge. On December 4, 2014 construction began on the eastbound replacement bridge. All vehicle traffic is expected to be shifted onto this new bridge in the spring of 2017. Once traffic has been shifted to the new bridge the existing bridge will be demolished and replaced with a new bridge carrying Interstate 278 westbound traffic over Newtown Creek.
On November 29, 2016, NYSDOT notified the Coast Guard that it will be lowering the existing center span from the Kosciuszko Bridge over Newtown Creek at mile 2.1 onto two barges within the Newtown Creek Federal navigation channel, securing the center span to the barges for transit, rotating the barges, and towing the barges through Newtown Creek to the East River for final upland disposal. The center span is 259 feet long, 88 feet 8 inches wide, 46 feet high, and weighs 2,400 tons. This operation is dependent on the ongoing construction of the new eastbound span of the new Kosciuszko Bridge being built adjacent to, and south (upstream) of, the existing bridge and tides during daylight hours. NYSDOT has identified April 1–24, May 1–23, and May 30–31, 2017 as being conducive to this operation. The Coast Guard proposes to make this rule enforceable through December 31, 2017 as a contingency for any unforeseen delays to the bridge construction schedule. The loading and securing of the bridge span to the two barges is expected to take a minimum of 24-hours and the towing time to the East River is expected to be one hour. The entire process is expected to last at least 48 hours. Hazards from this operation include accidental falling debris. The two barges will block at least 109 feet of the 130 foot wide Newtown Creek Federal navigation channel during loading, securing, and towing operations. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with these operations would be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-foot radius of the tugs and barges.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 500-foot radius of the two barges and assist vessels when loading, securing, and transporting the center span of the Kosciuszko Bridge through Newtown Creek before, during, and after the operations. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish two safety zones for approximately 48 hours between April 1 and May 31, 2017. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of Newtown Creek within 500 feet of the two barges and assist vessels to be used for the removal and loading of the existing center span from the Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1 and
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zones. Vessel traffic would not be able to transit around these safety zones as the two barges carrying the Kosciuszko Bridge center span would block a minimum of 109 feet of the 130 foot wide Federal navigation channel for approximately 48 hours during the loading, and securing of the center span on to the barges, and then rotating the barges in preparation for towing through Newtown Creek. During the approximate one-hour transit time from the bridge site to the East River vessels would not be able to meet or overtake the two barges with three assist tugs as the combined width of these vessels would be 109 feet and the Federal navigation channel is only 130 feet wide. However, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Concrete, Bayside Fuel Oil Depot, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency all reported the requested 48-hour channel closure would not negatively impact their operations south (upstream) of the bridge. U.S. Concrete stated they require at least two weeks' notice if the closure is anticipated to last longer than 48 hours. Facilities downstream of the bridge would not be required to move vessels moored at their facility as long as they do not extend into the Federal navigation channel and would be able to depart the facility before, or after, the two barges carrying the bridge span are towed past the facility. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Local Notice to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2) The following area is a moving safety zone: All waters from surface to bottom of Newtown Creek within 500 feet of the two barges and assist vessels while transiting Newtown Creek between Latitude 40°43′30.0″ N. (approximately 370 yards south (upstream) of the Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1), and east of a line drawn from the following approximate positions: 40°44′17.1″ N., 073°57′45.6″ W. to 40°44′10.4″ N., 073°57′45.6″ W. (at the confluence with the East River) (NAD 83).
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) The Coast Guard will rely on marine broadcasts and local notice to mariners to notify the public of the time and duration that the safety zone will be enforced. Violations of this safety zone may be reported to the COTP at 718–354–4353 or on VHF-Channel 16.
(d)
(2) During periods of enforcement, all persons and vessels must comply with all orders and directions from the COTP or a COTP's designated representative.
(3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On December 27, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule titled, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).” The EPA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule that was scheduled to close on February 27, 2017, by 30 days until March 29, 2017. The EPA is making this change based on one request for additional time to prepare comments on this proposed rule.
The public comment period for the proposed rule published in the
The EPA has established a docket for the proposed rulemaking (available at
For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
For additional information on this action, contact Karen Marsh, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (E143–05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–1065; email address:
To allow additional time for stakeholders to provide comments, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period until March 29, 2017.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III published in the
February 22, 2017.
Huu Ngo, Remedial Project Manager (3HS21), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215) 814–3187; email:
In the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments are required regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 24, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 24, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
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 Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, are sponsoring a public meeting on March 2, 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 that will be discussed at the 11th Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil April 3–7, 2017. The Office of Food Safety and the FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 11th Session of the CCCF and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 2, 2017, from 1:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, Room 1A–001, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740.
Documents related to the 11th Session of the CCCF will be accessible via the Internet at the following address:
Dr. Lauren Posnick Robin, U.S. Delegate to the 11th Session of the CCCF, invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
The Codex 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, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in the food trade.
The CCCF is responsible for:
(a) Establishing or endorsing permitted maximum levels, and where necessary revising existing guideline levels for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed;
(b) Preparing priority lists of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA);
(c) Considering and elaborating methods of analysis and sampling for the determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed;
(d) Considering and elaborating standards or codes of practice for related subjects; and
(e) Considering other matters assigned to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed.
The Committee is chaired by the Netherlands.
The following items on the Agenda for the 11th Session of the CCCF will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters referred to the CCCF by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and/or its subsidiary bodies;
• Matters of interest arising from other international organizations;
• Proposed draft annex on ergot and ergot alkaloids in cereal grains (Annex to the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Cereals);
• Proposed draft revision of maximum levels for lead in selected fruits and vegetables (fresh and processed) in the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed;
• Proposed draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Arsenic Contamination in Rice;
• Proposed draft maximum levels for cadmium in chocolate and cocoa-derived products;
• Proposed draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Spices;
• Proposed draft maximum level for total aflatoxins in ready to eat peanuts;
• Discussion paper on maximum levels for methylmercury in tuna and other fish;
• Discussion paper on development of maximum levels for mycotoxin contamination in spices;
• Discussion paper on possible inclusion of non-dioxin like PCBs in the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Dioxin and Dioxin-like PCB Contamination in Food and Feed; and
• Priority list of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants proposed for evaluation by JECFA.
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 March 2, 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 emailed to Dr. Henry Kim (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
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).
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Foreign Agricultural Service to request approval for a new information collection for the USDA's Emerging Markets Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 24, 2017.
FAS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Curt Alt, Director, Program Operations Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 6512, Washington, DC 20250–1034, telephone: (202) 690–4784, email:
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Connie Ehrhart, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 690–1578 or email at
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
FAS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Foreign Agricultural Service to request approval for a new information collection for the USDA's Quality Samples Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 24, 2017.
FAS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Curt Alt, Program Operations Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 6512, Washington, DC 20250–1034, telephone: (202) 690–4784, email:
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Connie Ehrhart, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 690–1578 or email at
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
FAS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), RUS's implementing regulations, 7 CFR part 1970, and other applicable environmental requirements related to providing financial assistance for Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC's (Energy Answers) proposed (Project) in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. RUS will also use the FEIS to meet its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 300101, and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800). The FEIS addresses the construction, operation, and maintenance of Energy Answers' proposed Project, a waste-to-energy generation and resource recovery facility described previously in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). It also addresses the roughly 3,820 comments received during the comment periods for the DEIS. The overall project area encompasses parts of the Cambalache Ward in Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
Written comments on the FEIS will be accepted 30 days following the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's environmental impact statement receipt notice in the
To receive copies of the FEIS or request information on the proposed Project, the FEIS process, and RUS financing, contact Mr. Steven Polacek, Environmental Protection Specialist, Rural Utilities Service, Water and Environmental Programs, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250, telephone: (202) 205–9805, fax: (202) 690–0649, or email:
Energy Answers plans to request financial assistance for the proposed Project from RUS. Completing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a precursor requirement to processing a loan application from Energy Answers. Upon completion of the EIS process, RUS would review Energy Answers' application along with other technical and financial considerations. Energy Answers proposes to construct a waste to energy generation and resource recovery facility in the Cambalache Ward of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The proposed facility would receive and process approximately 2,300 tons of municipal waste per day and generate a gross capacity of 77 megawatts (MW). The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority will purchase power generated from the facility. The preferred location of the facility is the site of a former paper mill and would cover approximately 79.6 acres of the 90-acre parcel. The proposal would include the following facility components: A municipal solid waste receiving and processing building; processed refuse fuel storage building; boiler and steam turbine; emission control system; ash processing and storage building; and other associated infrastructure and buildings. Two other connected actions, which would be constructed by other utilities, include installation of an approximately 2.0-mile raw water line and construction of a 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line approximately 0.8 miles in length. The connected actions will be addressed in the proposed Project's EIS.
In accordance with 7 CFR 1970.15(c)(2) and 40 CFR 1502.18, RUS incorporates as an appendix received on the environmental impact analyses and associated documentation prepared by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) where appropriate. PRIDCO served as a lead agency in preparing an EIS under the Puerto Rico Environmental Public Policy Act, Article 4(B)(3), Law No. 416 (September 22, 2004). The USEPA completed air quality analyses and issued a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the proposed Project on June 11, 2013. As applicable, the EIS documents changes in the affected environment and environmental consequences that may have changed since issuance of the PRIDCO–EIS and USEPA PSD permit.
Under NEPA regulations, RUS is required to identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the Project, as well as a no-action alternative. Reasonable alternatives are those that are “practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint.” In determining reasonable alternatives, RUS considered a number of factors including the proposed action's size and scope, state of the technology, economic considerations, legal considerations, socioeconomic concerns, availability of resources, and the timeframe in which the identified need must be fulfilled. Alternative site locations, thermal conversion technologies, cooling process water sources, alternative fuels and renewable energy technologies were also considered.
RUS reviewed multiple needs including (1) providing a dispatchable electrical generation resource that adds to Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority's (PREPA) reserve capacity levels, (2) helping PREPA meet the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard enacted by Puerto Rico and use cleaner and more environmentally friendly energy resources, and (3) decreasing Puerto Rico's dependence on imported
Of the alternatives considered by RUS, the Arecibo Waste-to-Energy and Resource Recovery Project best minimizes or mitigates the potential impacts on the environment while meeting the proposed purpose and need for the project.
RUS is authorized to make loans and loan guarantees that finance the construction of water lines, electrical transmission lines, Waste-to-Energy and Resource Recovery facilities. RUS is responsible for completing the environmental review process prior to processing Energy Answers' application.
Completion of the environmental review process allows the project proponents to submit an application for financing to RUS. It does not represent a commitment to fund the project or a determination that the applicant has met the agency's underwriting criteria. All loan applicants are required to demonstrate eligibility, financial feasibility and provide reasonably adequate security for any financing made available from RUS.The proposed Project is subject to the jurisdiction of, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant presidential executive orders and federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations in addition to the completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in RUS's Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR part 1970.
RUS has prepared the FEIS to analyze the impacts of its respective Federal actions and the proposed Project in accordance with NEPA, as amended, the Council in Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and Rural Development's Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1970). RUS has already prepared and published a DEIS which can be found on the Agency Web site at
In accordance with 7 CFR 1970.15(c)(2) and 40 CFR 1502.18, RUS incorporates, as an appendix, the environmental impact analyses and associated documentation prepared by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) and the USEPA where appropriate. PRIDCO served as a lead agency in preparing an EIS under the Puerto Rico Environmental Public Policy Act, Article 4(B)(3), Law No. 416 (September 22, 2004). The USEPA completed air quality analyses and issued a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the proposed Project on June 11, 2013. As applicable, the EIS documents changes in the affected environment and environmental consequences that may have changed since issuance of the PRIDCO–EIS and USEPA PSD permit.
RUS has determined that its action regarding the proposed Project would be an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800). As part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must take into account the effect of the proposed Project on historic properties in accordance with Section 106. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its procedures for public involvement under NEPA to meet its responsibilities to solicit and consider the views of the public during Section 106 review. Accordingly, comments submitted in response to this Notice will inform RUS decision-making in its Section 106 review process.
The Final EIS is available in both Spanish and English for review at the following Web site:
This Notice of Availability also serves as a notice of proposed floodplain and wetland action. It is anticipated that Energy Answers would need to fill 2.4 acres (9,793.4 square meters) of on-site wetlands for proposed Project. Energy Answers will be required to implement mitigation for the wetland conversion, as contained in their Section 404 permit. Additionally, excavation required for the proposed Project is expected to result in a small increase in base flood elevations along predominately undeveloped properties located east and west, as well as immediately upstream, of the Project site.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Virginia Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 20, requesting the expansion of Subzone 20E to include an additional site of STIHL Incorporated, located in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 6, 2017.
