Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015–16–02 for all Airbus Model A330 series airplanes. AD 2015–16–02 required revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a revision of the airworthiness limitations items (ALI) document, which provides new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of September 15, 2015 (80 FR 48019, August 11, 2015).
For 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:
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 2015–16–02, Amendment 39–18227 (80 FR 48019, August 11, 2015) (“AD 2015–16–02”). AD 2015–16–02 applied to all Airbus Model A330 series 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 AD 2016–0011, dated January 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations are currently defined and published in the Airbus A330 and A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness limitations applicable to the System Equipment Maintenance Requirements, which are approved by EASA, are specified in Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 4. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
EASA issued AD 2013–0268 (for A330 aeroplanes) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2015–16–02] and AD 2013–0269 (for A340 aeroplanes) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014–23–17, Amendment 39–18033 (79 FR 71304, December 2, 2014) (“AD 2014–23–17”)] to require the actions as specified in Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 4 at Revision 04 and Revision 03, respectively.
Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, Airbus issued Revision 05 and Revision 04, respectively, of Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 4, which introduce new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013–0268 and AD 2013–0269, which are superseded, and require accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 4 Revision 05, or A340 ALS Part 4 Revision 04, as applicable (hereafter collectively referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD).
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
American Airlines (AAL) requested that Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)—Variation 5.1, dated December 20, 2015 (“Variation 5.1”), also be adopted in the final rule. AAL noted that Variation 5.1 was approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to AD 2015–16–02 via ANM–116–16–272, dated April 13, 2016.
We agree that AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015–16–02 continue to be approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD, as stated in paragraph (l)(1)(ii) of this AD. We also agree to include Variation 5.1 as a method of compliance for the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD for components specified in Variation 5.1. We have revised paragraph (j) of this AD accordingly.
Airbus requested that we re-open the comment period specified in the NPRM in order to introduce Revision 06 of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR. Airbus pointed out that, since the MCAI was published, multiple new variations to Airbus A330 ALS Part 4 have been issued and have been or are being approved by EASA. Airbus stated that these variations will be included in Revision 06 of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, which is expected to be approved under Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval in mid-January 2017. Airbus asserted that a new EASA AD will be issued to supersede EASA AD 2016–0011 once Revision 06 is issued.
We disagree. We have determined that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems are necessary to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced control of these airplanes, due to the failure of system components. Therefore, we do not consider that delaying this action by reopening the comment period until such time as the manufacturer's planned service information is released is warranted, since the necessary service information is currently available. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval to use Revision 06 of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR once it is approved and available. We have not changed the AD in this regard.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this 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.
Airbus issued A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015. This service information describes preventative maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations applicable to aircraft systems susceptible to aging effects.
Airbus also issued Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)—Variation 5.1, dated December 20, 2015. This service information describes revising the maintenance or inspection program by increasing the life limits for certain components.
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 104 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 17, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2015–16–02, Amendment 39–18227 (80 FR 48019, August 11, 2015) (“AD 2015–16–02”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330–201, A330–202, A330–203, A330–223, A330–243, A330–223F, A330–243F, A330–301, A330–302, A330–303, A330–321, A330–322, A330–323, A330–341, A330–342, and A330–343 airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before October 19, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a revision of the airworthiness limitations items (ALI) document, which provides new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced control of these airplanes due to the failure of system components.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2015–16–02, with no changes. Within 6 months after September 15, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015–16–02), revise the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4–Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013; and Airbus A330 ALS Part 4–Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1 and Variation 4.2, both dated July 23, 2014. The initial compliance times for the actions are within the applicable compliance times specified in the Record of Revisions pages of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4–Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013; and Airbus A330 ALS Part 4–Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1 and Variation 4.2, both dated July 23, 2014; or within 6 months after September 15, 2015; whichever is later; except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2015–16–02, with references to new service information.
(1) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013; or Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015; define a calendar compliance time for elevator servo-controls having part number (P/N) SC4800–2, SC4800–3, SC4800–4, SC4800–6, SC4800–7, or SC4800–8 as ”August 31, 2004,” the calendar compliance time is June 13, 2007 (34 months after August 13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004–13–25, Amendment 39–13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9, 2004))).
(2) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013; or Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015; define a calendar compliance time for spoiler servo-controls (SSCs) having P/N 1386A0000–01, 1386B0000–01, 1387A0000–01, or 1387B0000–01 as ”December 31, 2003,” the calendar compliance time is November 19, 2005 (13 months after October 19, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004–18–14, Amendment 39–13793 (69 FR 55326, September 14, 2004))).
(3) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013; or Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015; define a calendar compliance time for elevator servo-controls having P/N SC4800–73, SC4800–93, SC4800–103, and SC4800–113 as “June 30, 2008,” the calendar compliance time is September 16, 2009 (17 months after April 16, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008–06–07, Amendment 39–15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12, 2008; corrected April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20367)))).
(4) The initial compliance time for replacement of the retraction brackets of the main landing gear (MLG) having a part number specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (h)(4)(xvi) of this AD is before the accumulation of 19,800 total landings on the affected retraction brackets of the MLG, or within 900 flight hours after April 9, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012–04–07, Amendment 39–16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5, 2012)), whichever occurs later.
(i) 201478303.
(ii) 201478304.
(iii) 201478305.
(iv) 201478306.
(v) 201478307.
(vi) 201478308.
(vii) 201428380.
(viii) 201428381.
(ix) 201428382.
(x) 201428383.
(xi) 201428384.
(xii) 201428385.
(xiii) 201428378.
(xiv) 201428379.
(xv) 201428351.
(xvi) 201428352.
(5) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013; or Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015; define a calendar compliance time for the modification of SSCs on three hydraulic circuits having P/N MZ4339390–01X, MZ4306000–01X, MZ4339390–02X, MZ4306000–02X, MZ4339390–10X, or MZ4306000–10X as “March 5, 2010,” the calendar compliance time is April 14, 2011 (18 months after October 14, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009–18–20, Amendment 39–16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009))) (“AD 2009–18–20”).
(6) Where Note (6) of “ATA 27–64–00 Flight Control—Spoiler Hydraulic Actuation,” of Sub-part 4–2–1, “Life Limits,” of Sub-part 4–2, “Systems Life Limited Components,” of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4–Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013; or Note (17) of Sub-Part 1, “Life Limits,” of Section 3, “System Life-Limited Components,” of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015; define a calendar date of “September 5, 2008,” as a date for the determination of accumulated flight cycles since the aircraft initial entry into service, the date is October 14, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009–18–20).
(7) Where Note (6) of “ATA 27–64–00 Flight Control—Spoiler Hydraulic Actuation,” of Sub-part 4–2–1, “Life Limits,” of Sub-part 4–2, “Systems Life Limited Components,” of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013; or Note (17) of Sub-Part 1, “Life Limits,” of Section 3, “System Life-Limited Components,” of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015; define a calendar compliance time as “March 5, 2010,” for the modification of affected servo controls, the calendar compliance time is April 14, 2011 (18 months after October 14, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009–18–20)).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2015–16–02, with revised compliance language. Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD: After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015. The initial compliance times for the actions specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015, are within the applicable compliance times specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Accomplishing the revision of the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. Revising the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—SEMR—Variation 5.1, dated December 20, 2015, is an acceptable method of compliance for the components specified in the variation.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015–16–02 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016–0011, dated January 13, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.
(ii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)—Variation 5.1, dated December 20, 2015.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 15, 2015 (80 FR 48019, August 11, 2015).
(i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013.
(ii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1, dated July 23, 2014.
(iii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.2, dated July 23, 2014.
(4) For 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:
(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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318–112 airplanes, A319–111, –112, –115, –132, and –133 airplanes, A320–214, –232, and –233 airplanes, and A321–211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment had been delivered and used on several structural parts. This AD requires a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin, cargo compartment, and frame structural parts to determine if aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment was used, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 17, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone: 425–227–1405; 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 Airbus Model A318–112 airplanes, A319–111, –112, –115, –132, and –133 airplanes, A320–214, –232, and –233 airplanes, and A321–211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 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 2015–0219, dated November 3, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318–112 airplanes, A319–111, –112, –115, –132, and –133 airplanes, A320–214, –232, and –233 airplanes, and A321–211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following an Airbus quality control review on the final assembly line, it was discovered that aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment were delivered by a supplier for several structural parts. The results of the investigations highlighted that 1% of the stock could be impacted by this wrong material.
Structural investigations demonstrated the capability to sustain the static limits loads, and sufficient fatigue life up to a certain inspection threshold.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the aeroplane structural integrity following fatigue load.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320–53–1292, SB A320–53–1293, and SB A320–53–1294 to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time Special Detailed Inspection (SDI) [
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.
Virgin America asked that we include the correction in Airbus Technical Adaptation (TA) 80095365/011/2016, Issue 1, dated December 1, 2016, to Figure A–GVAAA and Figure A–GRAAA of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015, in this AD. Virgin America stated that the parts shown in Figure A–GVAAA and Figure A–GRAAA and highlighted for inspection are the four hinge brackets identified as having part number (P/N) “D4918518320201, A-profile.” However, the correct identification is P/N “D4918518320200, A-profile.” Virgin America noted that Airbus issued TA 80095365/011/2016, Issue 1, to update Figure A–GVAAA and Figure A–GRAAA of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015, to identify the correct part number. Virgin America also stated that the TA specified that Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293 is currently under revision and the correction will be included when the revision is issued.
We agree with the commenter's request to include the specified correction. We have added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to provide an exception to Figure A–GVAAA of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015, which is needed for compliance with paragraph (g) of this AD. However, Figure A–GRAAA, “Reporting Sheet,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015, is not needed for compliance with this AD. We have added a note to paragraph (h) of this AD to provide the information in Airbus Technical Adaptation (TA) 80095365/011/2016, Issue 1, dated December 1, 2016, which specifies the corrected information for Figure A–GVAAA and Figure A–GRAAA of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015. We have also added paragraph (j) to clarify that reporting is not required by this AD; however, reporting is recommended for research and tracking. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
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.
We reviewed the following service information:
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1292, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 30, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1294, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015.
The service information describes procedures for a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin, cargo compartment, and frame structural parts to determine if aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. These documents are distinct since they
We estimate that this AD affects 46 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it takes about 6 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 $23,460, or $510 per product.
We have received no definitive data that enables 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 April 17, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category; manufacturer serial numbers 4895, 4903, 4911, 4919, 4929, 4938, 4942, 4944, 4946, 4948, and 4951, 4956 through 5541 inclusive, 5544, 5547, 5550, 5551, 5553, 5556, 5559, 5561, 5562, 5563, 5565, 5566, 5570, 5572, 5576, and 5578.