Subzone 20E was approved on April 24, 2009 (Board Order 1612, 74 FR 21623, May 8, 2009) and consists of five sites (86.56 acres). They are as follows:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 3, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 18, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's
The Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. (Hitachi), located in Harrodsburg, Kentucky. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 6, 2017.
Hitachi already has authority to produce automotive components within Subzone 29F of FTZ 29. The current request would add an additional finished product to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Hitachi from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Hitachi would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to fuel rail assemblies (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign-status materials/components in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 3, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at
The Ports of Indiana, grantee of FTZ 177, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Inc. (Toyota), located in Princeton, Indiana. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 3, 2017.
Toyota already has authority to produce light-duty passenger vehicles (pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, minivans) within FTZ Subzone 177B. The current request would add automotive vehicles to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Toyota from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Toyota would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to passenger vehicles and passenger hybrid vehicles (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Plastic labels; hole covers; seal tape; rubber belts; steel self tapping screws; steel pins; steel nuts; steel tension springs; steel rings; steel clamps; steel clips; steel plugs; aluminum nuts; zinc retainers; zinc nuts; fans; lead-acid batteries; nickel-metal hydride batteries; lithium-ion batteries; speakers; transmitters; receivers; radio switches; televisions; plug assemblies; sockets; switches; plastic terminal covers; remotes; controls; keys; insulated electric wires; and, cigarette lighters (duty rate ranges from 2.6% to 8.6%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 3, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita H. Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
On November 25, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from Indonesia. The administrative review covers one exporter of the subject merchandise, PT Cheil Jedang Indonesia (CJI). The period of review (POR) is May 8, 2014, through October 31, 2015. We
Effective February 22, 2017.
David Lindgren or Joseph Traw, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3870 or (202) 482–6079, respectively.
This review covers one exporter of the subject merchandise, CJI. On November 25, 2016, the Department published the
The merchandise covered by this order is monosodium glutamate (MSG), whether or not blended or in solution with other products. Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution with other product(s) is included in this order when the resulting mix contains 15 percent or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which MSG may be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, starches, maltodextrins, and various seasonings. Further, MSG is included in this order regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to, in monohydrate or anhydrous form, or as substrates, solutions, dry powders of any particle size, or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-use application, or packaging.
MSG in monohydrate form has a molecular formula of C5H8NO4Na -H2O, a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number of 6106–04–3, and a Unique Ingredient Identifier (UNII) number of W81N5U6R6U. MSG in anhydrous form has a molecular formula of C5H8NO4 Na, a CAS registry number of l42–47–2, and a UNII number of C3C196L9FG.
Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2922.42.10.00. Merchandise covered by this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 2103.90.74.00, 2103.90.78.00, 2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. These tariff classifications, CAS registry numbers, and UNII numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
As noted above, we received no comments since the publication of the
As no parties submitted any comments on the Department's methodology in the
The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by the following company during the POR:
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). CJI's weighted-average dumping margin in these final results is zero percent. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The Department intends to issue the appropriate assessment instructions for CJI to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for CJI will be the weighted-average dumping margin listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 6.19 percent, as established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
These final results are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
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 by webinar in an open session on Thursday, March 16, 2017 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.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 Thursday, March 16, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be conducted by webinar. Please note 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 a discussion on the Committee's focus for 2017. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. The meeting is available to the public through a toll-free call-in number. When you register by email to Mrs. Serena Martinez,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; revision of an incidental harassment authorization.
Notice is hereby given that we have revised an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) issued to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal during construction activities associated with a wharf recapitalization project at Naval Station Mayport, Florida. The project has been delayed and the effective dates revised accordingly.
This authorization is now effective from March 13, 2017, through March 12, 2018.
Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
On July 21, 2015, we received a request from the Navy for authorization of the taking, by Level B harassment only, of marine mammals incidental to pile driving in association with the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project at Naval Station Mayport, Florida (NSM). A final version, which we deemed adequate and complete, was submitted on November 17, 2015. We published notice of a proposed IHA and request for comments on December 7, 2015 (80 FR 75978), and subsequently published final notice of our issuance of the IHA on August 9, 2016 (81 FR 52637). In-water work associated with the project was expected to be completed within
The purpose of the project is to complete necessary repairs at an existing general purpose berthing wharf at NSM. The wharf is one of NSM's two primary deep-draft berths and is one of the primary ordnance handling wharves, and is in an advanced state of deterioration resulting in load restrictions. Construction of the replacement pier will require vibratory pile installation, with impact pile driving as a contingency. The entire project is expected to require a maximum of 130 in-water workdays over two phases within a 24-month period. This IHA would be valid from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017.
In order to rehabilitate Bravo Wharf, the Navy proposes to install a new steel sheet pile bulkhead at Bravo Wharf, requiring approximately 880 single sheet piles (Phase I—berths B–2 and B–3: 590; Phase II—berth B–1: 290). Vibratory driving will be the primary method of installation for all piles, although impact driving may be required as a contingency in the case of difficult subsurface driving conditions.
Effects to marine mammals from the specified activity are expected to result from underwater sound produced by vibratory and impact pile driving. In order to assess project impacts, the Navy used thresholds recommended by NMFS. The Navy assumed practical spreading loss and used empirically-measured source levels from representative pile driving events to estimate potential marine mammal exposures. The calculations predict that only Level B harassment would occur associated with pile driving activities, and required mitigation measures further ensure that no more than Level B harassment would occur.
Construction activities have been delayed for the project due to delays from construction activities at another wharf in NSM, where they are allowed to only have one out-of-service wharf at a time. No in-water work has occurred, including all aspects of the specified activity considered in our issuance of the IHA. The IHA, as issued, is a one-year IHA with no consideration of seasonality in timing any component of the specified activity. Therefore, shifting the effective dates of the IHA to accommodate the Navy's delayed schedule for this project has no effect on our analysis of project impacts and does not affect our findings. NOAA's new acoustic guidance was published in the
As a result of the foregoing, we have revised the IHA issued to the Navy to conduct the specified activities in Naval Station Mayport, FL. Originally valid for 1 year, from December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014, the IHA now becomes effective on March 13, 2017, and is valid for one year, until March 12, 2018.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from Dr. Janelle Fleming, on behalf of the Eastern Carolina Artificial Reef Association (ECARA). If granted, the EFP would authorize the deployment of Maine lobster traps, crab pot Christmas trees, and geometric reef balls (fish attracting devices) at several sites in the Federal waters off North Carolina to determine the efficacy of these gear types for attracting and collecting invasive lionfish.
Written comments must be received on or before March 24, 2017.
You may submit comments on the application, identified by “NOAA–NMFS–2017–0011”, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Frank Helies, 727–824–5305; email
The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C 1801
The EFP request involves activities covered by regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for Federally managed fisheries of the South Atlantic Region, which prohibit the use of fish traps in the South Atlantic (50 CFR 622.9). The applicant requests authorization to deploy two sets of five Maine lobster traps with crab pot Christmas trees and geometric reef balls. Crab pot Christmas trees are a vertical, pyramid-shaped structure with many branch-type projections. Crab pot Christmas trees and geometric reef balls would be used as fish attracting devices in the project. The deployed fishing gear and accompanying attracting devices would be set along artificial reef sites, natural reef sites, rocky reef bottom, and a flat sandy area in Federal waters off North Carolina.
The applicant has requested the EFP be effective from April 15, 2017, through December 31, 2018.
The purpose of this study is to support continued research on traps that could be used for collecting invasive lionfish off eastern North Carolina artificial reefs, and to determine their efficacy for lionfish collection and as fish attracting devices. Additionally, the project intends to assess consumers' preference for lionfish as an exotic food source in a restaurant setting to determine if Carteret County, North Carolina, would support a consumer market for the species.
Each string of five Maine lobster traps and crab pot Christmas trees will be connected by a chain with no buoy lines to the surface, and deployed along designated hard bottom features with a distance of 30 ft (9.14 m) to 50 ft (15.24 m) between each trap. After deployment, divers will verify the position of the deployed fishing gear to ensure they are located between 20 ft (6.10 m) and 30 ft (9.14 m) from the designated bottom feature. Fishing gear deployment would occur year-round along the North Carolina coast from 3 nautical miles offshore, and up to 360 ft (109.68 m) in depth. The fishing gear will be deployed for at least 48 hours and no longer than 3 weeks. After 48 hours, divers will count and identify the number of fish inside and around the fishing gear, and record video prior to hauling the gear.
Video images will be used to assess the success of the crab pot Christmas trees and geometric reef balls as attracting devices for lionfish, and other fish species. Fish captured in the Maine lobster traps will be quantified to the lowest possible taxon, measured, photographed/video documented, and released alive. Any egg bearing lobsters captured in a trap will be returned to the water and released alive. Captured lionfish will be counted, measured, and prepared for consumption at nearby restaurants. These lionfish will be offered, free of charge, to patrons as part of the consumer demand assessment portion of the research project.
The applicant previously submitted an application for an EFP for this study and NMFS noticed receipt of that application in the
NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration based on a preliminary review. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if they are granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, special management zones, or artificial reefs without additional authorization, and use of escape panels on the Maine lobster traps. Additionally, and consistent with Appendix F to 50 CFR part 622, NMFS will require any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities to be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for physical condition, and returned to the water. A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected state, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that the application, and EFP if issued, are consistent with all applicable laws.
16 U.S.C 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 24, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Amy V. Uhrin, Chief Scientist, NOS Office of Response and Restoration, Marine Debris Division, N/ORR, SSMC4, Rm. 10240, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (240)-533–0426,
This request is for a new information collection.
The National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Marine Debris Program is sponsoring this data collection. The Marine Debris Program was created under the 2006 “Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act” (33 U.S.C. 1951
People will be approached at several beaches in each study area and asked to participate in a mail survey.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Tilefish Monitoring Committee of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 21, beginning at 10 a.m. and conclude by noon. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526–5255.
The purpose of the meeting is for the Tilefish Monitoring Committee to recommend management measures designed to achieve recommended catch limits for the blueline and golden tilefish fisheries.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017, 10:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of availability.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission, or CPSC) is announcing the availability of a document titled, “Estimated Phthalate Exposure and Risk to Women of Reproductive Age as Assessed Using 2013/2014 NHANES Biomonitoring Data.”
Submit comments by March 24, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2014–0033, by any of the following methods:
Kent R. Carlson, Ph.D., Toxicologist, Division of Toxicology & Risk Assessment, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850–3213; email:
Section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) required the Commission to appoint a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to study the effects on children's health of phthalates and phthalate alternatives in children's toys and child care articles. Public Law 110–314, Section 108(b)(2)(A). The CHAP report is available at:
The CPSIA also required that the CHAP issue a report to the Commission and that the Commission conduct rulemaking based on the CHAP report.
The CHAP assessed human exposure to phthalates, in part, through human biomonitoring analysis. Among the data sources the CHAP considered were data from the National Human Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES).
In June 2015, CPSC staff released a document, “Estimated Phthalate Exposure and Risk to Pregnant Women and Women of Reproductive Age as Assessed Using Four NHANES Biomonitoring Data Sets (2005/2006, 2007/2008, 2009/2010, 2011/2012).”
Since the June 2015 staff analysis, the Centers for Disease Control released the NHANES 2013/14 data set. In response to the release of the NHANES 2013/14 data set, CPSC staff has prepared a document reflecting the staff's analysis of the NHANES 2013/2014 data set: “Estimated Phthalate Exposure and Risk to Women of Reproductive Age as Assessed Using 2013/2014 NHANES Biomonitoring Data.” The document is available on the Commission's Web site at:
The Commission invites comment on the document, “Estimated Phthalate Exposure and Risk to Women of Reproductive Age as Assessed Using 2013/2014 NHANES Biomonitoring Data.” Comments should be submitted by March 24, 2017. Information on how to submit comments can be found in the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the
Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by March 9, 2017.
Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 17–C0002, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814–4408.
Daniel R. Vice, Trial Attorney, Division of Compliance, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814–4408; telephone (301) 504–6996.
The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.
In the Matter of: Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.
1. In accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089 (“CPSA”) and 16 CFR 1118.20, Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (“Keurig”) and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), through its staff, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order resolve staff's charges set forth below.
2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency, established pursuant to, and responsible for, the enforcement of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089. By executing the Agreement, staff is acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to 16 CFR 1118.20(b). The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA.
3. Keurig is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its executive offices in Waterbury, VT.
4. Between December 2009 and December 2014, Keurig imported and offered for sale in the United States approximately 6.6 million Keurig MINI Plus Brewing Systems (model K10, previously identified as model B31) (“Brewers” or “Subject Products”).
5. The Brewer is a “consumer product” “distribut[ed] in commerce,” as those terms are defined or used in sections 3(a)(5) and (8) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5) and (8). Keurig is a “manufacturer” of the Brewers, as such term is defined in section 3(a)(11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11).
6. The Brewers contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard and create an unreasonable risk of serious injury because hot water, coffee, and coffee grounds can spray out of the Brewers, posing a burn hazard to consumers.
7. Between February 2010 and November 2014, Keurig received approximately 200 incident reports of hot water, coffee, and coffee grounds spraying out of the Brewers (“Incidents”).
8. In more than 100 of these Incidents, consumers suffered burn-related injuries to their faces, hands, and bodies. Some of these injuries resulted in severe burns, including second and third-degree burns. Multiple consumers sought medical treatment for severe burns, including one consumer who was seen by a plastic surgeon. These severe burns included two reports of burns that resulted in facial scarring and three consumers who reported that Brewers sprayed them in the face with hot liquid, including one consumer who reported an eye injury. Keurig also paid two claims brought by consumers who were injured when the Brewers sprayed them with hot water, coffee, and coffee grounds.
9. On two occasions, Keurig was notified by a retailer of Incidents, including one that caused first-degree burns requiring medical attention. Each time, the retailer requested that Keurig undertake a product safety investigation and asked Keurig whether there were any potentially reportable safety concerns regarding the Brewers. Keurig did not immediately report to CPSC after learning of either of these Incidents.
10. In late June 2014, Keurig began an investigation of the Brewers. By late August 2014, Keurig began to consider developing a splash guard to prevent consumers from being injured if Brewers expelled hot water, coffee or coffee grounds.
11. Firms may conduct a reasonably expeditious investigation, not normally exceeding 10 days, to evaluate their reporting obligations.
12. Keurig delayed filing a Full Report with the Commission under 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), until November 25, 2014.
13. Keurig and the Commission jointly announced a recall of 6.6 million Brewers on December 23, 2014.
14. Despite having information reasonably supporting the conclusion that the Brewers contained a defect and created an unreasonable risk of serious injury, Keurig did not notify the Commission immediately of such defect or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4), in violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).
15. Because the information in Keurig's possession constituted actual and presumed knowledge, Keurig knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).
16. Pursuant to Section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Keurig is subject to civil penalties for its knowing violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).
17. The signing of this Agreement does not constitute an admission by Keurig of the staff's charges in paragraphs 4 through 16, including, but not limited to, the charge that (a) the Brewers contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard and created an unreasonable risk of serious injury; (b) the Firm failed to notify the Commission in a timely manner, in accordance with Sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4); (c) the Firm failed to furnish information required as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4), in violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4); and (d) there was any “knowing” violation of the CPSA as that term is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).
18. The Firm conducted a reasonable, expeditious, and diligent investigation about consumer complaints relating to the Brewers after personnel monitoring customer reports noticed a slightly higher rate of Incidents. Due to the
19. The voluntary recall of the Brewers, as well as the Section 15(b) reporting, by the Firm was conducted out of an abundance of caution and without the Firm having determined or concluded that the Brewers contained a defect or posed an unreasonable risk of serious injury.
20. The Firm enters into this Agreement to settle this matter without the delay and unnecessary expense of litigation.
21. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over the matter involving the Brewers and over Keurig.
22. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Keurig or a determination by the Commission that Keurig violated the CPSA's reporting requirements.
23. In settlement of staff's charges, and to avoid the cost, distraction, delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience of protracted litigation or other proceedings, Keurig shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $5.8 million ($5,800,000) within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. All payments to be made under the Agreement shall constitute debts owing to the United States and shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the United States via
24. All unpaid amounts, if any, due and owing under the Agreement, shall constitute a debt due and immediately owing by Keurig to the United States, and interest shall accrue and be paid by Keurig at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b) from the date of Default, until all amounts due have been paid in full (hereinafter “Default Payment Amount” and “Default Interest Balance”). Keurig shall consent to a Consent Judgment in the amount of the Default Payment Amount and Default Interest Balance, and the United States, at its sole option, may collect the entire Default Payment Amount and Default Interest Balance, or exercise any other rights granted by law or in equity, including, but not limited to, referring such matters for private collection, and Keurig agrees not to contest, and hereby waives and discharges, any defenses to, any collection action undertaken by the United States, or its agents or contractors, pursuant to this paragraph. Keurig shall pay the United States all reasonable costs of collection and enforcement under this paragraph, respectively, including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses.
25. After staff receives this Agreement executed on behalf of Keurig, staff shall promptly submit the Agreement to the Commission for provisional acceptance. Promptly following provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the
26. This Agreement is conditioned upon, and subject to, the Commission's final acceptance, as set forth above, and it is subject to the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). Upon the later of: (i) the Commission's final acceptance of this Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon Keurig, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect, and shall be binding upon the parties.
27. Effective upon the later of: (i) the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon Keurig, and (ii) and the date of issuance of the final Order, for good and valuable consideration, Keurig hereby expressly and irrevocably waives and agrees not to assert any past, present, or future rights to the following, in connection with the matter described in this Agreement: (i) an administrative or judicial hearing; (ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions; (iii) a determination by the Commission of whether Keurig failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations; (iv) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
28. Keurig shall develop, implement, and maintain a compliance program designed to ensure compliance with the CPSA with respect to any consumer product imported, manufactured, distributed or sold by the Firm, and which shall contain the following elements:
(i) written standards, policies and procedures, including those designed to ensure that information that may relate to or impact CPSA compliance (including information obtained by quality control personnel) is conveyed effectively to personnel responsible for CPSA compliance, whether or not an injury is referenced;
(ii) a mechanism for confidential employee reporting of compliance-related questions or concerns to either a compliance officer or to another senior manager with authority to act as necessary;
(iii) effective communication of company compliance-related policies and procedures regarding the CPSA to all applicable employees through training programs or otherwise;
(iv) the Firm's senior management responsibility for, and general board oversight of, CPSA compliance; and
(v) retention of all CPSA compliance-related records for at least five (5) years, and availability of such records to staff upon request.
29. Keurig shall maintain and enforce a system of internal controls and procedures designed to ensure that, with respect to all consumer products imported, manufactured, distributed or sold by Keurig: (i) information required to be disclosed by Keurig to the Commission is recorded, processed and reported in accordance with applicable law; (ii) all reporting made to the Commission is timely, truthful, complete, accurate and in accordance with applicable law; and (iii) prompt disclosure is made to Keurig's management of any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of such internal controls that are reasonably likely to affect adversely, in any material respect, Keurig's ability to record, process and report to the Commission in accordance with applicable law.
30. Upon reasonable request of staff, Keurig shall provide written documentation of its internal controls and procedures, including, but not limited to, the effective dates of the procedures and improvements thereto. Keurig shall cooperate fully and truthfully with staff and shall make available all non-privileged information and materials, and personnel deemed necessary by staff to evaluate Keurig's compliance with the terms of the Agreement.
31. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order.
32. Keurig represents that the Agreement: (i) is entered into freely and voluntarily, without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever; (ii) has been duly authorized; and (iii) constitutes the valid and binding obligation of Keurig, enforceable against Keurig in accordance with its terms. Keurig will not directly or indirectly receive any reimbursement, indemnification, insurance-related payment, or other payment in connection with the civil penalty to be paid by Keurig pursuant to the Agreement and Order. The individuals signing the Agreement on behalf of Keurig represent and warrant that they are duly authorized by Keurig to execute the Agreement.
33. The signatories represent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement.
34. The Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States.
35. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Keurig and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns, and a violation of the Agreement or Order may subject Keurig, and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns, to appropriate legal action.
36. The Agreement and the Order constitute the complete agreement between the parties on the subject matter contained therein.
37. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. For purposes of construction, the Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by both of the parties and shall not, therefore, be construed against any party, for that reason, in any subsequent dispute.
38. The Agreement may not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except as in accordance with the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). The Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
39. If any provision of the Agreement or the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Keurig agree in writing that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order.
In the Matter of: Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.
Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (“Keurig”), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Keurig, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is:
Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 16th day of February, 2017.
Take notice that on February 13, 2016, Merchant Energy Services, Inc. submitted its Compliance Filing to Order on Rehearing of Opinion No. 536–C.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 15, 2017, pursuant to section 211 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824j, and Part 36 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR part 36, Tull Wind LLC submitted an application for an order directing the provision of interconnection and transmission service.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the Commission's eFiling system at
j.
k. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
m.
n.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Eastern Market Access Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (DCP) in Charles County, Maryland and Loudoun and Fairfax Counties, Virginia. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before March 17, 2017.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on November 15, 2016, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP17–15–000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
DCP provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP17–15–000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping session its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of this scoping session is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the EA to be prepared for this project. Individual verbal comments will be
The scoping session is scheduled from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time Zone. You may arrive at any time after 3:30 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival; distribution of numbers will be discontinued at 7:00 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Your scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from DCP will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
DCP proposes to provide 294 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas firm transportation service to Washington Gas Light Company and to fuel a new power generation facility, the Mattawoman Energy Center, proposed by Mattawoman Energy, LLC. DCP's proposed project facilities are in Maryland and Virginia.
The project would consist of the following facilities:
• A new 24,370 horsepower (hp) natural gas compressor station and ancillary facilities in Charles County, Maryland;
• two new taps for customer delivery at the existing WGL Interconnect in Charles County, Maryland;
• One new 7,000 hp electric reciprocating compression unit and discharge gas cooler, replacement of three gas coolers and compression cylinders for three existing reciprocating compressors, and an increase discharge piping to 30-inches diameter at the existing Loudoun Compressor Station in Loudoun County, Virginia;
• one new meter building to enclose existing equipment at the Loudoun Metering and Regulating Station in Loudoun County, Virginia.
• Pleasant Valley Compressor Station (Fairfax County, Virginia):
• Re-wheel compressor on one existing 17,400 hp electric unit and upgrade two gas coolers at the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station in Fairfax County, Virginia.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would impact 48.3 acres of land during construction, with 18.9 acres maintained for operation of the facilities. The remaining 29.4 acres would be restored and revert to former uses. Construction would occur within DCP-owned lands, or within existing, maintained DCP rights-of-way.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use and socioeconomics;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. We will publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a periodic review of the air quality criteria and the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Sulfur Oxides (SO
Comments should be received on or before April 13, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0566, to the
Dr. Nicole Hagan, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code C504–06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919–541–3153; fax number: 919–541–5315; email:
1.
2.
• Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternative and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumption and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in his “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”; “the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources”; and “for which . . . [the Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)(A)–(C)). Air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(2)). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and revisions of the existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate . . . .” Since the early 1980s, this independent review function has been performed by the CASAC.
Presently, the EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and primary NAAQS for SO
The REA Planning Document has been made available for consultation with the CASAC at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC. A separate
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.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 6, 2017.
1.
1.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 3, 2017.
1.
2.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 14, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 13, 2017.
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review again proposed information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by March 24, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by email at
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine called for health care organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that their workforce and processes focus on improving the reliability and safety of
The AHRQ Pharmacy Survey on Patient Safety Culture (Pharmacy SOPS) Comparative Database consists of data from the AHRQ Pharmacy SOPS Pharmacies in the U.S. are asked to voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ, through its contractor, Westat. The Pharmacy SOPS Database is modeled after three other SOPS databases: Hospital SOPS [OMB NO. 0935–0162; Approved 05/04/2010]; Medical Office SOPS [OMB NO. 0935–0196; Approved 06/12/12]; and Nursing Home SOPS [OMB NO. 0935–0195; Approved 06/12/12] that were originally developed by AHRQ in response to requests from hospitals, medical offices, and nursing homes interested in knowing how their patient safety culture survey results compare to those of other similar health care organizations.
Rationale for the information collection. The Pharmacy SOPS survey and the Pharmacy SOPS Comparative Database will support AHRQ's goals of promoting improvements in the quality and safety of health care in pharmacy settings. The survey, toolkit materials, and comparative database results are all made publicly available on AHRQ's Web site. Technical assistance is provided by AHRQ through its contractor at no charge to pharmacies, to facilitate the use of these materials for pharmacy patient safety and quality improvement.
This database will:
(1) Allow pharmacies to compare their patient safety culture survey results with those of other pharmacies,
(2) Provide data to pharmacies to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process, and
(3) Provide supplemental information to help pharmacies identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services; quality measure and development, and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), and 8.