(1) Airbus Model A318–112 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319–111, –112, –115, –132, and –133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320–214, –232, and –233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321–211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment had been delivered and used on several structural parts. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace structural parts made of aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment. This condition could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness: Do a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of the cabin, cargo compartment, and frame structural parts identified in the “Affected P/N (part number)” column of tables 1, 2, and 3 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD to determine if aluminum alloy with inadequate heat treatment was used, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) For cabin structural parts: Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1292, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015.
(2) For cargo compartment structural parts: Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 30, 2015.
(3) For frame structural parts: Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1294, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015.
Where Subtask 531293–832–207–001 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015, specifies inspecting Item 19 of Figure A–GVAAA for material heat treatment conformity, and that figure (incorrectly) identifies the inspection area for Item 19 as the four hinge brackets adjacent to the A-profile, this AD requires inspecting part number D491–85183–202–00, which is the A-profile, and not just the brackets.
Airbus Technical Adaptation 80095365/011/2016, Issue 1, dated December 1, 2016 (“TA”) specifies that for Figure A–GVAAA, Sheet 01, of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015, Item 19 should point to part number D491–85183–202–00 (and not just to the brackets). The TA also specifies that for Figure A–GRAAA, Sheet 01, of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015, the correct Item 19 identification is part number D491–85183–202–00.
If during the measurement required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any affected part number specified in table 1, 2, or 3 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD is found to have a measured value greater than that specified in Figure A–GFAAA, Sheet 01, “Inspection Flowchart,” of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the affected part with the corresponding acceptable replacement part specified in table 1, 2, or 3 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
Although the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015–0219, dated November 3, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1292, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1293, dated July 30, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 30, 2015.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1294, dated July 23, 2015; including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated July 23, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; 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) 2012–08–11 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. AD 2012–08–11 required repetitive inspections for defects and damage of the retract port flexible hoses on the main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuators, and replacement if necessary. This AD continues to require the actions in AD 2012–08–11, requires reorientation of the retraction actuator of the MLG, and removes airplanes from the applicability. This AD was prompted by test results that showed that failure of a retract port flexible hose of a MLG retraction actuator could cause excessive hydraulic fluid leakage. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of May 29, 2012 (77 FR 24351, April 24, 2012).
For Bombardier service information identified in this final rule, 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
Cesar Gomez, Mechanical Systems Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7318; fax 516–794–5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012–08–11, Amendment 39–17028 (77 FR 24351, April 24, 2012) (“AD 2012–08–11”). AD 2012–08–11 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF–2011–14R1, effective May 21, 2015 (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, –401, and –402 airplanes. This AD also removes airplanes from the applicability of AD 2012–08–11. The MCAI states:
Testing has shown that in the event of a main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator retract port flexible hose failure, in-flight vibrations may cause excessive hydraulic fluid leakage. This could potentially lead to an undamped extension of the MLG, which may result in MLG structural failure, leading to an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.
The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the [detailed] inspection [for defects and damage] of the retract port flexible hose and its replacement [installing a new retract port flexible hose], when required, to prevent damage to the MLG caused by undamped gear extensions.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD mandates the reorientation of the MLG Retraction Actuator to prevent hydraulic fluid leakage in the event of a damaged retract port flexible hose.
Airplanes having serial number 4425 and on were modified in production and, therefore, the identified unsafe condition does not apply to these airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Horizon Air requested that the NPRM be revised to refer to Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, Revision B, dated June 18, 2015. As a result, Horizon Air stated that Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, Revision A, dated April 24, 2015, should be included in paragraph (i), “Credit for Previous Actions,” of the proposed AD along with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, dated September 28, 2012.
We agree to refer to the latest service information. We have confirmed that the revised service information does not require any work beyond what was published in the NPRM. We have revised this AD to refer to Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, Revision B, dated June 18, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information for completing certain actions (Modification Summary (ModSum) 4–902418) required by this AD. We have also revised this AD to provide credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, Revision A, dated April 24, 2015.
Contact Air Technik GmbH commented that Canadian AD CF–2011–14R1, effective May 21, 2015, is incorrectly referenced in paragraph (k),
We agree that paragraph (k)(1) of this AD should refer to Canadian AD CF–2011–14R1, effective May 21, 2015. We have revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the available data, including 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 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.
Bombardier, Inc. has issued the following service information.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–105, Revision A, dated April 24, 2015. This service information describes procedures for reworking and reorienting the retraction actuators (ModSum 4–902327).
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, Revision B, dated June 18, 2015. This service information describes procedures for reworking and installing reconfigured hydraulic tube assemblies for the retraction actuators (ModSum 4–902418).
Goodrich Aerospace Canada Ltd. has issued the following service information.
• Goodrich Service Bulletin 46550–32–99 R2, dated February 19, 2015. This service information describes procedures for reworking and reorienting the retraction actuators.
• Goodrich Service Bulletin 46455–32–100 R1, dated March 20, 2013. This service information describes procedures for reworking and installing reconfigured hydraulic tube assemblies for the retraction actuators.
These service bulletins contain different requirements and must be accomplished at the same time. 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 82 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 will be required based on the results of the required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
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.
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 April 17, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012–08–11, Amendment 39–17028 (77 FR 24351, April 24, 2012) (“AD 2012–08–11”).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 through 4424 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by test reports that showed that failure of a retract port flexible hose of a main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator could cause excessive hydraulic fluid leakage. We are issuing this AD to prevent hydraulic fluid leakage in the event of a retract port flexible hose failure; this condition could lead to an undamped extension of the MLG and could result in MLG structural failure, leading to an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012–08–11, with new reference to terminating action. Within 600 flight hours after May 29, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012–08–11), do a detailed inspection for defects and damage of the retract port flexible hose of the left and right MLG retraction actuators, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–89, dated March 22, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours. If any defect or damage is found, before further flight, replace the retract port flexible hose with a new or serviceable retract port flexible hose, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–89, dated March 22, 2011. Doing the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Reorient the MLG retraction actuator by incorporating Bombardier Modification Summaries 4–902418 and 4–902327, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–105, Revision A, dated April 24, 2015; and Goodrich Service Bulletin 46550–32–99 R2, dated February 19, 2015.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, Revision B, dated June 18, 2015; and Goodrich Service Bulletin 46455–32–100 R1, dated March 20, 2013.
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 the service information identified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–105, dated September 28, 2012.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, dated September 10, 2012.
(3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, Revision A, dated April 24, 2015.
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 2012–08–11 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF–2011–14R1, dated May 21, 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 (l)(4), (l)(5), and (l)(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.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–105, Revision A, dated April 24, 2015.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–106, Revision B, dated June 18, 2015.
(iii) Goodrich Service Bulletin 46550–32–99 R2, dated February 19, 2015.
(iv) Goodrich Service Bulletin 46455–32–100 R1, dated March 20, 2013.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 24351, April 24, 2012).
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–89, dated March 22, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For Bombardier 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
(5) For Goodrich service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich Aerospace Canada Ltd., Landing Systems, 1400 South Service Road, West Oakville, ON, Canada L6L 5Y7; telephone +1–877–808–7575; fax: +1–905–825–6320; email:
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action expands the restricted airspace at Farallon De Medinilla Island, Mariana Islands, by designating a new area, R–7201A, that surrounds the existing R–7201. R–7201A encompasses that airspace between a 3 nautical mile (NM) radius and a 12–NM radius of lat. 16°01′04″ N., long. 146°03′31″ E. The new restricted airspace provides the required airspace to conduct military training scenarios using air-to-ground ordnance delivery, naval gunfire, lasers and special operations training.
Effective date 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies special use airspace to support military training and readiness requirements.
On August 25, 2015, the FAA published in the
The NPRM proposed to expand the lateral boundary of restricted area R–7201, which consists of that airspace within a 3–NM radius of lat. 16°01′04″ N., long. 146°03′31″ E., from the current 3–NM to 12–NM radius and rename the restricted area R–7201A.
Subsequently, the FAA decided to retain R–7201, with its 3–NM radius, and designate a new restricted area to surround R–7201, naming the new restricted area R–7201A. R–7201A contains that airspace from a 3–NM radius, out to a 12–NM radius of the same center point. This configuration allows for the activation of either R–7201 or R–7201A alone, or to activate them both simultaneously. The flexibility enables more efficient use of airspace by allowing the using agency to activate only that amount of restricted airspace required for the particular mission to be conducted. The configuration proposed in the NPRM would have resulted in all airspace within a 12–NM radius of the above point being activated even for those missions that would only require a 3–NM radius. Therefore, the FAA determined it is in the public interest to retain R–7201 and establish R–7210A, as described herein, to facilitate the real-time release of airspace when the full 12–NM radius is not required by the user.
Additionally, the using agency name for R–7201 is updated from “Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas,” to “Commander, Joint Region Marianas.” This reflects the current organizational title and matches the using agency for R–7201A.
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 by expanding the restricted airspace at Farallon De Medinilla Island, Mariana Islands. This action designates a new restricted area, R–7201A, consisting of the airspace between a 3–NM radius and a 12–NM radius of lat. 16°01′04″ N., long. 146°03′31″ E. It extends from the surface to FL 600. The time of designation is “By NOTAM, 12 hours in advance.” R–7201A surrounds the existing restricted area, R–7201. R–7201 continues to consist of the airspace within a 3–NM radius of the above point.
This change will accommodate Department of the Navy training involving the use of advanced weapons systems which the current R–7201A airspace does not sufficiently and safely provide. The new restricted airspace also enables the using agency to activate only that amount of restricted airspace needed for the particular mission.
In addition, the using agency name for R–7201 is updated to reflect the current organizational title as described above.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA conducted an independent written re-evaluation and adoption of the Department of the Navy's Final Environmental Assessment (EA)/Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) for the Establishment of Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) airspace, dated June 13, 2013 (hereinafter “the FEA/OEA”), for which the FAA was a cooperating agency, and which included the environmental analysis of the establishment of Restricted Area R–7201A at Farallon De Medinilla Island, Marianas Islands, to support the Navy's MIRC airspace requirements. Based on its environmental review, the FAA has determined that the action that is the subject of this rule does not present the potential for significant impacts to the human environment. The FAA's “Written Re-evaluation, Adoption of the EA, Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision (FONSI–ROD),” dated January 26, 2017, is included in the docket for this rulemaking. The FEA/OEA is available at
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing “Using agency. Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas,” and adding in its place “Using agency. Commander, Joint Region, Marianas.”
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requirements applicable to the Owens Valley PM
This rule is effective on April 12, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0660. The index to the docket is available electronically at
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415–972–3964,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” mean EPA.