To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1) Pharmacy Eligibility and Registration Form—The point of contact (POC), often the pharmacy manager of a participating organization, completes a number of data submission steps and forms, beginning with completion of an online Eligibility and Registration Form. The purpose of this form is to collect basic demographic information about the pharmacy and initiate the registration process.
(2) Data Use Agreement—The purpose of the data use agreement, completed by the pharmacy POC, is to state how data submitted by pharmacies will be used and provides confidentiality assurances.
(3) Pharmacy Site Information Form—The purpose of this form, completed by the pharmacy POC, is to collect background characteristics of the pharmacy. This information will be used to analyze data collected with the Pharmacy SOPS survey.
(4) Data Files Submission—POCs upload their data file(s), using the community pharmacy or hospital pharmacy data file specifications, to ensure that users submit standardized and consistent data in the way variables are named, coded, and formatted.
The number of submissions to the database is likely to vary each year because pharmacies do not administer the survey and submit data every year. Data submission is typically handled by one POC who is either a pharmacy manager or a survey vendor who contracts with a pharmacy to collect and submit its data. POCs submit data on behalf of 3 pharmacies, on average, because many pharmacies are part of a multi-pharmacy system, or the POC is a vendor that is submitting data for multiple pharmacies.
Survey data from the AHRQ Pharmacy SOPS are used to produce three types of products: (1) A Pharmacy SOPS Comparative Database Report that is made publicly available on the AHRQ Web site (see
Pharmacies are asked to voluntarily submit their Pharmacy SOPS survey data to the comparative database. The data are then cleaned and aggregated and used to produce a Comparative Database Report that displays averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 36 items and 11 patient safety culture dimensions, as well as displaying these results by pharmacy characteristics (pharmacy type, number of locations, average number of prescriptions dispensed per week, etc.) and respondent characteristics (staff position, tenure, and hours worked per week).
Data submitted by pharmacies are also used to give each pharmacy its own customized survey feedback report that presents the pharmacy's results compared to the latest comparative database results. If a pharmacy submits data more than once, its survey feedback report also presents trend data, comparing its previous and most recent data.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. An estimated 100 POCs from community pharmacies and 50 POCs from hospital pharmacies, each representing an average of 3 individual pharmacies, will complete the database submission steps and forms. Completing the eligibility and registration form will take about 5 minutes. The Pharmacy Site Information Form is completed by all POCs for each of their pharmacies (150 × 3 = 450 forms in total) and is estimated to take 5 minutes to complete. Each POC will complete a data use agreement which takes 3 minutes to complete and submitting the data will take an hour on average. The total burden is estimated to be 209 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a second review opportunity.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the new information collection Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0917–NEW, titled, “Mashpee Wampanoag Community Health Assessment.” The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment to be submitted directly to OMB. A copy of the draft supporting statement is available at
April 24, 2017. Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
Send your written comments, requests for more information on the collection, or requests to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instructions to Rita Gonsalves by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The Indian Health Service Mashpee Wampanoag Service Unit is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies as required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have
There are no direct costs to respondents to report.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the Patents and Patent Applications listed in the
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before March 9, 2017 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Jim Knabb, Ph.D., Technology Transfer and Patent Specialist, NCI Technology Transfer Center, 9609 Medical Center Drive, RM 1E530 MSC 9702, Bethesda, MD 20892–9702 (for business mail), Rockville, MD 20850–9702; Telephone: (240) 276–5530; Facsimile: (240) 276–5504; Email:
United States Provisional Patent Application No. 62/292,789, filed February 8, 2016 entitled “Gene Signature Predictive of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Response to Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization” [HHS Reference No. E–101–2016/0–US–01]; PCT Patent Application PCT/US2017/016851, filed February 7, 2017 and entitled “GENE SIGNATURE PREDICTIVE OF HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA RESPONSE TO TRANSCATHETER ARTERIAL CHEMOEMBOLIZATION (TACE)” [HHS Reference No. E–101–2016/0–PCT–02]; (and U.S. and foreign patent applications claiming priority to the aforementioned applications).
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned and/or exclusively licensed to the government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to “the Development and commercialization of the transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) gene signature as a diagnostic device predictive of TACE response in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The field of use may be further limited to companion diagnostic tests that are sold following Premarket Approval by the FDA or equivalent regulatory agency in foreign jurisdictions”.
This technology discloses a gene expression signature that is predictive of HCC patient response to TACE. TACE therapy is a procedure whereby the tumor is targeted with both local chemotherapy and restriction of local blood supply, and is employed in the treatment of locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patient biopsies are analyzed by Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) and expression analysis of the gene signature can be used to stratify patients for TACE therapy. Through the commercialization of this gene signature for TACE efficacy, HCC patients can be identified as candidates for TACE
This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Exclusive Patent License Agreement. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translation Research Advisory Committee, March 8, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to March 8, 2017, 3:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Rooms 9 and 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting format and start and end times. The meeting will now be held virtually from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. due to a change in the agenda which reduced the time required for deliberation and discussion. The meeting will still be held at the National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Rooms 9 and 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 and can also be accessed via NIH Videocast at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the patent applications listed below may be obtained by communicating with the indicated licensing contact at the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852; tel. 301–496–2644. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of unpublished patent applications.
Technology descriptions follow.
Inhibition of host heme oxygenase-1 as an adjunctive treatment to improve the outcome of conventional antibiotic chemotherapy of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infection.
This invention describes the adjunctive use of heme oxygenase-1 (HO–1) inhibitors to improve the outcome of conventional antibiotic treatment for tuberculosis. The existent standard of care requires prolonged administration of drug. Due to the long duration of treatment, methods that can more rapidly control tuberculosis in patients are clearly needed.
NIAID researchers have discovered that inhibition of host HO–1 reduces
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.
• Therapeutic for Mtb.
• Innovative, more rapidly effective therapeutics for tuberculosis are sorely needed due to the continued importance of TB as a global infectious disease and the increasing emergence of multi-drug resistant strains.
• This invention is a host-directed therapy.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, February 17, 2017, 12:00 p.m. to February 17, 2017, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
This meeting was amended to change the date and time and will now be held on March 29, 2017, from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee management; notice of federal advisory public committee meeting.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee (UFAC) will meet on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public.
The UFAC will meet on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting is scheduled for two hours and that the meeting may close early if the committee completes its business.
Feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
Members of the public who are pre-registered and later require cancellation, please do so in advance of the meeting by accessing one (1) of the following links:
The meeting will be held at U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Courtroom A, Washington, DC 20436.
There will be signage posted directing visitors to the location of the conference room.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at (202) 344–1661 as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the topics to be discussed by the committee, prior to the meeting as listed in the “Agenda” section below.
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than March 15, 2017, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP–2017–0002, and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
There will be two (2) public comment periods held during the meeting on March 22, 2017. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment periods for speakers may end before the times indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP Web page,
Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344–1440; facsimile (202) 325–4290.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hereby announces the meeting of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee (UFAC). The UFAC is tasked with providing advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters related to the performance of inspections coinciding with the assessment of an agriculture, customs, or immigration user fee.
1. The Financial Assessment and Options Subcommittee will review and discuss the work that has been completed so that the UFAC can deliberate upon and, if appropriate, vote on potential recommendations.
2. Public Comment Period.
3. The Process Improvements Subcommittee will review and discuss the work that has been completed so that the UFAC can deliberate upon and, if appropriate, vote on potential recommendations.
4. Public Comment Period.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coastal Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Coastal Oregon RAC will hold a public meeting Tuesday, March 14, 2017, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, March 15, 2017 from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
The Coastal Oregon RAC will meet at the Coos Bay District Office, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, Oregon 97459.
Megan Harper, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Coos Bay District Office, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, Oregon 97459, (541) 751–4353, or email
The Coastal Oregon RAC consists of 15 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Members represent diverse perspectives such as commodity, conservation, and other general interests. They provide advice to BLM resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in coastal Oregon. Tentative agenda items for the March 14 and March 15, 2017, meeting include review and recommendation of projects to fund under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act, as reauthorized. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the Coastal Oregon RAC may also be addressed.
There will be an opportunity for public comments on March 15, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. Unless otherwise approved by the Coastal Oregon RAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the Coastal Oregon RAC for a maximum of 5 minutes. Meeting times and the duration of the public comment period may be extended or altered when the authorized representative considers it necessary to accommodate important business and all who seek to be heard regarding matters before the Coastal Oregon RAC.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday, March 2, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be conducted at the BLM Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Kristen Lenhardt, Deputy State Director of Communications, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY 82009; telephone: 307–775–6015; email:
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS)
This 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior on a variety of management issues associated with public land management in Wyoming. Planned agenda topics for the March meeting (see
On Thursday, March 2, the meeting will begin with a public comment period at 8 a.m. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. If there are no members of the public interested in speaking, the meeting will move promptly to the next agenda item. The public may also submit written comments to the RAC by emailing
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below. The meeting is open to the public.
The RAC will meet on March 2, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the RAC during a public comment period from 1:00 to 1:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the 9th Floor Conference Room at the North Las Vegas City Hall, 2250 Las Vegas Boulevard North, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030.
Tim Smith, District Manager, at 702–525–5000, Southern Nevada District Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The 15-member Mojave-Southern Great Basin RAC was chartered to serve in an advisory capacity concerning the planning and management of the public land resources located within Nevada. Members represent an array of stakeholder interests from within the local area and statewide. All advisory council meetings are open to the public.
Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period of the meeting should register in person with the BLM, at the meeting location, before the meeting's public comment period. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited.
Topics for discussion at this meeting will include last year's accomplishments, the election of officers, goals for this year, the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan, and existing uses of and access to the Gold Butte National Monument. Managers' reports of District Office activities will also be given. The RAC may raise other topics at the meeting. The final agenda is posted on-line at the BLM Mojave-Southern Great Basin RAC Web site at
Attendees should park in the south parking area instead of the customer parking area. Individuals who need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, may contact the person listed above no later than 10 days prior to the meeting.
On September 27, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Robert Markman, M.D. (hereinafter, Applicant), of Northridge, California. GX 1, at 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the denial of Applicant's application for a Certificate of Registration as a practitioner, on the ground that he does not hold authority to dispense controlled substances in California, the State in which he seeks registration.
As the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on December 30, 2013, Applicant applied for a registration as “a practitioner in [s]chedules II–V,” at a proposed registered location in Northridge, California.
The Show Cause Order notified Applicant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option.
On October 5, 2016, a Diversion Investigator assigned to the Los Angeles Field Division personally served the Show Cause Order on Applicant. GX 3. On January 13, 2017, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action (cited as RFAA) and an evidentiary record to support its proposed action. In its Request, the Government represents that Applicant “has not filed a request for a hearing or
Based on the record and the Government's representation, I find that since the date on which Applicant was served with the Show Cause Order, more than 30 days have now passed and neither Applicant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing or submitted a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing. Accordingly, I find that Applicant has waived his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written statement. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government.
On December 30, 2013, Applicant applied for a DEA Certificate of Registration, seeking authority to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. GX 2A, at 1. Applicant proposed an address in Northridge, California as his registered location, and provided the number of his California license.
Applicant was also the holder of Physician's and Surgeon's certificate No. G27953 which was issued by the MBC. GX 2B, at 1, 3. However, on July 18, 2016, the MBC adopted the proposed decision of a state administrative law judge (ALJ) which found that Applicant had been “convicted of a criminal offense substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon” and that “[s]uch also constituted unprofessional conduct.”
While the MBC's Order was to become effective on August 17, 2016, according to the Board's online records (of which I take official notice
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding-even in the final decision.” U.S. Dept. of Justice,
Under the Controlled Substances Act, a practitioner must be currently authorized to dispense controlled substances “under the laws of the State in which he practices” in order to obtain and maintain a practitioner's registration.
Thus, with respect to a practitioner, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a registration.
As found above, by virtue of the MBC's Order, Applicant currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in California, the State in which he seeks registration, and is not entitled to be registered. Accordingly, I will order that his application be denied.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that the application of Robert Markman, M.D., for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective March 24, 2017.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 24, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application, docketing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has docketed a license amendment application from the Department of Energy (DOE or the licensee) for amendment of Materials License No. SNM–2508, for the Three Mile Island 2 (TMI–2) independent spent fuel storage installation located at the Idaho National Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho. If granted, the amendment would update the licensee delegation of authority in the license, the technical specifications, and the final safety analysis report. These documents currently delegate authority under the license to the Manager, DOE Idaho Operations Office. The amendment would replace that reference with the Deputy Manager, Idaho Cleanup Project in each of the documents.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–0050 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:
•
•
•
Jose R. Cuadrado, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–0606; email:
By letter dated September 8, 2016, DOE submitted to the NRC an application to amend the license, technical specifications, and the final safety analysis report, for the TMI–2 independent spent fuel storage installation located at the Idaho National Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho (ADAMS Accession No. ML16258A191). Materials License No. SNM–2508 authorizes the licensee to receive, store, and transfer canisters
In a letter to DOE dated December 9, 2016, the NRC notified DOE that the application was acceptable to begin a technical review (ADAMS Accession No. ML16347A192). The NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards has docketed this application under Docket No. 72–20. If the NRC approves the amendment, the approval will be documented in an amendment to NRC Materials License No. SNM–2508. The Commission will approve the license amendment if it determines that the request complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the NRC's rules and regulations, and make findings consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and part 51 of title 10 of the
The Commission may issue either a notice of hearing or a notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing in accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(1) or, if a determination is made that the amendment does not present a genuine issue as to whether public health and safety will be significantly affected, take immediate action on the amendment in accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), and provide notice of the action taken and an opportunity for interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Design certification application; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a design certification application (DCA) from NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale), on January 6, 2017, for a Small Modular Reactor (SMR). The DCA package included a transmittal letter, dated December 31, 2016, which indicated the application would be supplemented with one topical report and four technical reports by January 10, 2017. By January 12, 2017, NuScale provided updated files that allowed for the successful completion of the NRC's electronic processing of the DCA package.
The application was received on January 13, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–0043 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:
•
•
•
Bruce Bavol, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6715, email:
By letter dated December 31, 2016, NuScale filed an application for a standard design certification of the NuScale SMR with the NRC, pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 52 of title 10 of the
The NuScale SMR is a pressurized-water reactor (PWR). The design is based on the Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) developed at Oregon State University in the early 2000s. The NuScale SMR is a natural circulation light-water reactor with the reactor core and helical coil steam generator located in a common reactor vessel in a cylindrical steel containment. The NuScale power module is immersed in water in a safety related pool. The reactor pool is located below grade and is designed to hold up to twelve (12) power modules. Each NuScale SMR has a rated thermal output of 160 megawatts thermal (MWt) and electrical output of 50 megawatts electric (MWe). Each plant can hold up to 12 modules yielding a total capacity of 600 MWe.
The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing and other matters relating to the requested rulemaking pursuant to 10 CFR 52.51 for design certification, including provisions for participation of the public and other parties, will be the subject of subsequent
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service
Notice of prospective revision of standards; invitation to comment.
The Postal Service is preparing to revise Publication 52,
The Postal Service must receive written comments on or before March 24, 2017.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260–5015. If sending comments by email include the name and postal address of the commenter and send to
Michelle Lassiter (202) 268–2914, or Kevin Gunther (202) 268–7208.
Pursuant to the
Specifically, the Postal Service finds that it will be necessary to make revisions in order to align with the proposed changes to lithium battery transportation from the Department of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and to maintain consistency with international regulations and standards. In addition, the Postal Service intends to revise Publication 52 to align with the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions) with regard to the transportation of lithium batteries by air.
On September 7, 2016 (81 FR 61742), PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking [Docket Number 2015–0273 (HM–215N)] titled “
Because of concerns for the exposure to risk associated with hazardous materials in its networks, the Postal Service accepts only a fraction of the materials regulated by PHMSA. As a result, the Postal Service expects few of the revisions addressed by PHMSA in its recent proposed rulemaking to have an impact on Postal Service mailing standards. With regard to lithium batteries, the Postal Service generally accepts only those cells and batteries eligible for the PHMSA's exceptions for smaller cells and batteries under 49 CFR 173.185(c). In this notice, the Postal Service addresses only those revisions directly related to the transportation of lithium batteries, and only those expected to directly impact the movement of lithium batteries in Postal Service networks.
The revisions discussed in the PHMSA proposed rule having direct effect on Postal Service networks include:
• PHMSA replaces the existing text marking requirements in 49 CFR 173.185(c)(3) with a standard lithium battery mark (shown below) for use in all transport modes, and removes the requirement in 49 CFR 173.185(c)(3) for shippers to provide an alternative document.
• PHMSA creates a new section containing a new Class 9 hazard warning label for lithium batteries. The label (shown below) consists of the existing Class 9 label with the addition of a figure in the lower half depicting a group of batteries with one broken and emitting a flame. The label is intended to appear on packages containing lithium batteries required to display hazard warning labels, and is intended to better communicate the specific hazards posed by lithium batteries.
• PHMSA amends 49 CFR 173.185(c)(2) and (c)(3)(i) to specify that outer packaging used to contain small lithium batteries must be rigid and of adequate size so the handling mark can be affixed on one side without the mark being folded. PHMSA provides a limited exception to the rigid outer packaging requirement when “the cell or battery is afforded equivalent protection by the equipment in which it is contained.”
• PHMSA modifies 49 CFR 175.185 to clarify the definition of a
ICAO published addendum number 3 to its Technical Instructions on January 15, 2016, and addendum number 4 on February 23, 2016 (
• The prohibition of lithium-ion (and lithium-ion polymer) batteries, shipped separately from the equipment they are intended to operate (categorized as identification number UN3480), on passenger aircraft.
• The restriction of UN3480 batteries and cells shipped via cargo aircraft to a maximum state of charge (SOC) of no more than 30 percent.
• The limitation of section II, UN3480 batteries and cells to a single package, when sent as a part of a consignment or overpack via cargo aircraft.
• The required use of an approved Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) label on all packages of UN3480 batteries and cells transported via cargo aircraft.
Within the next several weeks, the Postal Service intends to revise Publication 52 to align with PHMSA's proposed regulations, and to maintain consistency with international regulations and standards. As such, the Postal Service contemplates the following changes:
• The Postal Service would eliminate the current text marking option for mailpieces required to bear, or optionally permitted to bear, lithium battery markings, and limit markings to DOT-approved lithium battery handling marks only. Mailpieces restricted to surface transportation only, including those containing UN3090, lithium metal batteries shipped separately, will continue to be required to bear the current text marking in addition to a DOT-approved lithium battery handling mark. The Postal Service would also eliminate the requirement for accompanying documentation with mailings of lithium batteries.
• The Postal Service would add the new DOT class 9 hazard warning label for lithium batteries to Publication 52, Exhibit 325.1, DOT Hazardous Materials Warning Labels: PROHIBITED IN THE MAIL. Packages containing lithium batteries that are required to bear this label are prohibited in USPS networks.
• The Postal Service would align its standards with PHMSA's proposed regulations with regard to the requirement that the outer packaging used to contain small lithium batteries be rigid and of adequate size so the handling mark can be affixed on one side without the mark being folded. The Postal Service would also permit the use of padded or poly bags when cells or batteries are afforded equivalent protection by the equipment in which they are contained, but limit this exception only to batteries meeting the USPS definition of a button cell battery in 349.11(e) of Publication 52.
• The Postal Service would take no action with regard to the requirement for lithium battery markings to appear on packages containing lithium cells or batteries, or lithium cells or batteries packed with, or contained in, equipment when there are more than two packages in the consignment. The Postal Service would continue to define a consignment in postal terms as a single parcel, making any action regarding this PHMSA regulation unnecessary.
The Postal Service also expects to revise Publication 52 to align with the April 1, 2016, final version of the ICAO regulations described above. With regard to mail classes and products using air transportation, the Postal Service contracts with both passenger airlines and commercial air cargo providers. Depending on volume, schedules, and other operational factors, the Postal Service directs mail, including packages, between various air transportation providers as necessary. At times, such decisions are made during, or subsequent to the finalization and containerization of these mailpieces. Consequently, the Postal Service has concerns for its ability to reliably separate mail eligible for transport via passenger aircraft from that exclusive to cargo aircraft. Additionally, the Postal Service has noted that a number of commercial transportation providers have adopted procedures and policies compliant with the April 1, 2016, version of the ICAO regulations. To eliminate the potential for refusal of mail containing lithium batteries tendered to its contracted air carriers, the Postal Service proposes to align its mailing standards with the ICAO regulations. With regard to this alignment, the Postal Service contemplates the following changes:
• Prohibit UN3480 lithium-ion and lithium polymer batteries in USPS air transportation.
• Revise its quantity limitations for UN3480 lithium-ion and lithium polymer batteries in surface transportation to align with those for lithium metal batteries, changing from
If it proceeds as planned, the Postal Service expects to provide for an implementation date approximately 60 days following notice of its adoption of these proposed revised mailing standards, and may entertain requests for limited extensions if necessary.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 32(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a 31(a)(2)) (“Act”) requires that the selection of a registered management investment company's or registered face-amount certificate company's (collectively, “funds”) independent public accountant be submitted to shareholders for ratification or rejection. Rule 32a–4 under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.32a–4) exempts a fund from this requirement if, among other things, the fund has an audit committee consisting entirely of independent directors. The rule permits continuing oversight of a fund's accounting and auditing processes by an independent audit committee in place of a shareholder vote.
Among other things, in order to rely on rule 32a–4, a fund's board of directors must adopt an audit committee charter and must preserve that charter, and any modifications to the charter, permanently in an easily accessible place. The purpose of these conditions is to ensure that Commission staff will be able to monitor the duties and responsibilities of an audit committee of a fund relying on the rule.
Commission staff estimates that on average the board of directors takes 15 minutes to adopt the audit committee charter. Commission staff has estimated that with an average of 8 directors on the board,
Because virtually all existing funds have now adopted audit committee charters, the annual one-time collection of information burden associated with adopting audit committee charters is limited to the burden incurred by newly established funds. Commission staff estimates that fund sponsors establish approximately 112 new funds each year,
When funds adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a–4, they also may incur one-time costs related to hiring outside counsel to prepare the charter. Commission staff estimates that those costs average approximately $1500 per fund.
These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. The collections of information required by rule 32a–4 are necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. The Commission is seeking OMB approval, because 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 control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burdens of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule 7014(j) to modify the conditions for qualifying for the Nasdaq Growth Program; and (2) amend Rule 7018(a) to modify the volume requirements needed to qualify for a credit of $0.0030 per share for members that add liquidity on both Nasdaq and the Nasdaq Options Market (“NOM”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7014(j) and Rule 7018(a) to make two changes.
Nasdaq introduced the Program in 2016.
Rule 7014(j) currently provides two ways in which a member may qualify for the Program in a given month. First, the member may qualify for the Program by (i) adding greater than 750,000 shares a day on average during the month through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs; and (ii) increasing its shares of liquidity provided through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs as a percent of Consolidated Volume by 20% versus the member's Growth Baseline.
Nasdaq now proposes a third way in which a member may qualify for the Program in a given month. Specifically, the member may qualify for the Program by (i) adding greater than 750,000 shares a day on average during the month through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs in three separate months; (ii) increasing its shares of liquidity provided through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs as a percent of Consolidated Volume by 20% versus the member's Growth Baseline in three separate months; and (iii) maintaining or increasing its shares of liquidity provided through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs as a percent of Consolidated Volume compared to the growth baseline established when the member met the criteria for the third month.
The following example illustrates the application of this new provision:
• In September 2016, the firm's shares of liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume is 0.03%. This is the firm's Growth Baseline.
• In October 2016, the firm added more than 750,000 shares a day on average through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs. The firm's shares of liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume rose to 0.036%, an increase of 20% over its Growth Baseline. The member qualifies for the credit, since it has met the criteria of Rule 7014(j)(i) and 7014(j)(ii)(A). The member's Growth Baseline is updated to 0.036% (its October 2016 volume).
• In November 2016, the firm added more than 750,000 shares a day on average through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs. The firm's shares of liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume was 0.041%. The firm qualifies for the credit under Rule 7014(j)(ii)(B) since it met the
• In December 2016, the firm added more than 750,000 shares a day on average through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs. The firm's shares of liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume rose to 0.044%, an increase of over 20% over its Growth Baseline. The member qualifies for the credit, since it has met the criteria of Rule 7014(j)(i) and 7014(j)(ii)(A). The member's Growth Baseline is updated to 0.044% (its December 2016 volume).
• In January 2017, the firm added more than 750,000 shares a day on average through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs. The firm's shares of liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume rose to 0.053%, an increase of over 20% over its Growth Baseline. The member qualifies for the credit, since it has met the criteria of Rule 7014(j)(i) and 7014(j)(ii)(A). The member's Growth Baseline is updated to 0.053% (its January 2017 volume).