On December 12, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve the Owens Valley 2016 PM
California's obligation to submit the 2016 PM
The EPA provided a 30-day public comment period on our proposed action. The comment period ended on January 11, 2017. We received two public comment letters: One from the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe and one from the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley. The submitted comment letters, which we have summarized and responded to below, are in our docket.
We also recognize the Tribe's comment concerning the scope of the definition of a “project” under CEQA. CEQA is a state law, and the EPA does not have a role in implementing it.
The EPA is approving the Serious area 2016 PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this final action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this final action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). We notified local tribes of our proposed approval and held two tribal consultations during the comment period.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 12, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(483) The following plan was submitted on June 9, 2016, by the Governor's designee. * * *
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD).
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that the Imperial County, California Moderate nonattainment area (“the Imperial County NA”) has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
This rule is effective on May 12, 2017 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by April 12, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0772, at
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415–972–3964,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” mean EPA.
On July 18, 1997, the EPA established NAAQS for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (μm) in diameter (PM
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published initial air quality designations for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM
On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), in response to a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the EPA published a final rule classifying all areas then designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM
Under EPA's longstanding Clean Data Policy, EPA may issue a determination of attainment after notice and comment rulemaking determining that a specific area is attaining the relevant standard.
The EPA issued the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements on July 29, 2016 (effective October 24, 2016).
Upon a determination by EPA that a moderate PM
A CDD does not suspend the requirements for an emissions inventory or new source review.
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.18 and in accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM
The State and the District are the governmental agencies with the authority and responsibility under state law for collecting ambient air quality data within the Imperial County NA. Annually, CARB and the ICAPCD submit monitoring network plans to the EPA. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network as required under 40 CFR part 58. The EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With respect to PM
During the 2013–2015 period, CARB and ICAPCD operated three SLAMS within the Imperial County NA; all three sites are located in the southern portion of Imperial County. The Calexico-Ethel monitoring site is operated by CARB and is located approximately 0.7 miles north of the United States-Mexico border. The Calexico-Ethel monitoring site is the design value site for PM
For the purposes of this proposed action, we reviewed the data for the most recent three-year period (2013–2015) for completeness and determined that the data collected by CARB and the ICAPCD meet the completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at PM
The EPA's evaluation of whether the Imperial County NA has attained the 2006 24-hour PM
Table 1 shows the 24-hour PM
The data show that the 24-hour design value for the 2013–2015 period was equal to or less than 35 μg/m
Today's action also concerns the emissions inventories included in the “Imperial County 2013 State Implementation Plan for the 2006 24-Hour PM
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to the EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and the State satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submission of the 2013 PM
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section of the CAA also provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the date of submission. The EPA's SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The January 9, 2015 SIP submission became complete by operation of law on July 9, 2015.
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area. By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in the area, this section ensures that the base year inventory will include all emissions that contribute to the formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 2006 24-hour PM
A state should include in its SIP submittal documentation explaining how the emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. At the time the 2013 PM
The annual average planning inventories for direct PM
CARB provided annual average and winter daily average inventories for 2008, which it designated as the base year for the 2006 PM
The District and CARB develop an annual emissions inventory for all sources in Imperial County, including separate inventories for winter and summer and an annual average inventory. Point source emissions for the 2008 base year emission inventories were based on this information. Area sources include smaller emissions sources distributed across the nonattainment area. Many small point sources and facilities that are not inventoried individually are estimated as a group and are included in the area source category.
The source categories that generate the most emissions (unpaved roads and tilling and harvesting operations) reflect implementation of PM
The on-road mobile inventories use EMFAC2011 for estimating motor vehicle emissions.
Off-road emissions such as construction, aircraft (military, commercial, and civil), gardening equipment, agricultural equipment, and recreational vehicle emissions were calculated using CARB's 2011 Off-Road Model.
A summary of the Plan's 2008 winter and annual base year inventories is provided in Table 2 below. For a more detailed discussion of the inventories, see the 2013 PM
The inventories in the 2013 PM
The EPA is determining that the Imperial County NA has attained the 2006 24-hour PM
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted base year emissions inventory because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this inventory approval or the CDD, so we are finalizing them without proposing in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
This action makes a clean data determination based on air quality and suspends certain federal requirements, and thus, does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. In addition, under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(484) The following plan was submitted on January 9, 2015, by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
(
(i)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter (PM) from confined animal facilities (CAFs). We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule will be effective on April 12, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0245. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3848,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On December 1, 2016 (81 FR 86662), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the YSAQMD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 12, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(347) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District.
(1) Rule 11.2, “Confined Animal Facilities Permit Program,” adopted on June 14, 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4149.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule; technical correction.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is correcting the final rule served on November 30, 2016, by including one additional Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC) to the group of 14 previously included in the final rule.
This rule is effective on March 21, 2017. Initial reporting under the final rule will begin on March 29, 2017.
Sarah Fancher at (202) 245–0355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339.
On November 30, 2016, the Board adopted a final rule to establish new regulations requiring all Class I railroads and the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office, through its Class I members, to report certain service performance metrics on a weekly, semiannual, and occasional basis.
On January 9, 2017, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) replied to the petition, stating that “despite the fact that TFI's submission hardly constitutes new evidence, the AAR does not object” to the additional STCC. (AAR Reply 1, Jan. 9, 2017.) The Board received no other replies.
The Board will make the technical correction that TFI requests.
The Board will make this correction without additional notice and public comment. As noted, this technical correction to the fertilizer STCCs in 49 CFR pt. 1250 is not contested. The correction is also non-substantive in that it merely corrects the fertilizer STCC list to include all of the relevant codes in accordance with the Board's decision to require certain reporting on fertilizer traffic.
The change to the final rule is set forth in the Appendix to this decision. The only correction to the final rule served on November 30, 2016, is the addition of STCC 2871313 to 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(6). The Board certifies that there is no change to its Regulatory Flexibility or Paperwork Reduction Act analyses in the
1. The Board will grant the unopposed request for a technical correction of the final rule.
2. The final rule set forth below is adopted and will be effective on March 21, 2017. The initial reporting date will be March 29, 2017. Notice of the rule adopted here will be published in the
3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 49, chapter X, subchapter D, part 1250 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected as follows:
49 U.S.C. 1321 and 11145.
(a) * * *
(6) The weekly average of loaded and empty cars, operating in normal movement and billed to an origin or destination, which have not moved in 48 hours or more sorted by service type (intermodal, grain, coal, crude oil, automotive, ethanol, fertilizer (the following Standard Transportation Commodity Codes (STCCs): 2871236, 2871235, 2871238, 2819454, 2812534, 2818426, 2819815, 2818170, 2871315, 2818142, 2818146, 2871244, 2819173, 2871313, and 2871451), and all other). In order to derive the averages for the reporting period, carriers should run a same-time snapshot each day of the reporting period, capturing cars that have not moved in 48 hours or more. The number of cars captured on the daily snapshot for each category should be added, and then divided by the number of days in the reporting period. In deriving this data, carriers should include cars in normal service anywhere on their system, but should not include cars placed at a customer facility; in constructive placement; placed for interchange to another carrier; in bad order status; in storage; or operating in railroad service (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer adjustment.
This action adjusts the previously established 2017 Atlantic bluefish sector transfer amount from the recreational fishery to the commercial fishery. Updated information from 2016 catch estimates indicate that the 2017 transfer amount may be increased, which adjusts the 2017 bluefish recreational harvest limit and commercial quota values. This action notifies the public of these adjustments.
This action is effective March 10, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
The Atlantic bluefish specifications final rule (81 FR 51370; August 4, 2016) that established the initial 2017 commercial quota and recreational harvest limit is accessible via the Internet at
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281–9180.
The regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. In August 2016, we implemented the Atlantic bluefish fishery specifications for the 2016 through 2018 fishing years. These specifications, consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) specification setting process, included the contingency that the estimated sector transfer of quota for 2017 would be re-evaluated and adjusted with realized recreational landings from the preceding year (2016). The process to transfer quota from the recreational to the commercial sector of the bluefish fishery is described in § 648.162(b)(2).
A transfer of quota from the recreational fishery to the commercial fishery is permitted under the FMP up to a commercial fishery quota of 10.5 million lb (4,763 mt), provided the combined expected recreational landings and the commercial quota do not exceed the total allowable landings (TAL), and the recreational fishery is not projected to exceed its harvest limit. The initial 2017 bluefish specifications contained an estimated sector quota transfer based on recreational catch data projected from available 2015 recreational landings. That transfer amount (2,561,747 lb; 1,161 mt) was calculated so that the initial 2017 recreational harvest limit was equal to the expected 2015 recreational landings,
The preliminary 2016 Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) catch estimates for the full year became available in February, providing the most recent complete recreational data for 2016. The 2016 recreational bluefish catch estimate (see Table 1) is lower than the 2015 projected value (11,581,548 lb, 5,253 mt) used to calculate the initial 2017 transfer in the 2016–2018 bluefish specifications, so we are adjusting the transfer amount and resulting quotas accordingly in this notice. Using these updated recreational landings to project 2017 catch, we are implementing an adjusted transfer of 5,033,101 lb (2,282 mt) from the recreational to commercial sector; resulting in a revised harvest limit of 9,653,715 lb (4,379 mt), and a revised commercial quota of 8,542,221 lb (3,874 mt). Consistent with the FMP protocol, we calculated the size of the transfer so that the 2017 recreational harvest limit is equal to the updated 2016 recreational landings estimate, and the final commercial quota does not exceed 10.5 million lb. The adjusted 2017 specifications are shown in Table 1. When final data become available later this spring, we will determine if any adjustments to this transfer amount are necessary.
This sector transfer is included in the Atlantic bluefish regulations, and is therefore consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
As a result of the revised sector transfer of 5,033,101 lb (2,282 mt) described above, the final, adjusted recreational harvest limit for the 2017 bluefish fishery is 9,653,715 lb (4,379 mt). Regardless of this adjustment, and consistent with the recommendation of the Council, the daily recreational possession limit for 2017 remains up to 15 fish per person, with a year-round open recreational season.
As required by regulations and described in § 648.162, the 2016–2018 bluefish specifications set an initial distribution of commercial quota for 2017 among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. Due to the increase in the 2017 commercial quota resulting from this sector quota transfer, these state-by-state allocations are also revised based on percentages specified in the FMP. The final, adjusted state commercial quotas for 2017 are shown in Table 2. No states exceeded their quota in 2016, so we are not implementing any accountability measures for the 2017 fishing year.
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014–08–02 for certain Airbus Model A300 B4–600 and A300 B4–600R series airplanes. AD 2014–08–02 requires modifying the profile of stringer run-outs of both wings, including a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the fastener holes for defects, and repairs if necessary. Since we issued AD 2014–08–02, further analysis in the context of widespread fatigue damage (WFD) concluded that a shorter compliance time is necessary to meet specified requirements to address WFD. This proposed AD would retain the actions required by AD 2014–08–02 and would revise the compliance times. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 27, 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 Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149.
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
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that design approval holders (DAHs) establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
On April 2, 2014, we issued AD 2014–08–02, Amendment 39–17826 (79 FR 21392, April 16, 2014) (“AD 2014–08–02”), for certain Airbus Model A300 B4–600 and A300 B4–600R series airplanes. AD 2014–08–02 was prompted by reports of cracks found in certain bottom wing skin stringers during full-scale fatigue testing and in service. AD 2014–08–02 requires modifying the profile of stringer run-outs of both wings, including a high frequency eddy current inspection of the fastener holes for defects, and repairs if necessary. We issued AD 2014–08–02 to prevent cracking in the bottom wing skin stringers, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.
Since we issued AD 2014–08–02, further analysis in the context of WFD concluded that a shorter compliance time is necessary to meet specified requirements to address WFD.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016–0174, dated August 30, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4–600 and A300 B4–600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During full-scale fatigue testing, cracks were detected in the bottom wing skin stringers at Rib 14. In addition, operators have also reported finding cracks in the same area on in-service aeroplanes.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could impair the structural integrity of the wings.
Additional analysis results showed that the improved design of the stringer run-out was necessary for aeroplanes operating beyond the Extended Service Goal 1.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300–57–6046 Revision 01 to provide modification instructions, and EASA issued AD 2013–0008 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014–08–02], to require the removal of the stringer end run-out plate at stringer 19 on the bottom wing skin and a re-profiling modification of the stringers 10, 11, 12, 17 and 19.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, further analysis in the context of Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD), concluded that a threshold reduction is necessary to meet the WFD requirements. Consequently, Airbus revised SB A300–57–6046 accordingly (now at Revision 03).
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013–0008R1, which is superseded, but reduces the modification threshold, and introduces a pre-mod High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300–57–6046, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015. The service information describes procedures to modify the profile of stringer run-outs of both wings, including a HFEC inspection of the fastener holes for defects, and repairs. It also describes new compliance times for completing the modifications. 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 these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014–08–02, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 63 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $2,360 per product. Based on these figures (accounting for updated work-hour and parts cost estimates), the estimated cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators is $7,715 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for any on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair.
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 27, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014–08–02, Amendment 39–17826 (79 FR 21392, April 16, 2014) (“AD 2014–08–02”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300–B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, and B4–622 airplanes, and Model A300–B4–605R and B4–622R airplanes, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10324 or 10325 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the wing skin stringers are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the bottom wing skin stringers, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014–08–02, with revised compliance time and service information. At the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, whichever occurs earlier, modify the profile of stringer run-outs at rib 14 of both wings, including a high frequency eddy current inspection of the fastener holes for defects and all applicable repairs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6046, Revision 02, dated June 21, 2013; or Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015; except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable repairs before further flight. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6046, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015, may be used.
(1) Before the accumulation of 42,500 total flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles after May 21, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014–08–02), whichever occurs later.
(2) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014–08–02, with revised service information.
(1) Where Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–57–6046, Revision 02, dated June 21, 2013, specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, this AD requires contacting the Manager, ANM–116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent) for repair instructions and doing those repairs before further flight.
(2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6046, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6046, Revision 01, dated April 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6046, dated January 18, 1994, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6046, Revision 02, dated June 21, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2014–08–02.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016–0174, dated August 30, 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 Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E en route airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface to accommodate Instrument
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1–800–647–5527, or (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2016–9476; Airspace Docket No. 16–AWP–28, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E en route airspace at Sacramento, CA, to ensure controlled airspace exists in those areas where the Federal airway structure is inadequate.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2016–9476/Airspace Docket No. 16–AWP–28.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the “
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
Current airspace design is primarily based on airport terminal areas and airways, often leaving small areas of uncontrolled airspace between airports. Class E en route domestic airspace provides controlled airspace in those areas where there is a requirement to provide IFR en route air traffic control services but the Federal airway structure is inadequate.
Numerous smaller Class E en route areas have been established to provide controlled airspace where the airway structure is inadequate; however, as aging ground-based navigation aids are removed from service, the airway structure is reduced, uncovering larger areas of uncontrolled airspace. This action would provide the airway structure necessary for the safe and efficient flow of aircraft within the National Airspace System (NAS).
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to establish Class E en route airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface centered near Sacramento, CA, to support en route IFR operations where the airway structure is inadequate. The en route airspace area would extend from the southern border of the Rogue Valley en route airspace area near Redding, CA, west to include that airspace within 12 miles of the shore line, south to the southern boundary of the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center near Monterey, CA, east to the western boundary of the Coaldale en route airspace area, and northeast to near Reno, NV. This proposal would allow the most efficient routing between airports without reducing margins of safety or requiring additional
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 39°05′16″ N., long. 124°05′00″ W.; to lat. 38°50′52″ N., long. 123°58′27″ to lat. 37°55′05″ N., long. 123°16′37″ W.; to lat. 37°05′15″ N., long. 122°43′32″ W.; to lat. 36°06′41″ N., long. 122°02′23″ W.; to lat. 35°36′08″ N., long. 121°31′31″ W.; to lat. 35°22′02″ N., long. 121°13′48″ W.; to lat. 35°32′00″ N., long. 120°51′00″ W.; to lat. 36°45′00″ N., long. 120°07′00″ W.; to lat. 35°38′00″ N., long. 119°30′00″ W.; to lat. 36°08′00″ N., long. 119°10′00″ W.; to lat. 36°08′00″ N., long. 118°52′00″ W.; to lat. 37°47′57″ N., long. 120°22′00″ W.; to lat. 38°53′30″ N., long. 119°49′00″ W.; to lat. 39°39′28″ N., long. 117°59′55″ W.; to lat. 40°27′51″ N., long. 119°37′10″ W.; to lat. 39°33′53″ N., long. 120°19′02″ W.; thence to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace offshore beyond 12 miles from the shoreline.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Gregory M. Simmons Memorial Airport, Cisco, TX, to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures at the airport for safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826, or 1–800–647–5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2016–9421; Airspace Docket No. 16–ASW–17, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2016–9421/Airspace Docket No. 16–ASW–17.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Gregory M. Simmons Memorial Airport, Cisco, TX, due to the establishment of special instrument approach procedures at the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Gregory M. Simmons Airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 12, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2017–0031 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740–3184, email
On January 10, 2017, Set Up Events notified the Coast Guard that it will be sponsoring the Xterra Myrtle Beach Triathalon from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on April 23, 2017. Approximately 75 swimmers are anticipated to participate in the swim portion of the event, located on certain waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with the swim portion of the Triathalon constitute a safety concern for anyone within the proposed safety zone. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina during the Xterra Myrtle Beach Triathlon, on April 23, 2017. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Intracoastal before, during, and after the scheduled 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. swim portion of the Triathalon. Approximately 75 participants are expected to participate in the swim portion of the race. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. The Coast Guard would provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of two hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
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” comprised of small businesses and 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.
We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons stated in section IV.A. above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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 E.O. 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 a temporary safety zone with a two-hour enforcement period that would prohibit entry to certain waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal waterway during the swim portion of a Triathalon. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843–740–7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that the Imperial County, California Moderate nonattainment area (“the Imperial County NA”) has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 12, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0772 at
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3964,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal pertains to the 2008 winter and annual base year emissions inventories in a plan submitted by the California Air Resources Board to address the attainment planning requirements for the Imperial County NA. It also addresses our determination (also referred to as a clean data determination or CDD) that the Imperial County NA has attained the 2006 24-hour PM
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the parameters for the process in determining whether areas are eligible for funding under the Mobility Fund Phase II. The Commission established the framework for the Mobility Fund Phase II in a Report and Order—adopted concurrently with the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Comments are due on or before April 12, 2017, and reply comments are due on or before April 27, 2017.
All filings in response to the
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Auction and Spectrum Access Division, Mark Montano, at (202) 418–0660.
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
The Further Notice contains proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
1. In the
2. The Commission commits to a robust, targeted challenge process that efficiently resolves disputes about areas eligible for MF–II support. The Commission's overarching objective is to quickly transition away from the legacy competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (CETC) support system, where support was never awarded based on the need to support the deployment of mobile broadband, to a system directed to that policy goal. The Commission's commitment to fiscal responsibility requires that it not fund areas that already have 4G LTE from an unsubsidized provider. At the same time, the Commission wants to ensure that areas that may require support for qualified 4G LTE are eligible for, and potentially receive, MF–II support. The challenge process is an integral part of that determination, to build upon and improve provider-filed and -certified Form 477 data, which remain the best available data source.
3. The Commission recognizes that any challenge process will necessarily involve tradeoffs in terms of burdens imposed on interested parties and the Commission, as well as the timeliness and accuracy. As such, the Commission is committed to designing the challenge process so that it is as efficient as possible. It does not want to unduly burden challenging parties by creating so high an evidentiary standard that it deters stakeholders from challenging even the most obviously mis-categorized areas. Conversely, the Commission is cognizant of the burdens imposed on parties whose coverage is challenged merely on the basis of anecdotal, unsystematic claims—the burdens of having to spend resources to defend coverage areas in Form 477 filings that they have already certified as accurate. The Commission also will take into account that smaller providers will have fewer resources available, and therefore specifically seeks comment on ways in which the burden of the challenge process can be reduced for smaller providers.
4. Additionally, the challenge process must be administratively efficient. As discussed in the
5. The Commission seeks comment on these guiding principles for the challenge process and whether it should take into consideration additional principles as it designs the process. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these principles are furthered by the specific parameters for the challenge process outlined in the Further Notice.
6. In addition, the Commission recognizes that no matter how well engineered, no wireless network has 100 percent reliability. Even in areas of generally good coverage there may be small regions where performance is less than desired, especially due to natural or manufactured obstructions, areas far inside buildings, basements, and so forth. In light of these network characteristics, the Commission asks what standards and guidance will help staff in the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau evaluate challenges and expedite their resolution?
7. The Commission seeks general comment on a couple of potential structures for the challenge process. While the
8.
9. A challenge of an area could be made by either a carrier that is submitting a challenge within its licensed area or a state or local government that is submitting a challenge within its jurisdiction, potentially through a state public utilities commission (PUC). The Commission seeks comment on whether additional parties (carriers that are potential entrants, consumers, etc.) should be allowed to submit challenges.