• In February 2017, the firm added more than 750,000 shares a day on average through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs. The firm's shares of liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume remained at 0.053%. The firm would still qualify for the credit, since it satisfied the criteria under Rule 7014(j)(i) (adding more than 750,000 shares a day on average) and Rule 7014(j)(ii)(A) (increasing its volume by 20% over its Growth Baseline) in three separate months.
• Going forward, the firm would continue to qualify for the credit, as long as it continues to satisfy, on a monthly basis, the criteria under Rule 7014(j)(i) (adding more than 750,000 shares a day on average) and Rule 7014(j)(ii)(C) (maintaining or adding volume in comparison to the Growth Baseline that was established in the third month in which the firm qualified for the Program under Rule 7014(j)(ii)(A)).
The Exchange is adding this provision to provide firms with another way of qualifying for the Program. Currently, a firm may qualify for the Program in a given month if it met the criteria of Rule 7014(j)(ii)(A) in the preceding month (increasing its volume by 20% over its Growth Baseline), and maintained or increased its volume compared to that previous month. The new provision is similar in that it allows a firm to continue to qualify for the Program if it maintains or increases its volume in a given month. The new provision differs, however, in that the firm must have qualified for the Program pursuant to Rule 7014(j)(ii)(A) (increasing its volume by 20% over its Growth Baseline) in three separate months. Nasdaq believes that this provision provides firms with additional flexibility in qualifying for the Program, and furthers the Program's goal of incentivizing participation on the Exchange.
In the second change, Nasdaq proposes to amend one of the requirements in order to qualify for a credit for adding liquidity. Currently, a member will receive a credit if it meets a specified volume threshold on Nasdaq for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that add liquidity, and also meets a specified volume threshold on NOM when adding liquidity. Specifically, a member will receive a credit of $0.0030 per share executed if the member (1) adds liquidity through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs during the month that, in all securities, represents at least 0.125% of Consolidated Volume during the month, and (2) adds Customer,
Nasdaq proposes to reduce the volume threshold for providing liquidity on Nasdaq from 0.125% to 0.12%. Nasdaq notes that members will continue to receive the same credit as they currently receive if they meet the volume requirements. Nasdaq believes that this change more closely aligns the volume requirement for activity on Nasdaq with the current volume requirement for activity on NOM, and with the amount of the credit itself.
The change to the volume threshold will be applied to transactions in securities of all three Tapes.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Nasdaq Growth Program is reasonable, and notes that the amount of the credits provided under the Program is unchanged.
In adopting Rule 7014(j)(ii)(C), Nasdaq is providing all members that otherwise qualify for the Program with an alternate way in which they may qualify for the Program by permitting members to either maintain or increase their volume in comparison to the last of three months in which they
Nasdaq notes that, if a member qualifies for the credit under Rule 7014(j)(ii)(C), it would continue to qualify for the credit under this provision going forward, as long as it continues to meet the criteria under Rule 7014(j)(i) (adding more than 750,000 shares a day on average) and Rule 7014(j)(ii)(C) (maintaining or adding volume in comparison to the Growth Baseline that was established in the third month in which the firm qualified for the Program under Rule 7014(j)(ii)(A)). Nasdaq believes this aspect of the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as this way to receive an ongoing credit is open to any member that elects to meet the requirements under Rule 7014(j)(ii)(C).
In sum, Nasdaq believes that this proposed change strikes an appropriate and equitable balance by expanding the number of members that may be eligible for the Program while continuing to incentivize other members that may not currently qualify for the Program to transact greater volume in order to become eligible for the Program.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to one of the volume requirements that is needed to qualify for the credit for adding liquidity on Nasdaq and NOM is reasonable, and notes that the amount of the credit provided under this provision is unchanged.
As with other credits that the Exchange provides, this credit is designed to encourage increased activity on Nasdaq and NOM. Nasdaq believes that the proposed Nasdaq volume requirement that is needed to qualify for the credit is equitable because it is more closely aligned with the current NOM volume requirement that is also needed to qualify for the credit, and is also more closely aligned with the amount of the credit itself. Nasdaq believes that the proposed requirement for qualifying for the credit is proportionate to the amount of the credit and equitably reflects the purpose of the credit, which is to incentivize members to transact greater volume on Nasdaq and NOM.
Finally, the Exchange notes that the proposed volume threshold is consistent with other volume-based credits that the Exchange offers to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity. Nasdaq currently offers a variety of credits for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that add liquidity, some of which are linked to activity on NOM and some of which relate to activity on Nasdaq only, which range from $0.0015 per share executed to $0.00305 per share executed, and which apply progressively more stringent requirements in return for higher per share executed credits.
Here, the member would receive a $0.0030 per share credit for adding liquidity of at least 0.12% of Consolidated Volume on Nasdaq, and adding Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% or more of total industry ADV in the customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option contracts per day during the month on NOM. In comparison, the Exchange currently offers a credit of $0.0027 per share executed if the member added liquidity during the month representing more than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, and added Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options of 0.40% or more of total industry ADV in the customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option contracts per day in a month on NOM.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
With respect to the proposed change to the Nasdaq Growth Program, participation in the Program is voluntary. The proposed change will provide members with another way in which they may qualify for the Program, and will apply equally to all members who otherwise qualify for the Program and that elect to meet the requirements under Rule 7014(j)(ii)(C).
With respect to the proposed change to the volume requirement for the credit for adding liquidity on Nasdaq and NOM, the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and are subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The new volume requirement applies equally to all members, and all similarly situated members are equally capable of qualifying for the credit if they choose to meet the new volume and current volume requirements. Moreover, the same credit will be paid to all members that qualify for the proposed and current volume requirements. Finally, the proposed change is designed to reward market-improving behavior by more closely aligning a requirement necessary to qualify for the credit with the actual credit. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that this proposed change will impose any burden on competition, but may rather promote competition.
In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 27, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On December, 20, 2016, the Commission extended to February 15, 2017, the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
Currently, under Exchange Rule 104—Equities (g)(i)(A)(III), a DMM with a long (short) position in a security cannot, during the last ten minutes before the close of trading, make a purchase (sale) in that security that results in a new high (low) price on the Exchange for that day.
The Exchange asserts that, in light of developments in the equity markets and in the Exchange's own trading model, Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) has lost its original purpose and utility.
The Exchange argues that the rationale behind preventing specialists from setting the price of a security on the Exchange in the final ten minutes of
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 is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition was originally approved as part of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) pilot program called the “New Market Model
Under the proposal, the Exchange seeks to eliminate the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition—an obligation imposed on DMMs—thereby altering the existing set of obligations and benefits of DMM status. Accordingly, the Commission seeks public comment on whether the Exchange's proposal would maintain an appropriate balance between the benefits and obligations of being a DMM on the Exchange and whether the obligations of DMMs under remaining Exchange rules are reasonably designed to prevent DMMs from inappropriately influencing or manipulating the close in light of DMMs' special responsibility for closing auctions under Exchange rules.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which 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 disapproved by March 15, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 29, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to increase the BX Options Market port fees and institute a fee cap at Chapter XV Section 3.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the BX Options Market port fees and institute a fee cap at Chapter XV Section 3(b).
Under the Chapter XV Section 3(b), the Exchange assesses an Options Participant $200 per port, per month, per mnemonic
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that increasing the fee assessed for Order Entry Ports, CTI Ports, BX Depth Ports, BX TOP Ports, and Order Entry DROP Ports to $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic is reasonable because it is competitive with the fees of other exchanges. Specifically, The NASDAQ Stock Market assesses $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic for comparable connectivity under Nasdaq Options Market Rules Chapter XV, Section 3(b). Moreover, the Exchange notes that it has not increased fees for the connectivity provided under the rule since it adopted the connectivity options on January 2, 2015,
The Exchange believes that increasing the fee assessed for Order Entry Ports, CTI Ports, BX Depth Ports, BX TOP Ports, and Order Entry DROP Ports to $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the increased fee will apply to all Options Participants that have, or are seeking, the connectivity provided under the rule. As noted above, the Exchange is increasing the fees under the rule to align them with the costs associated with offering the ports as well as to allow the Exchange to realize a profit. The Exchange believes that the proposed $7,500 fee cap is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the any Options Participant that subscribes to connectivity under the rule that would otherwise exceed $7,500 per month will have its fees capped. Although Options Participants that do not have fees under the rule in excess of $7,500 per month will not benefit from the fee cap, the Exchange notes that any Options Participant may increase the number of ports subscribed to receive the fee cap, should their activity on the BX Options Market warrant increased subscription. Moreover, Options Participants that do not qualify for the fee cap will benefit from the greater liquidity provided by Options Participants that conduct a sufficient level of activity on the BX Options Market to require connectivity in excess of the fee cap.
The Exchange notes that it is not amending or applying a fee limitation to SQF Port Fees, which are also provided under BX Options Market Rules Chapter XV Section 3(b).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed for Order Entry Ports, CTI Ports, BX Depth Ports, BX TOP Ports, and Order Entry DROP Ports under BX Options Market Rules Chapter XV Section 3(b) do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's connectivity services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. To the extent that the changes are viewed unfavorably by Options Participants, the proposed fees increase and fee cap may result in the Exchange losing subscribership and market participation, which would likely benefit other exchanges and trading venues. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Options Participants or competing order execution venues to maintain their
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N–8B–4 (17 CFR 274.14) is the form used by face-amount certificate companies to comply with the filing and disclosure requirements imposed by Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–8(b)). Among other items, Form N–8B–4 requires disclosure of the following information about the face-amount certificate company: Date and form of organization; controlling persons; current business and contemplated changes to the company's business; investment, borrowing, and lending policies, as well as other fundamental policies; securities issued by the company; investment adviser; depositaries; management personnel; compensation paid to directors, officers, and certain employees; and financial statements. The Commission uses the information provided in the collection of information to determine compliance with Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Form N–8B–4 and the burden of compliance have not changed since the last approval. Each registrant files Form N–8B–4 for its initial filing and does not file post-effective amendments to Form N–8B–4.
The information provided on Form N–8B–4 is mandatory. The information provided on Form N–8B–4 will not be kept confidential. 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.
Written 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 will have practical utility;
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 17f–5 (17 CFR 270.17f–5) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a] (the “Act”) governs the custody of the assets of registered management investment companies (“funds”) with custodians outside the United States. Under rule 17f–5, a fund or its foreign custody manager (as delegated by the fund's board) may maintain the fund's foreign assets in the care of an eligible fund custodian under certain conditions. If the fund's board delegates to a foreign custody manager authority to place foreign assets, the fund's board must find that it is reasonable to rely on each delegate the board selects to act as the fund's foreign custody manager. The delegate must agree to provide written reports that notify the board when the fund's assets are placed with a foreign custodian and when any material change occurs in the fund's custody arrangements. The delegate must agree to exercise reasonable care, prudence, and diligence, or to adhere to a higher standard of care. When the foreign custody manager selects an eligible foreign custodian, it must determine that the fund's assets will be subject to reasonable care if maintained with that custodian, and that the written contract that governs each custody arrangement will provide reasonable care for fund assets. The contract must contain certain specified provisions or others that provide at least equivalent care. The foreign custody manager must establish a system to monitor the performance of the contract and the appropriateness of continuing to maintain assets with the eligible foreign custodian.
The collection of information requirements in rule 17f–5 are intended to provide protection for fund assets maintained with a foreign bank custodian whose use is not authorized by statutory provisions that govern fund custody arrangements,
The requirements that the foreign custody manager determine that fund assets will be subject to reasonable care with the eligible foreign custodian and under the custody contract, and that each contract contain specified provisions or equivalent provisions, are intended to ensure that the delegate has evaluated the level of care provided by the custodian, that it weighs the adequacy of contractual provisions, and that fund assets are protected by minimal contractual safeguards. The requirement that the foreign custody manager establish a monitoring system is intended to ensure that the manager periodically reviews each custody arrangement and takes appropriate action if developing custody risks may threaten fund assets.
Commission staff estimates that each year, approximately 97 registrants
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation date of its functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality.
There is no rule text for this proposed rule change.
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.
BX is filing this proposal to extend the implementation date of its functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality. The functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging was approved by the SEC on November 10, 2016,
Under the new Post-Only functionality, the behavior of Post-Only orders would be altered when the adjusted price of such orders lock or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book. Specifically, if the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only order would be posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order. However, the Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more, or (ii) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Exchange Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Exchange Book and subsequently provided liquidity.
Additionally, if the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation but would lock or cross a Non-Displayed Order on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be posted, ranked, and displayed at its limit price. The Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more, or (ii) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Exchange Book equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Exchange Book and subsequently provided liquidity.