10. The Commission seeks comment regarding whether it should require that the challenged area be at least a minimum size. Would automatically dismissing de minimis challenges (
11. Moreover, the Commission seeks comment regarding whether it should permit challenges for areas that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureaus) identify as eligible (
12.
13. The Commission seeks comment on the utility of such shapefiles in the challenge process. It recognizes that such maps do not actually portray the consumer's experience throughout the area at issue, given in part that a consumer's experience depends on variables other than signal strength. Nevertheless, such maps may be a reasonable step to build into the challenge process for the purpose of narrowing the areas requiring further evidence to resolve the challenge.
14.
15. Once a challenger submits evidence of actual speeds, what evidence of actual speeds should be accepted from the provider whose coverage is being challenged? How much time should be allowed for the submission of actual speed data?
16.
17. In a recent filing, a large, mid-sized, and small provider submitted a joint proposal for how the Commission should structure the challenge process. The following parameters are based on that joint proposal.
18.
19. Also under the joint proposal, the evidence submitted in a challenge must include a map(s) in shapefile format, of the challenged area. In addition, challenging parties must report actual download speed test data using either actual speed tests or transmitter monitoring data. For the actual speed tests, data from app-based tests (many of which are freely available on consumer devices), and both hardware- and software-based drive tests would be permitted, so long as they met certain standards. For example, with app-based tests and software-based drive tests, late-model LTE devices compatible with a particular carrier's LTE network could be used to measure the speed. What requirements should the Commission adopt for speed tests to ensure that they will be representative of coverage in a disputed area, including those pertaining to time and distance between tests? In considering these issues, the Commission will need to balance the accuracy of any challenge, the burdens on affected parties, and the timeliness of resolution. The challenge evidence must be certified under penalty of perjury.
20.
21. The Commission seeks comment on the burden of requiring this level of response from challenged parties. In particular, should the Commission require the same or reduced evidence from those parties that do not have the burden of proof? The Commission acknowledges that requiring equivalent data from both parties is likely to assist the Bureaus in resolving challenges more efficiently. However, are those efficiency gains outweighed by the burden placed on the challenged party?
22.
23. The Commission seeks comment as well on any additional options that parties may wish to propose. For example, one proposal would require all Form 477 filers whose filings represent a basis for declaring certain areas not eligible for MF–II support to (1) supplement those filings within 60 days of the release of a preliminary list of areas not eligible for MF–II support and (2) notify other service providers in those areas of their supplemented Form 477 filings and their declaration that they provide voice and LTE service in those areas. Those other service providers would have 30 days to challenge those declarations of service.
24. The Commission reiterates that it is not necessarily going to adopt either of the options discussed in the
25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
26. In the
27. In the
28. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
29.
30.
31.
32. In the
33. Under Option A, the challenge would consist of a certification by the challenging party that in a specific area, the party has a good faith belief, based on actual knowledge or past data collection, that there is not 4G LTE with at least 5 Mbps download speed coverage as depicted on Form 477. In support of such a challenge, the party would need to file a shapefile in a standard format of the challenged area. A challenge of an area could be made by either a carrier that is submitting a challenge within its license area or a state or local government that is submitting a challenge within its jurisdiction, potentially through a state PUC. A challenged carrier may respond by submitting an engineering (propagation) map that demonstrates expected coverage for the challenged area. The submission must be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer, under penalty of perjury. Once the challenged carrier has timely submitted a map that shows the challenged area to be within the contour of coverage, the original challenger may submit actual speed data (potentially with supporting signal strength data) from hardware- or software-based drive tests or app-based tests (
34. Under Option B, challenging parties would have 60 days following the Commission's release of a list of eligible areas to submit evidence, which would be filed in the public record. Service providers and governmental entities located in or near the relevant areas would be only parties eligible to participate. The evidence submitted in a challenge must include a map(s) in shapefile format, of the challenged area. In addition, challenging parties must report actual download speed test data using either actual speed tests or transmitter monitoring data. For the actual speed tests, data from app-based tests (many of which are freely available on consumer devices), and both hardware- and software-based drive
35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.” The Commission expects to consider all these factors when it has received substantive comment from the public and potentially affected entities.
36. The Commission has made an effort to anticipate the challenges faced by small entities in complying with its rules. For example, the Commission specifically notes that smaller providers will have fewer resources available, and therefore specifically seeks comment on ways in which it can reduce the burden of the challenge process on smaller providers. The Commission also seeks comment on specific principles of the challenge proposals and ways to make them as efficient as possible for all interested parties, including small entities.
37.
38.
39. More generally, the Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the Further Notice and the IRFA contained therein, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding. The proposals and questions laid out in the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR). Under this initiative, all parts of the regulation are being reviewed in phased increments to revise or remove any policy that has been superseded by changes in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove any procedural guidance that is internal to the VA, and to incorporate any new regulations or policies.
Acquisition regulations become outdated over time and require updating to incorporate additional policies, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that implement and supplement the FAR to satisfy VA mission needs, and to incorporate changes in dollar and approval thresholds, definitions, and VA position titles and offices. This Proposed Rule will correct inconsistencies, remove redundant and duplicate material already covered by the FAR, delete outdated material or information, and appropriately renumber VAAR text, clauses and provisions where required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement.
This Proposed Rule will streamline the VAAR to implement and supplement the FAR only when required, and remove internal agency guidance as noted above in keeping with the FAR principles concerning agency acquisition regulations.
Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017 to be considered in the formulation of the final rule.
Written comments may be submitted through
Mr. Ricky Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services, 003A2A, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 632–5276. This is not a toll-free telephone number.
This action is being taken under the authority of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act which provides the authority for an agency head to authorize the issuance of agency acquisition regulations that implement or supplement the FAR. This authority ensures that Government procurements are handled fairly and consistently, that the Government receives overall best value, and that the Government and contractors both operate under a known set of rules.
The Proposed Rule updates the VAAR to current FAR titles, requirements, and definitions; it updates VA titles and offices; it corrects inconsistencies, removes redundancies and duplicate material already covered by the FAR; it deletes outdated material or information and appropriately renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and provisions where required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement. All amendments, revisions, and removals have been peer reviewed and concurred with by an Integrated Product Team of agency stakeholders.
The VAAR uses the regulatory structure and arrangement of the FAR and headings and subject areas are broken up consistent with the FAR content. The VAAR is divided into subchapters, parts (each of which covers a separate aspect of acquisition), subparts, sections, and subsections.
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act provides the authority for the Federal Acquisition Regulation and for the issuance of agency acquisition regulations consistent with the FAR.
When Federal agencies acquire supplies and services using appropriated funds, the purchase is governed by the FAR, set forth at Title 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter 1, parts 1 through 53, and the agency regulations that implement and supplement the FAR. The VAAR is set forth at Title 48 CFR, chapter 8, parts 801 to 873. These authorities are designed to ensure that Government procurements are handled fairly and consistently, that the Government receives overall best value, and that the Government and contractors both operate under a known set of rules.
VA is proposing to revise the VAAR to add new policy or regulatory requirements and to remove any guidance that is applicable only to VA's internal operating processes or procedures. Codified acquisition regulations may be amended and revised only through formal rulemaking under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This proposed rule will generally be small business neutral. VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action.
VA proposes to make the following changes to the VAAR in this phase of its revision and streamlining initiative. For procedural guidance cited below that is proposed to be deleted from the VAAR, each section cited for removal is being considered for inclusion in VA's internal agency operating procedures in accordance with FAR 1.301(a)(2). Similarly, delegations of authorities that are removed from the VAAR will be included in the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM) as internal agency guidance.
In subpart 816.1, Selecting Contract Types, we propose to delete 816.102, Policies, since it contains procedural guidance and a delegation of authority that is internal to VA and will be in the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM).
We propose to add a new subpart: 816.2, Fixed-Price Contracts. This subpart 816.2 includes one subsection, 816.203–4, Contract clauses, which prescribes the various Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clauses.
In subpart 816.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts, we propose to delete 816.504, Indefinite-quantity contracts, due to the issuance of a Class Deviation from VAAR 816.504, which prohibited the use of estimated quantity clauses.
In subpart 816.5, Infinite-Delivery Contracts, we propose to amend section 816.505, Ordering, to include the title and office of the Task and Delivery Order Ombudsman.
We propose to add a new subpart 816.7, Agreements, that includes one section, 816.770, Consignment agreements, which defines and describes the consignment agreement acquisition method used for satisfying the need for immediate and on-going requirements.
We propose to delete subpart 816.70, Unauthorized Agreements, since the only section included, 816.7001, Letters of availability, covers a procurement method that is no longer in use in VA.
In subpart 828.1, Bonds and Other Financial Protections, we propose to delete section 814.101, Bid guarantees, and subsection 828.101–2, Solicitation provision or contract clause, because the FAR guidance is sufficient in this area. We also propose to delete subsection 828.101–70, Safekeeping and return of bid guarantee, because the information included is considered to be procedural guidance and it will be moved to the VAAM.
In section 828.106, Administration, we propose to delete subsection 828.106–6, Furnishing information, since it includes an internal delegation of authority.
In section 828.106, Administration, we propose to amend subsection 828.106–70, Bond premium adjustment, to clarify the clause prescription.”
In subpart 828.2, Sureties and Other Security for Bonds, we propose to delete the entire subpart since it contains only internal procedural guidance and it will be moved to the VAAM.
In subpart 828.3, Insurance, we propose to amend section 828.306, Insurance under fixed-price contracts, to clarify the clause prescription.
In subpart 828.71, Indemnification of Contractors, Medical Research or Development Contracts, we propose to delete section 828.7101, Approval for indemnification, as it contains only internal procedural information.
In subpart 828.71, Indemnification of Contractors for Medical Research or Development Contracts, we propose to revise the numbering from 828.71 to 828.70 to conform to the FAR drafting guide. Accordingly, under this subpart, we propose to revise the numbering for section 828.7100, Scope of part, to 828.7000; to change the numbering for section 828.7102, Extent of indemnification, to 828.7001; and to revise the numbering of section
In the proposed subpart 828.70, Indemnification of Contractors for Medical Research or Development Contracts, we propose to add a new subsection, 828.7003, Indemnification clause, which prescribes the use of clause 852.228–73, Indemnification of Contractor—Hazardous Research Projects, when certain conditions apply.
In subpart 852.2, we propose to remove clause 852.216–70, Estimated Quantities, as it includes language that codifies contracting practices that are not recommended as they increase the risk level for VA procurements. In this subpart we propose to add clause 852.216–71, Economic price adjustment of contract price(s) based on a price index.
We propose to add the following clauses which are based on VA-specific clauses that were previously uncodified: 852.216–72, Proportional economic price adjustment of contract price(s) based on a price index;” clause 852.216–73, Economic price adjustment—state nursing home care for veterans (ALT #1); add clause 852.216–74, Economic price adjustment—Medicaid labor rates (ALT #2), and clause 852.216–75, Economic price adjustment clause—fuel surcharge.
In subpart 252.2, we propose to amend 852.228–71, Indemnification and insurance, to correct minor typographical and grammatical errors. We propose to add clause 852.228–73, Indemnification of contractor-hazardous research projects, which requires contractors to have appropriate insurance coverage when performing work of a hazardous nature which protects the Government's interest.
Title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 8, Department of Veterans Affairs, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this proposed rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority and publication of the Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) for the cited applicable parts. Other than future amendments to this rule or governing statutes for the cited applicable parts, or as otherwise authorized by approved deviations or waivers in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 1.4, Deviations from the FAR, and as implemented by VAAR subpart 801.4, Deviations from the FAR or VAAR, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with the rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking as pertains to the cited applicable VAAR parts.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review defines “significant regulatory action” to mean any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.”
VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information at 48 CFR 828.306 and 852.228–71, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are associated with this proposed rule. The information collection requirements for §§ 48 CFR 828.306 and 852.228–71 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 2900–0590.
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This proposed rule will generally be small business neutral. The overall impact of the proposed rule will be of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual business resulting from these rule updates. On this basis, the adoption of this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal Governments or on the private sector.
Government procurement.
Government procurement, Insurance, Surety bonds.
Government procurement. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 48 CFR, chapter 8, parts 816, 828, and 852 as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
(e) The contracting officer shall, when contracting by negotiation, use the following clauses.
(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.216–71, Economic Price Adjustment of Contract Price(s) based on a Price Index, in solicitations and firm-fixed-price contracts, subject to FAR 16.203–4(d)(1) and when changes to a price index will be used to calculate corresponding changes to the total contract price or unit prices of the contract.
(i) Exceptions:
(A) Do not use this clause when changes to the price index will apply to only a component part of the contract price.
(B) Do not publish or include the footnotes in the solicitation, they are only included herein to provide guidance to contracting officers.
(2) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.216–72, Proportional Economic Price Adjustment of Contract Price(s) based on a Price Index, in solicitations and firm-fixed-price contracts, and subject to FAR 16.203–4(d)(1) when changes to an industry price index shall be used to calculate changes to only a portion of the contract price or the unit prices of the contract.
(i) Exceptions:
(A) The clause should not be used when a change in the index price will be applied directly and totally to the contract price or the unit prices,
(B) Do not publish or include the footnotes in the solicitation, as they are only provided herein for the guidance to the contracting officer.
(3) The contracting officer shall Insert the clause at 852.216–73, Economic Price Adjustment—State Nursing Home Care for Veterans (ALT #1) in solicitations and firm-fixed-price contracts subject to FAR 16.203–4(d)(1) and the following circumstance: When changes to the Medicaid rate as authorized by the State Medicaid Agency (SMA) shall be used to calculate corresponding changes in the total contract price or the per diem prices of the agreement.
(4) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.216–74, Economic Price Adjustment—Medicaid Labor Rates (ALT #2) in solicitations and firm fixed price contracts when the conditions specified in FAR 16.203–4(c)(1) exist. The clause is modifiable by increasing the 10-percent maximum limit on aggregate increases specified in subparagraph (c)(4), upon the approval by the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) or designee.
(5) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.216–75, Economic Price Adjustment—Fuel Surcharge, in solicitations and firm fixed price contracts when contracting by negotiation is subject to changes in the cost of fuel increases. The clause is subject to the conditions at FAR 16.203–4(d)(1).
(f) The contracting officer shall follow procedures as prescribed in FAR 16.203–4(c) and 38 CFR 51.41(b)(1)(c) for EPA fixed price contracts based on Medicaid rates. These procedures shall be used when contracting by negotiation between the VA and the State Veteran Home for both making payments under contracts or under a VA provider agreement for nursing home care for veterans.
(b)(8) Task-order and delivery-order ombudsman. The task-order contract and delivery-order ombudsman for VA is the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (ADAS) for Procurement Policy, Systems and Oversight. The VA Ombudsman shall review and resolve complaints from contractors concerning all task and delivery order actions. If any corrective action is needed after reviewing complaints from contractors, the VA Ombudsman shall provide a written determination of such action to the contracting officer. Contracting officers shall be notified of any complaints submitted to the VA Ombudsman.
A consignment agreement is not a contract. It is defined as a delivery method for a specified period of time in which the contractor provides an item/s for Government use and the contractor receives reimbursement only if and when the item is used by the Government. Consignment agreements are allowable and shall be considered in those instances when the requirement for an item will be immediate and on-going and when it is impossible to predetermine the type or model of a particular item until the need is established, and it is determined to be in the best interest of the VA.
38 U.S.C. 501, 8127, 8128 and 8151–8153; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.228–70, Bond Premium
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 852.228–71, Indemnification and insurance, in solicitations when utilizing term contracts, or contracts of a continuing nature, for ambulance, automobile and aircraft service.
(a) As used in this subpart, the term “contractor” includes subcontractors of any tier under a contract containing an indemnification provision under 38 U.S.C. 7317.
(b) This subpart sets forth the policies and procedures concerning indemnification of contractors performing contracts involving medical research or research and development that involve risks of an unusually hazardous nature, as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 7317.
(c) The authority to indemnify the contractor under this subpart does not create any rights to third parties that do not exist by law.
(a) * * *
(3) The losses or liability are not covered by the financial protection required under 828.7002.
The contracting officer shall include the clause, 852.228–73, Indemnification of contractor—Hazardous Research Projects, in contracts and solicitations that indemnify a contractor for liability (including reasonable expenses of litigation or settlement) to third person for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property from a risk that the contract defines in the performance work statement, the statement of work, or the statement of objectives as unusually hazardous.
38 U.S.C. 501, 8127, 8128, and 8151–8153; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
As prescribed in 816.203–4(e)(1), insert the following clause:
(a) To the extent that contract cost increases are provided for by this economic price adjustment clause, the contractor warrants that the prices in this contract for the base period and any option periods do not include any amount to protect against such contingent cost increases.
(b) The Base and Adjusting Indexes, for the purpose of price adjustment under this clause, shall be___,
(1) The Base Index, for the purposes of price adjustment under this clause, shall be the most recent Index published prior to the date for receipt of offers, or the due date for receipt of best and final offers if discussions were held whichever is later. The Base Index shall remain constant for the entire term of the contract, including all option periods.
(2) The Adjusting Index shall be the most recent Index published prior to the date of contract adjustment, as specified in paragraph (d) of this clause.
(c) The percentage difference between the Base Index and the Adjusting Index, rounded to the nearest .01 percent (
(d) The dates of contract adjustment shall be___
(e) An example of an adjustment calculation is provided herein for informational purposes only.
(1) The original contract price or line item prices for that contract term (
(2) For purposes of this example, the contract prices for the line items as specified in paragraph (c) will be adjusted by the percentage calculated as follows:
*This figure shall be rounded to the fourth decimal place. When the fifth decimal is 1 to 4, the figure shall be rounded down, 5 to 9, rounded up.
(3) For a line item with an original bid price of $25.00 and a 4.57 percent Index Point Change increase as of the first contract adjustment period, as shown above, the calculations for a new contract price for the first contract adjustment period would be as follows: $25.00 × .0457 = $1.14, $25 + $1.14 = $26.14 **. The new contract price for this line item from the beginning of that first contract adjustment period until the start of the next contract adjustment period would be $26.14 and the contracting officer would issue a contract modification reflecting this price change.
** The unit price adjustment shall be rounded up or down, as in paragraph (e)(1) above, to match the number of decimal places in the original bid.
(4) If the Adjusting Index went down for the second adjustment period, reflecting only a 3 percent Index Point Change increase over the Base Index, the new price for this sample line item would be reduced for the second contract adjustment period from $26.14 to $25.75 as follows: $25 × .03 = $0.75, $25 + $0.75 = $25.75. Note that the calculations for the second contract adjustment period are based on the original contract price for that contract term of $25.00. The contract price for this line item is modified to reflect this new price for the second contract adjustment period.
(5) At the start of the first option year and each subsequent option year period (as well as for each contract adjustment period specified in paragraph (d) during that option year, if different), the contracting officer shall recalculate the contract or unit prices for that first option year based on any changes between the Adjusting Index and the Base Index, from the original contract award date to the start of the first option period, and based on the contractor's new option year prices. Assume the contractor's bid price for the first option year for the above sample line item was $25.50 and the calculations shown in paragraph (e)(1) above at the start of the first option period reflected a 6 percent Index Point Change. The new contract price for this sample line item at the start of the first option period would be calculated as follows: $25.50 × .06 = $1.53, $25.50 + $1.53 = $27.03. The contracting officer would process a contract modification reflecting a revised contract price of $27.03 for the first contract adjustment period in the first option year.
(f) Price adjustments pursuant to this clause, shall be documented by a contract modification issued by the contracting officer, show the Base Index (see paragraph (b)(1)), the Adjusting Index, the adjusted contract prices (see paragraph (c)), the mathematical calculations used to arrive at the adjusted contract prices, and the effective date of the adjustment (see paragraph (d)).
(g) At the start of each option year, the contracting officer shall, within 5 days of the start of the option year period, process a contract modification adjusting the option year prices by the then current Index Point Change percentage, if any, reflecting the new adjusted prices for that first contract adjustment period in that option year.
(h) In the event that ___
(i) Any dispute arising under this clause shall be resolved subject to the “Disputes” clause of the contract.
As prescribed in 816.203–4(e)(2), insert the following clause:
(a) To the extent that contract cost increases are provided for by this economic price adjustment clause, the contractor warrants that the prices in this contract for any option periods do not include any amount to protect against such contingent cost increases.
(b) The cost index, for the purpose of price adjustment under this clause, shall be___
(1) The
(2) The
(c) For purposes of this clause, it will be conclusively presumed that___percent
(d) The percentage of the price of the indexed commodity (see paragraph (c)) remains fixed throughout the life of the contract and is not subject to modification under this clause. Any pricing actions pursuant to the “Changes” clause or other clause or provision of the contract, except for this clause, will be priced as though there were no provisions for economic price adjustment.
(e) All price adjustments shall be applicable only to the specific contract adjustment period to which the calculations are made. For every contract adjustment period, new calculations shall be made and new prices determined. Every adjustment during the Base Year shall be based on the original contract prices for that contract year and every adjustment during an option year shall be based on the original contract prices for that option year. The contracting officer must make new calculations for each and every contract adjustment period specified in paragraph (f) and at the beginning of each new option year, if different.