BX also proposed to change its Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, so that, if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed, any existing Order with Midpoint Pegging would be rejected and any new Order with Midpoint Pegging would be cancelled.
Under BX's Trade-Now functionality, participants could enter an instruction to have a locked resting buy (sell) order execute against the locking sell (buy) order. BX proposed to offer the functionality on its OUCH, RASH, FLITE and FIX protocols. Depending on the protocol used by the participant to access the BX system, the participant could either specify that the order execute against locking interest automatically, or the participant would be required to send a Trade Now instruction to the Exchange once the order has become locked. BX proposed to offer the Trade Now instruction for all orders that may be sent to the BX book and that are not subject to other BX rules regarding the display and execution of those orders.
BX initially proposed to implement the new Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionality on
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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. As noted above, the purpose of this proposal is to extend the implementation date for Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionalities so that BX may perform additional systems testing prior to implementing these functionalities.
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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Section 19(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a–19(b)) authorizes the Commission to regulate registered
Commission staff estimates that five funds will file an application under rule 19b–1(e) each year.
Commission staff estimates that there is no hour burden associated with complying with the collection of information component of rule 19b–1(c).
As noted above, Commission staff understands that funds that file an application under rule 19b–1(e) generally use outside counsel to prepare the application.
The Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 2,579 UITs
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 control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
On October 27, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On December, 20, 1016, the Commission extended to February 15, 2017, the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
Currently, under Exchange Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III), a DMM with a long (short) position in a security cannot, during the last ten minutes before the close of trading, make a purchase (sale) in that security that results in a new high (low) price on the Exchange for that day.
The Exchange asserts that, in light of developments in the equity markets and in the Exchange's own trading model, Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) has lost its original purpose and utility.
The Exchange argues that the rationale behind preventing specialists from setting the price of a security on the Exchange in the final ten minutes of trading was to prevent specialists from inappropriately influencing the price of a security at the close to advantage a specialist's proprietary position.
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 is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition was originally approved as part of the NYSE pilot program called the “New Market Model.
Under the proposal, the Exchange seeks to eliminate the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition—an obligation imposed on DMMs—thereby altering the existing set of obligations and benefits of DMM status. Accordingly, the Commission seeks public comment on whether the Exchange's proposal would maintain an appropriate balance between the benefits and obligations of being a DMM on the Exchange and whether the obligations of DMMs under remaining Exchange rules are reasonably designed to prevent DMMs from inappropriately influencing or manipulating the close in light of DMMs' special responsibility for closing auctions under Exchange rules.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which 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 disapproved by March 15, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 29, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation date of its functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality.
There is no rule text for this proposed rule change.
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
Nasdaq is filing this proposal to extend the implementation date of its functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality. The functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging was approved by the SEC on November 10, 2016,
Under the new Post-Only functionality, the behavior of Post-Only orders would be altered when the adjusted price of such orders lock or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book. Specifically, if the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only order would be posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order. However, the Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Nasdaq Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or (ii) it is priced at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds $0.01 per share.
Additionally, if the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation but would lock or cross a Non-Displayed Order on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be posted, ranked, and displayed at its limit price. The Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Nasdaq Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or (ii) it is priced at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book equals or exceeds $0.01 per share.
Nasdaq also proposed to change its Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, so that, if the NBBO is crossed, any existing Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order would be cancelled and any new Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order would be rejected. Similarly, if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed, any existing Order with Midpoint Pegging would be rejected and any new Order with Midpoint Pegging would be cancelled.
Under Nasdaq's Trade-Now functionality, participants could enter an instruction to have a locked resting buy (sell) order execute against the locking sell (buy) order. Nasdaq proposed to offer the functionality on its OUCH, RASH, FLITE and FIX protocols. Depending on the protocol used by the participant to access the Nasdaq system, the participant could either specify that the order execute against locking interest automatically, or the participant would be required to send a Trade Now instruction to the Exchange once the order has become locked. Nasdaq proposed to offer the Trade Now instruction for all orders that may be sent to the continuous Nasdaq book, and did not offer the instruction for orders that do not execute on the continuous book.
Nasdaq initially proposed to implement the new Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionality on November 21, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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. As noted above, the purpose of this proposal is to extend the implementation date for Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionalities so that Nasdaq may perform additional systems testing prior to implementing these functionalities.
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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a–22 requires all registered clearing agencies to file with the Commission three copies of all materials they issue or make generally available to their participants or other entities with whom they have a significant relationship. The filings with the Commission must be made within ten days after the materials are issued or made generally available. When the Commission is not the clearing agency's appropriate regulatory agency, the clearing agency must file one copy of the material with its appropriate regulatory agency.
The Commission is responsible for overseeing clearing agencies and uses the information filed pursuant to Rule 17a–22 to determine whether a clearing agency is implementing procedural or policy changes. The information filed aides the Commission in determining whether such changes are consistent with the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. Also, the Commission uses the information to determine whether a clearing agency has changed its rules without reporting the actual or prospective change to the Commission as required under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.
The respondents to Rule 17a–22 are registered clearing agencies. The frequency of filings made by clearing agencies pursuant to Rule 17a–22 varies but on average there are approximately 200 filings per year per active clearing agency. There are seven active registered clearing agencies. The Commission staff estimates that each response requires approximately .25 hours (fifteen minutes), which represents the time it takes for a staff person at the clearing agency to properly identify a document subject to the rule, print and makes copies, and mail that document to the Commission. Thus, the total annual burden for all active clearing agencies is 350 hours (7 clearing agencies multiplied by 200 filings per clearing agency multiplied by .25 hours) and a total of 50 hours (1400 responses multiplied by .25 hours, divided by 7 active clearing agencies) per year are expended by each respondent to comply with the rule.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.
Section 17(d) (15 U.S.C. 80a–17(d)) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) authorizes the Commission to adopt rules that protect funds and their security holders from overreaching by affiliated persons when the fund and the affiliated person participate in any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan. Rule 17d–1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.17d–1) prohibits funds and their affiliated persons from participating in a joint enterprise, unless an application regarding the transaction has been filed with and approved by the Commission. Paragraph (d)(3) of the rule provides an exemption from this requirement for any loan or advance of credit to, or acquisition of securities or other property of, a small business concern, or any agreement to do any of the foregoing (“investments”) made by a small business investment company (“SBIC”) and an affiliated bank, provided that reports about the investments are made on forms the Commission may prescribe. Rule 17d–2 (17 CFR 270.17d–2) designates Form N–17D–1 (17 CFR 274.00) (“form”) as the form for reports required by rule 17d–1.
SBICs and their affiliated banks use form N–17D–1 to report any contemporaneous investments in a small business concern. The form provides shareholders and persons seeking to make an informed decision about investing in an SBIC an opportunity to learn about transactions of the SBIC that have the potential for self-dealing and other forms of overreaching by affiliated persons at the expense of shareholders.
Form N–17D–1 requires SBICs and their affiliated banks to report identifying information about the small business concern and the affiliated bank. The report must include, among other things, the SBIC's and affiliated bank's outstanding investments in the small business concern, the use of the proceeds of the investments made during the reporting period, any changes in the nature and amount of the affiliated bank's investment, the name of any affiliated person of the SBIC or the affiliated bank (or any affiliated person of the affiliated person of the SBIC or the affiliated bank) who has any interest in the transactions, the basis of the affiliation, the nature of the interest, and the consideration the affiliated person has received or will receive.
Up to two SBICs may file the form in any year.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. 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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) (“Paperwork Reduction Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.
Rule 17f–7 (17 CFR 270.17f–7) permits a fund under certain conditions to maintain its foreign assets with an eligible securities depository, which has to meet minimum standards for a
The collection of information requirements in rule 17f–7 are intended to provide workable standards that protect funds from the risks of using foreign securities depositories while assigning appropriate responsibilities to the fund's primary custodian and investment adviser based on their capabilities. The requirement that the foreign securities depository meet specified minimum standards is intended to ensure that the depository is subject to basic safeguards deemed appropriate for all depositories. The requirement that the fund or its adviser must receive from the primary custodian (or its agent) an initial risk analysis of the depository arrangements, and that the fund's contract with its primary custodian must state that the custodian will monitor risks and promptly notify the fund or its adviser of material changes in risks, is intended to provide essential information about custody risks to the fund's investment adviser as necessary for it to approve the continued use of the depository. The requirement that the primary custodian agree to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide assurances that its services and the information it provides will meet an appropriate standard of care.
The staff estimates that each of approximately 992 investment advisers
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule's permission for funds to maintain their assets in foreign custodians. The information provided under rule 17f–7 will not be kept confidential. 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.
Written 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 has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 101—Activities by Distribution Participants—prohibits distribution participants from purchasing activities at specified times during a distribution of securities. Persons otherwise covered by this rule may seek to use several applicable exceptions such as a calculation of the average daily trading volume of the securities in distribution, the maintenance of policies regarding information barriers between their affiliates, and the maintenance of a written policy regarding general compliance with Regulation M for de minimus transactions.
There are approximately 1550 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 30,218 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes on average approximately 19.495 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 30,218 burden hours. The total estimated internal labor compliance cost for the respondents is approximately $1,964,170.00, resulting in an estimated internal labor cost of compliance for each respondent per
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title of the collection of information is: “Exemption for Certain Multi-State Investment Advisers (Rule 203A–2(d)).” Its currently approved OMB control number is 3235–0689. 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.
Pursuant to section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b–3a), an investment adviser that is regulated or required to be regulated as an investment adviser in the state in which it maintains its principal office and place of business is prohibited from registering with the Commission unless that adviser has at least $25 million in assets under management or advises a Commission-registered investment company. Section 203A also prohibits from Commission registration an adviser that: (i) Has assets under management between $25 million and $100 million; (ii) is required to be registered as an investment adviser with the state in which it maintains its principal office and place of business; and (iii) if registered, would be subject to examination as an adviser by that state (a “mid-sized adviser”). A mid-sized adviser that otherwise would be prohibited may register with the Commission if it would be required to register with 15 or more states. Similarly, Rule 203A–2(d) under the Act (17 CFR 275.203a–2(d)) provides that the prohibition on registration with the Commission does not apply to an investment adviser that is required to register in 15 or more states. An investment adviser relying on this exemption also must: (i) Include a representation on Schedule D of Form ADV that the investment adviser has concluded that it must register as an investment adviser with the required number of states; (ii) undertake to withdraw from registration with the Commission if the adviser indicates on an annual updating amendment to Form ADV that it would be required by the laws of fewer than 15 states to register as an investment adviser with the state; and (iii) maintain in an easily accessible place a record of the states in which the investment adviser has determined it would, but for the exemption, be required to register for a period of not less than five years from the filing of a Form ADV relying on the rule.
Respondents to this collection of information are investment advisers required to register in 15 or more states absent the exemption that rely on rule 203A–2(d) to register with the Commission. The information collected under rule 203A–2(d) permits the Commission's examination staff to determine an adviser's eligibility for registration with the Commission under this exemptive rule and is also necessary for the Commission staff to use in its examination and oversight program. This collection of information is codified at 17 CFR 275.203a–2(d) and is mandatory to qualify for and maintain Commission registration eligibility under rule 203A–2(d). Responses to the recordkeeping requirements under rule 203A–2(d) in the context of the Commission's examination and oversight program are generally kept confidential.
The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the collection of information requirements under the rule is 142. These advisers will incur an average one-time initial burden of approximately 8 hours, and an average ongoing burden of approximately 8 hours per year, to keep records sufficient to demonstrate that they meet the 15-state threshold. These estimates are based on an estimate that each year an investment adviser will spend approximately 0.5 hours creating a record of its determination whether it must register as an investment adviser with each of the 15 states required to rely on the exemption, and approximately 0.5 hours to maintain these records. Accordingly, we estimate that rule 203A–2(d) results in an annual aggregate burden of collection for SEC-registered investment advisers of a total of 1,136 hours. Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE.,
Maritime Administration
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 24, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2017–0026. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CHATON MOUILLE' is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships with Covered Funds.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–00309, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649–5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The OCC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of this collection.
Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act added a new section 13 to the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act) (codified at 12 U.S.C. 1851) that generally prohibits any banking entity from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund, subject to certain exemptions.
Section 44.12(e) states that, upon application by a banking entity, the Board may extend the period of time to meet the requirements on ownership limitations under § 44.12(a)(2)(i) for up to 2 additional years, if the Board finds that an extension would be consistent with safety and soundness and not detrimental to the public interest. An application for extension must: (1) Be submitted to the Board at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the applicable time period; (2) provide the reasons for application including information that addresses the factors in § 44.12(e)(2); and (3) explain the banking entity's plan for reducing the permitted investment in a covered fund through redemption, sale, dilution, or other methods as required in § 44.12(a)(2).