(f) The dates of contract adjustment shall be___
(g) An example of an adjustment calculation is provided herein for informational purposes only.
(1) For purposes of this example, assume that a contract is for ambulance services, that the contract price is $2.10 per mile one way, that price adjustments will be made on the basis of the cost of gasoline, that the cost of gasoline represents 10% of the total cost per mile (the Base Cost is 10% of $2.10 (the per mile one way price in Line Item X), or $0.21), and that contract adjustments will be made quarterly. If the Base Index (the price of gasoline the week prior to receipt of bids) is $1.559 per gallon and the price of gasoline at the first date of contract adjustment is $2.129 per gallon, the calculations for contract price adjustment would be as follows:
Base Cost of $0.21 (10% of $2.10) multiplied by .3656 = $0.0768 unit price increase.
New Unit price following the adjustment is $2.10 plus $0.0768 = $2.1768 per mile (rounded to $2.18).**
* This figure shall be rounded to the fourth decimal place. When the fifth decimal is 1 to 4, the figure shall be rounded down, 5 to 9, rounded up.
** The unit price adjustment shall be rounded up or down, as above, to match the number of decimal places in the original bid.
(2) For the second contract adjustment period, all calculations would be based on the original contract bid price for that contract year, $2.10 per mile in this example. If the price of gasoline goes down during the second adjustment period to the original Base Index price of $1.559 per gallon, the adjusted contract price for that second period would return to $2.10 per mile (there would be a zero percent increase or decrease to the Base Cost and thus no change to the original bid price for that contract adjustment period). The contracting officer would then issue a contract modification returning the contract price from $2.18 to $2.10 per mile for that contract adjustment period. If, on the other hand, the price of gasoline actually went below the Base Index price, say to $1.449 per gallon, the calculations for the second economic price adjustment period would be as follows:
Base Cost of $0.21 (10% of $2.10) multiplied by (.0706) = ($0.0148) unit price decrease.
New Unit price following the second economic price adjustment is $2.10 minus $0.0148 = $2.0852 per mile (rounded to $2.09).
(3) At the start of the first option year, the contracting officer shall recalculate the price per mile based on any changes in the price of gasoline from the original contract award date and based on the contractor's new first option year price per mile. Assuming the contractor's bid price per mile for the first option year was $2.25 per mile, the new Base Cost for gasoline would be 10% of $2.25, or $0.225 (note that the original percent figure from paragraph (c) (10% in this sample) stays constant throughout the life of the contract), but the Base Cost would change if the option year contract price changes. If the Adjusting Index for gasoline at the start of the first option year was now up to $1.899 per gallon, the new first option year price for the first contract adjustment period would be calculated as follows:
Base Cost of $0.225 (10% * of $2.25) multiplied by .2181 = $0.0491 unit price increase.
New Unit price for the first contract adjustment period in the first option year is $2.25 plus $0.0491 = $2.2991 per mile (rounded to $2.30 per mile).
* Note that the percentage remains constant (10%) but that the Base Cost has been increased for the first contract adjustment period in the first option year, since the Base Cost is a percentage of the first option year unit cost per mile (in this sample), and the unit cost per mile has increased in this sample for the first option year from $2.10 to $2.25.
Although the new unit price for the first contract adjustment period of the first option year following application of the economic price adjustment in this sample would be $2.30 per mile, all economic price adjustment calculations made during that first option year would be based on the original first option year bid price ($2.25 in this sample). If in the second contract adjustment period of the first option year, the calculations resulted in a unit price increase for gasoline of $0.0332, the adjusted price for that period would be $2.25 + $0.0332 = $2.2832, rounded to $2.28 per mile.
(h) Price adjustments pursuant to this clause, which shall be made by contract modification issued by the contracting officer, shall show the Base Index (see paragraph (b)(1)), the Adjusting Index, the Base Cost (see paragraph (c)), the mathematical calculations used to arrive at the adjusted contract unit price, and the effective date of the adjustment.
(i) In the event that___
(j) Any dispute arising under this clause shall subject to the “Disputes” clause of the contract.
This clause does not apply to rates for non-Medicaid nursing homes.
(a)
(1) The Medicaid rate covers room, board, and routine nursing care services.
(2) For all levels of nursing care a percentage is added for routine ancillary services/supplies, such as drugs, nursing supplies, oxygen (occasional use), x-ray, laboratory, physician visits, and rental equipment.
(3) Special equipment,
(4) Drug costs which comprise more than eight and one-half percent (8.5%) of the per diem rate are generally not considered routine ancillary supplies (and may not be provided by the VA).
(5) Rehabilitation therapies will be provided as distinct levels of care,
(b)
(1) The per diem rate(s) will apply throughout the term of this contract, including extension period(s). The rate(s) may be adjusted only to reflect a change in a Medicaid rate as authorized by the SMA. Normally, this will be on an annual basis. The negotiated percentage above the Medicaid rate, to cover the all-inclusive nature of the contract, will not be renegotiated; but will be applied and added to the new Medicaid rate for the adjusted per diem rate for each level of care item. In this regard, new rates will be negotiated requiring a modification to the contact. Each per diem price adjustment under this clause is subject to the following limitations:
(2) Any adjustment shall be limited to the effect of increases or decreases in the approved SMA's patient care components within the affected Medicaid groups.
(3) Adjustments will occur no more frequently than those issued by the SMA.
(4) No adjustments are made until the contracting officer receives from the SMA an authenticated copy of the new rates signed and dated at the top right of the document by the authorized nursing home official. Within ten days after this occurs, the contracting officers will execute an approval signature and date at the approximate locations of the nursing home official's signature, the action of which will serve as the effective date of the adjusted rate. A copy of the fully executed document will be sent to the nursing home official for record keeping purposes.
As prescribed in 816.203–4(e)(4), insert the following clause:
This clause does not apply to rates for non-Medicaid nursing homes.
(a) The contractor shall notify the contracting officer if, at any time during contract performance, the Medicaid rate set by the State Medical Agency (SMA) for contract line item increases or decreases in the Schedule. The contractor shall furnish this notice within 60 days after the increase or decrease, or within any additional period that the contracting officer may approve in writing, but not later than the date of final payment under this contract. The notice shall include the contractor's proposal for an adjustment in the contract unit prices to be negotiated under paragraph (b) of this clause, and shall include, in the form required by the contracting officer, supporting data explaining the cause, effective date, and the amount of the increase or decrease and the amount of the contractor's adjustment proposal.
(b) The contracting officer and the contractor shall negotiate a price adjustment to the contract's unit prices and its effective date upon receipt of the notice and data under paragraph (a) of this clause. However, the contracting officer may postpone the negotiations until an accumulation of increases and decreases of the Medicaid labor rates (including fringe benefits) shown in the Schedule results in an adjustment allowable under paragraph (c)(3) of this clause. The contracting officer shall modify this contract as follows:
(1) Include the price adjustment and its effective date;
(2) Revise the Medicaid labor rates (including fringe benefits) as shown in the Schedule to reflect the increases or decreases resulting from the SMA adjustment. The contractor shall continue performance pending agreement on, or determination of, any adjustment and its effective date.
(c) Any price adjustment under this clause is subject to the following limitations:
(1) Adjustment shall be limited to the effect on unit prices of the increases or decreases of the Medicaid rates of pay for labor (including fringe benefits) shown in the Schedule. There shall be no adjustment for changes in rates or unit prices other than those shown in the Schedule.
(2) No upward adjustment shall apply to supplies or services that are required to be delivered or performed before the effective date of the adjustment, unless the contractor's failure to deliver or perform according to the delivery schedule results from causes beyond the contractor's control and without its fault or negligence, within the meaning of the Default clause.
(3) There shall be no adjustment for any change in rates of pay for labor (including fringe benefits) or unit prices for material which would not result in a net change of at least three percent of the then-current total contract price. This limitation shall not apply, however, if, after final delivery of all contract line items, either party requests an adjustment under paragraph (b) of this clause.
(4) The aggregate of the increases in any contract unit price made under this clause shall not exceed 10 percent of the original unit price. There is no percentage limitation on the amount of decreases made under this clause.
(d) The contracting officer, precluding certified cost and pricing data may examine the contractor's books, records, and other supporting data relevant to the cost of labor (including fringe benefits) and material during all reasonable times until the end of 3 years after the date of final payment under this contract or the time periods specified in Subpart 4.7 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whichever is earlier.
As prescribed in 816.203–4(e)(5), insert the following clause:
(a) To the extent that contract fuel cost increases are provided for by this economic price adjustment clause, the contractor warrants that the prices in this contract for any option periods do not include any amount to protect against such contingent fuel cost increases.
(b) The fuel cost index, for the purpose of price adjustment under this clause, shall be the “Weekly Retail On-Highway Diesel Prices Index.”
The Base Fuel Cost, for the purpose of price adjustments under this clause, shall be the most recent Index Weekly Average Diesel Fuel Price per gallon published prior to the closing date for receipt of offers, or the due date for receipt of final proposal revisions if discussions are held.
(c) For purposes of this clause, it will be conclusively presumed that x% increase or decrease of the Base Fuel Cost represents a reasonable fluctuation of diesel fuel prices. The Base Fuel Cost (+/−) x% price range will be determined for the base contract year and will remain constant throughout the life of the contract, including option years. Base Fuel Cost price range is documented at time of contract award.
(d) Increases (or decreases) in the diesel fuel costs (Base Fuel Cost x%) as listed on the Index two weeks prior to the end of each calendar quarter can trigger a request from the contractor to the Government (or from the Government to the contractor) for cost adjustments. Notice must be in writing to the Subsistence Prime Vendor (SPV) contracting officer (or contracting officer's representative) no less than ten days prior to the beginning of the next quarter.
(e) Since fuel cost is only a part of the SPV Contracted distribution cost, the adjustment will be made as a penny per delivered case for every ten cent fuel price per gallon increase or decrease to the Base Fuel Cost x%. The difference is rounded down to the nearest whole cent and will be added to last line of each invoice noted as “Fuel Adjustment”.
(f) Once approved, the date for contract fuel price adjustment will be the first Monday of the first month of each quarter unless otherwise designated at time of contract award.
(g) The contracting officer shall retain a copy of the Base Fuel Index establishing the Base Fuel Cost and the calculation of the price range incorporating the (+/−) x% adjustment in the contract file. All subsequent changes will be documented within the contract file and communicated to the contractor and VA SPV customers via email one week prior to the fuel price adjustment implementation.