Section 44.20(d) provides that a banking entity engaged in proprietary trading activity permitted under subpart B of part 44 must comply with the reporting requirements described in Appendix A if: (1) The banking entity (other than a foreign banking entity as provided in § 44.20(d)(1)(ii)) has, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, trading assets and liabilities (excluding trading assets and liabilities involving obligations of or guaranteed by the United States or any agency of the United States) the average gross sum of which (on a worldwide consolidated basis) over the previous consecutive four quarters, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equals or exceeds the threshold established in § 44.20(d)(2); (2) in the case of a foreign banking entity, the average gross sum of the trading assets and liabilities of the combined U.S. operations of the foreign banking entity (including all subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, and agencies of the foreign banking entity operating, located, or organized in the United States and excluding trading assets and liabilities involving obligations of or guaranteed by the United States or any agency of the United States) over the previous consecutive four quarters, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equals or exceeds the threshold established in § 44.20(d)(2); or (3) the OCC notifies the banking entity in writing that it must satisfy the reporting requirements contained in Appendix A of part 44. The threshold for reporting is: (1) $50 billion beginning on June 30, 2014; (2) $25 billion beginning on April 30, 2016; and (3) $10 billion beginning on December 31, 2016. Under the 2014 final rule, a banking entity with $50 billion or more in trading assets and liabilities must report the information required by Appendix A for each calendar month within 30 days of the end of the relevant calendar month. Beginning with information for the month of January 2015, such information must be reported within 10 days of the end of that calendar month. The OCC may notify a banking entity in writing that it must report on a different basis. Any other banking entity subject to Appendix A shall report the information required by Appendix A for each calendar quarter within 30 days of the end of that calendar quarter unless the OCC notifies the banking entity in writing that it must report on a different basis. Appendix A requires banking entities to furnish the following quantitative measurements for each trading desk of the banking entity: (1) Risk and Position Limits and Usage; (2) Risk Factor Sensitivities; (3) Value-at-Risk (VaR) and stress VaR; (4) Comprehensive Profit and loss Attribution; (5) Inventory Turnover; (6) Inventory Aging; and (7) Customer-Facing Trade Ratio.
Section 44.3(d)(3) specifies that proprietary trading does not include any purchase or sale of a security by a banking entity for the purpose of liquidity management in accordance with a documented liquidity management plan of the banking entity that: (1) Specifically contemplates and authorizes the particular securities to be used for liquidity management purposes, the amount, types, and risks of these securities that are consistent with liquidity management, and the liquidity circumstances in which the particular securities may or must be used; (2) requires that any purchase or sale of securities contemplated and authorized by the plan be principally for the purpose of managing the liquidity of the banking entity, and not for the purpose of short-term resale, benefitting from actual or expected short-term price movements, realizing short-term arbitrage profits, or hedging a position taken for such short-term purposes; (3) requires that any securities purchased or sold for liquidity management purposes be highly liquid and limited to securities the market, credit, and other risks of which the banking entity does not reasonably expect to give rise to appreciable profits or losses as a result of short-term price movements; (4) limits any securities purchased or sold for liquidity management purposes, together with any other instruments purchased or sold for such purposes, to an amount that is consistent with the banking entity's near-term funding
Section 44.4(b)(3)(i)(A) provides that a trading desk or other organizational unit of another entity with $50 billion or more in trading assets and liabilities is not a client, customer, or counterparty unless the trading desk documents how and why a particular trading desk or other organizational unit of the entity should be treated as a client, customer, or counterparty of the trading desk for purposes of § 44.4(b)(2).
Section 44.5(c) requires documentation for any purchase or sale of financial instruments for risk-mitigating hedging purposes that is: (1) Not established by the specific trading desk establishing or responsible for the underlying positions, contracts, or other holdings the risks of which the hedging activity is designed to reduce; (2) established by the specific trading desk establishing or responsible for the underlying positions, contracts, or other holdings the risks of which the purchases or sales are designed to reduce, but that is effected through a financial instrument, exposure, technique, or strategy that is not specifically identified in the trading desk's written policies and procedures established under §§ 44.5(b)(1) or 44.4(b)(2)(iii)(B) as a product, instrument, exposure, technique, or strategy such desk may use for hedging; or (3) established to hedge aggregated positions across two or more trading desks. In connection with any purchase or sale that meets these specified circumstances, a banking entity must, at a minimum and contemporaneously with the purchase or sale, document: (1) The specific, identifiable risk(s) of the identified positions, contracts, or other holdings of the banking entity that the purchase or sale is designed to reduce; (2) the specific risk-mitigating strategy that the purchase or sale is designed to fulfill; and (3) the trading desk or other business unit that is establishing and responsible for the hedge. The banking entity must also create and retain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with § 44.5(c) for at least 5 years in a form that allows the banking entity to promptly produce such records to the OCC on request or such longer period as required under other law or part 44.
Section 44.11(a)(2) requires that covered funds generally must be organized and offered only in connection with the provision of
Section 44.20(b) specifies the contents of the compliance program for a banking entity with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. It includes: (1) Written policies and procedures reasonably designed to document, describe, monitor, and limit trading activities (including those permitted under §§ 44.3 to 44.6), including setting, monitoring, and managing required limits set out in §§ 44.4 and 44.5 and activities and investments with respect to a covered fund (including those permitted under §§ 44.11 through 44.14) conducted by the banking entity to ensure that all activities and investments conducted by the banking entity that are subject to section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44 comply with section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44; (2) a system of internal controls reasonably designed to monitor compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44 and to prevent the occurrence of activities or investments that are prohibited by section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44; (3) a management framework that clearly delineates responsibility and accountability for compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44 and includes appropriate management review of trading limits, strategies, hedging activities, investments, incentive compensation, and other matters identified in part 44 or by management as requiring attention; (4) independent testing and audit of the effectiveness of the compliance program conducted periodically by qualified personnel of the banking entity or by a qualified outside party; (5) training for trading personnel and managers, as well as other appropriate personnel, to effectively implement and enforce the compliance program; and (6) records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44, which a banking entity must promptly provide to the OCC upon request and retain for a period of no less than 5 years or such longer period as required by the OCC.
Section 44.20(c) specifies that the compliance program of a banking entity must satisfy the requirements and other standards contained in Appendix B, if: (1) The banking entity engages in proprietary trading permitted under subpart B of part 44 and is required to comply with the reporting requirements of § 44.20(d); (2) the banking entity has reported total consolidated assets as of the previous calendar year end of $50 billion or more or, in the case of a foreign banking entity, has total U.S. assets as of the previous calendar year end of $50 billion or more (including all subsidiaries, affiliates, branches and agencies of the foreign banking entity operating, located or organized in the United States); or (3) the OCC notifies the banking entity in writing that it must satisfy the requirements and other standards contained in Appendix B. Appendix B provides enhanced minimum standards for compliance programs for banking entities that meet any of the thresholds in § 44.20(c) as described above. Appendix B sets forth standards with respect to the establishment, oversight, maintenance, and enforcement by banking entities of the enhanced compliance program for ensuring and monitoring compliance with the prohibitions and restrictions on proprietary trading and covered fund activities and investments set forth in section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44. The program must: (1) Be reasonably designed to identify, document, monitor, and report the permitted trading and covered fund activities and investments; identify, monitor, and promptly address the risk of these covered activities and investments and potential areas of noncompliance; and prevent activities or investments prohibited by, or that do not comply with, section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44; (2) establish and enforce appropriate limits on covered activities and investments, including limits on size, scope, complexity, and risks of individual activities or investments consistent with the requirements of section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44; (3) subject the effectiveness of the compliance program to periodic independent review and testing, and ensure that the entity's internal audit, corporate compliance, and internal control functions involved in review and testing are effective and
Section 44.20(d) provides that a banking entity engaged in certain proprietary trading activity must comply with the reporting requirements described in Appendix A if the banking entity's trading activity meets or exceeds the thresholds set forth in § 44.20(d). A banking entity must also, for any quantitative measurement furnished to the OCC pursuant to § 44.20(d) and Appendix A, create and maintain records documenting the preparation and content of these reports, as well as such information as is necessary to permit the OCC to verify the accuracy of such reports, for a period of 5 years from the end of the calendar year for which the measurement was taken.
Section 44.20(e) specifies additional documentation required for covered funds. Any banking entity that has more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets as reported on December 31 of the previous two calendar years shall maintain records that include: (1) Documentation of the exclusions or exemptions other than sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 relied on by each fund sponsored by the banking entity (including all subsidiaries and affiliates) in determining that such fund is not a covered fund; (2) for each fund sponsored by the banking entity (including all subsidiaries and affiliates) for which the banking entity relies on one or more of the exclusions from the definition of covered fund provided by §§ 44.10(c)(1), 44.10(c)(5), 44.10(c)(8), 44.10(c)(9), or 44.10(c)(10), documentation supporting the banking entity's determination that the fund is not a covered fund pursuant to one or more of those exclusions; (3) for each seeding vehicle described in §§ 44.10(c)(12)(i) or 44.10(c)(12)(iii) that will become a registered investment company or SEC-regulated business development company, a written plan documenting the banking entity's determination that the seeding vehicle will become a registered investment company or SEC-regulated business development company; the period of time during which the vehicle will operate as a seeding vehicle; and the banking entity's plan to market the vehicle to third-party investors and convert it into a registered investment company or SEC-regulated business development company within the time period specified in § 44.12(a)(2)(i)(B); and (4) for any banking entity that is, or is controlled directly or indirectly by a banking entity that is, located in or organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, if the aggregate amount of ownership interests in foreign public funds that are described in § 44.10(c)(1) owned by such banking entity (including ownership interests owned by any affiliate that is controlled directly or indirectly by a banking entity that is located in or organized under the laws of the United States or of any State) exceeds $50 million at the end of two or more consecutive calendar quarters, beginning with the next succeeding calendar quarter, documentation of the value of the ownership interests owned by the banking entity (and such affiliates) in each foreign public fund and each jurisdiction in which any such foreign public fund is organized, calculated as of the end of each calendar quarter, which documentation must continue until the banking entity's aggregate amount of ownership interests in foreign public funds is below $50 million for two consecutive calendar quarters.
Section 44.20(f)(1) applies to banking entities with no covered activities. A banking entity that does not engage in activities or investments pursuant to subpart B or subpart C of part 44 (other than trading activities permitted pursuant to § 44.6(a)) may satisfy the requirements of § 44.20 by establishing the required compliance program prior to becoming engaged in such activities or making such investments (other than trading activities permitted pursuant to § 44.6(a)).
Section 44.20(f)(2) applies to banking entities with modest activities. A banking entity with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or less as reported on December 31 of the previous two calendar years that engages in activities or investments pursuant to subpart B or subpart C of part 44 (other than trading activities permitted under § 44.6(a)) may satisfy the requirements of § 44.20 by including in its existing compliance policies and procedures appropriate references to the requirements of section 13 of the BHC Act and part 44 and adjustments as appropriate given the activities, size, scope, and complexity of the banking entity.
Section 44.11(a)(8)(i) requires that a banking entity clearly and conspicuously disclose, in writing, to any prospective and actual investor in the covered fund (such as through disclosure in the covered fund's offering documents): (1) That any losses in such covered fund will be borne solely by investors in the covered fund and not by the banking entity or its affiliates; therefore, the banking entity's losses in such covered fund will be limited to losses attributable to the ownership interests in the covered fund held by the banking entity and any affiliate in its capacity as investor in the covered fund or as beneficiary of a restricted profit interest held by the banking entity or any affiliate; (2) that such investor should read the fund offering documents before investing in the covered fund; (3) that the ownership interests in the covered fund are not insured by the FDIC, and are not deposits, obligations of, or endorsed or guaranteed in any way, by any banking entity (unless that happens to be the case); and (4) the role of the banking entity and its affiliates and employees in sponsoring or providing any services to the covered fund.
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the information collection burden;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Departmental Offices; Department of the Treasury.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the revision of an information collection that is to be proposed for approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of International Affairs of the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Treasury International Capital Form S, Purchases and Sales of Long-Term Securities by Foreign Residents.
Written comments should be received on or before April 24, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dwight Wolkow, International Portfolio Investment Data Systems, Department of the Treasury, Room 5422, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220. In view of possible delays in mail delivery, please also notify Mr. Wolkow by email (
Copies of the proposed forms and instructions are available on the Treasury's TIC Forms Web page,