(h) Any adjustments for fuel price changes will only be implemented if requested in writing, reviewed by both parties, and provided within the designated time frames. No retroactive cost adjustments will be made. A contract modification will be issued at inception of first increase or decrease detailing Base Fuel Cost, price range, and calculation of first fuel adjustment charge. Adjustment will remain in effect with quarterly calculation changes as needed until price falls within Base Fuel Cost price range. A contract modification will be issued to terminate the adjustment when price returns to Base Fuel Cost (+/−) x% price range.
(i) In the event that “the Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy” discontinues, or substantially alters its method of calculating the national average diesel fuel prices cited herein, the parties shall mutually agree upon an appropriate substitute for determining the price adjustment described herein. If the contracting officer determines the Index consistently and substantially fails to reflect market conditions, the contracting officer may modify the contract to specify use of an appropriate substitute Index, effective on the date the Index specified herein begins to consistently and substantially fail to reflect market conditions.
(j) Any dispute arising under this clause shall be determined in accordance with and subject to the “Disputes” clause of the contract.
As prescribed in 828.306, insert the following clause:
(a)
(b)
As prescribed in 828.7003, insert the following clause:
(a) This contract involves work with a risk of an unusually hazardous nature as specifically defined in the contract. The government shall indemnify the contractor, including subcontractors of any tier, against losses or liability specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this clause if:
(1) The losses or liability arise out of or results from a risk defined in this contract as unusually hazardous, and
(2) The losses or liability are not covered by the financial protection required by paragraph (c).
(b) The Government shall indemnify a contractor for:
(1) Liability (including reasonable expenses of litigation or settlement) to third persons for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property from a risk that the contract defines as unusually hazardous. This indemnification shall not cover liability under State or Federal worker's injury compensation laws to employees of the contractor who are both:
(i) Employed at the site of the contract work; and
(ii) Working on the contract for which indemnification is granted.
(2) The Government shall also indemnify the contractor for loss of or damage to property of the contractor from a risk that the contract defines as unusually hazardous.
(c) A contractor shall have and maintain an amount of financial protection to cover liability to third persons and loss of or damage to the contractor's property. Financial protection may include private insurance, private contractual indemnities, self-insurance, other proof of financial responsibility, or a combination that provides the maximum amount required. The financial protection provided must meet one of the following:
(1) The maximum amount of insurance available from private sources, or
(2) A lesser amount that the Secretary establishes after taking into consideration the cost and terms of private insurance.
(d) Actions in event of a claim:
(1) The contractor shall notify the contracting officer of any claim or suit against the contractor for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property; and
(2) The Government may elect to control or assist in the defense of any suit or claim for which indemnification is provided in the contract.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Reinstatement of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request the reinstatement of an information collection associated with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Student Outreach Program.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 12, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on documents associated with the APHIS Student Outreach Program, contact Ms. Tammy Lowry, AgDiscovery Program Manager, Office of Civil Rights, Diversity, and Inclusion, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 92, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–4181. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483.
The Student Outreach Program is designed to enrich students' lives while they are still in their formative years. APHIS' investment in the Student Outreach Program not only exposes students to careers in APHIS, it also gives APHIS' employees the opportunity to meet and invest in APHIS' future workforce. Students chosen to participate in the Student Outreach Program will gain experience through hands-on labs, workshops, and field trips. Students will also participate in character and team building activities and diversity workshops. Two programs currently in the Student Outreach Program are AgDiscovery and Safeguarding Natural Heritage Program: Strengthening Navajo Youth Connections to the Land.
To participate in these programs, students and their parents must submit essays, letters of recommendation, and application packages. These submissions are reviewed and rated by officials to select the participants. In addition, cooperative agreements are used to facilitate the partnerships between APHIS and the participating universities to carry out these programs.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Current Agricultural Industrial Reports (CAIR) program. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by May 12, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
•
•
•
•
R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720–4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690–2388 or at
Data from the agricultural instruments are used to generate four separate publications. These surveys supply data users with important information on the utilization of many of the crops, livestock, and poultry produced in the United States. NASS collects crop data on acres planted and harvested, production, price, and stocks for these crops (grains, oilseeds, cotton, nuts, etc.), along with livestock data on the number of animals and poultry produced, slaughtered, prices, and the amount of meat kept in cold storage. The CAIR data series provides data users with vital information on how much of these commodities were processed into fuels, cooking oils, flour, fabric, etc. These data are needed to provide a more complete picture of the importance of agriculture to the American population.
In order to maintain a complete and comprehensive list of operations, NASS also conducts an Operation Profile periodically to add new operations to the survey population and remove operations that no longer meet the criteria to be included in this group of surveys. Completing the Operation Profile also serves as a training tool for operations, helping to ensure consistent, accurate, and complete data are reported monthly/annually. These surveys will be conducted as a part of the Census of Agriculture and are mandatory as defined under Title 7, Sec. 2204(g).
Primary users of these data include government and regulatory agencies, business firms, trade associations, and private research and consulting organizations. The USDA World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) uses the data in many of their indexes. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) use the data in the estimation of components of gross domestic product (GDP) and the estimate of output for productivity analysis, respectively. Many government agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and International Trade Administration use the data for industrial analysis, projections, and monitoring import penetration. NASS proposes to make the following changes to the previously approved questionnaires:
The National Agricultural Statistics Service will use the information collected only for statistical purposes and will publish the data only as aggregated totals.
The Census of Agriculture and subsequent follow-on censuses are required by law under the “Census of Agriculture Act of 1997,” 7 U.S.C. 2204(g). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 257 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Sites 1–5 and 7–14 if not activated within five years from the month of approval, and to an ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites that would terminate authority for Sites 6, 15 and 16 if no foreign-status merchandise is admitted for a
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 2, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
John Drury (Hyosung) or Moses Song (Hyundai), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0195 or (202) 482–5041, respectively.
On September 2, 2016, the Department published the
The scope of this order covers large liquid dielectric power transformers (LPTs) having a top power handling capacity greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080, and 8504.90.9540. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Hyosung and Hyundai. For Hyosung, the Department has relied on partial facts available under section 776(a)(1) of the Act with respect to adjustments to the cost of manufacturing and U.S. gross unit price for certain sales. In addition, the Department has relied on partial adverse facts available under sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act with respect to ocean freight expenses for certain sales made by Hyosung. Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, the Department has relied upon total facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for Hyundai's dumping margin. For a discussion of these changes,
The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were
We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 22.00 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the period of review. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties did occur and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
The scope of this order covers LPTs having a top power handling capacity greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete.
Incomplete LPTs are subassemblies consisting of the active part and any other parts attached to, imported with or invoiced with the active parts of LPTs. The “active part” of the transformer consists of one or more of the following when attached to or otherwise assembled with one another: The steel core or shell, the windings, electrical insulation between the windings, the mechanical frame for an LPT.
The product definition encompasses all such LPTs regardless of name designation, including but not limited to step-up transformers, step-down transformers, autotransformers, interconnection transformers, voltage regulator transformers, rectifier transformers, and power rectifier transformers.
The LPTs subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080 and 8504.90.9540 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; availability of hatchery plans and request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has submitted two Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has submitted eight HGMPs, pursuant to the protective regulations promulgated for Pacific salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The two ODFW HGMPs describe hatchery programs rearing chum salmon in Big Creek and steelhead in the Clackamas River subbasin within the State of Oregon. The eight WDFW HGMPs describe hatchery programs that release fall chinook salmon, coho salmon, and winter and summer steelhead into Washington tributaries of the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam. This document serves to notify the public of the availability of the HGMPs for comment prior to a decision by NMFS whether to approve the proposed hatchery programs.
Comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the application should be addressed to the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 1201 N.E. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232, or faxed to 503–872–2737. Comments may be submitted by email to:
Rich Turner, at phone number: (503) 736–4737, or email:
Chinook salmon (
Chum salmon (
Coho salmon (
Steelhead (
Pacific eulachon (
ODFW has submitted to NMFS two HGMPs describing hatchery programs that release chum salmon into Big Creek and adjacent tributaries and winter steelhead into the Clackamas River in a manner that is intended to comply with requirements of the ESA under limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule. WDFW has submitted to NMFS eight HGMPs describing hatchery programs that release fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and winter and summer steelhead into Washington tributaries of the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam in a manner that is intended to comply with requirements of the ESA under limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule. The ODFW HGMPs specify the operations of two hatchery programs rearing chum salmon in Big Creek and steelhead in the Clackamas River subbasins within the State of Oregon. The WDFW HGMPs specify the operations of eight hatchery programs—two programs rearing fall Chinook salmon in the North Fork Toutle River and the Washougal River, two programs rearing winter and summer steelhead in the Kalama River, and four programs rearing coho salmon in the Grays River, Elochoman River, North Fork Toutle River, and the Washougal River. The Elochoman River program is a new program while the other programs are currently ongoing.
The programs are designed to meet mitigation responsibilities related to impacts from development in Columbia River Basin by providing hatchery fish to support reintroduction of chum salmon, recovery of fall Chinook salmon and coho salmon, and to provide fishing opportunities for fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, winter steelhead, and summer steelhead while minimizing potential risks to natural-origin Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead populations, consistent with NMFS' Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan.
As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422) and updated June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), NMFS may approve an HGMP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(5)(i)(A) through (K). Prior to final approval of an HGMP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment.
Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422; July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 5 of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(5)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to activities associated with artificial propagation programs provided that an HGMP has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet April 3, 2017 through April 11, 2017.
The meetings will be held Monday, April 3 through Tuesday, April 11, 2017. See
The meeting will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 W. 3rd Ave, Anchorage, AK 99501.
David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271–2809.
The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. in the Aleutian Room on Wednesday, April 5, continuing through Tuesday, April 11, 2017. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. in the King Salmon/Iliamna Room on Monday April 3rd and continue through Wednesday April 5, 2017. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. in the Dillingham/Katmai Room on Tuesday April 4th, and continue through Saturday April 8, 2017. The Legislative Committee will meet on Monday April 3, 2017 (room to be determined) from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The Ecosystem Committee will meet on Tuesday April 4th, 2017 (room to be determined) from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council except B reports.
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Councils primary peer review panel for scientific information as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271–2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Protected Species Advisory Committee (PSAC), Social Science Planning Committee (SSPC) and Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee (MPCCC) to review relevant sections of the draft 2016 annual reports for the Pacific Pelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), American Samoa Archipelago FEP, Hawaii FEP, Mariana Archipelago FEP and Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) FEP. The committees will also receive updates on matters related to fishery management and may make recommendations on these topics.
The PSAC meeting will be held between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on March 30–31, 2017. The SSPC will be held between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on April 3, 2017. The MPCCC meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on April 5–6, 2017. For specific times and agendas, see
The PSAC and MPCCC meetings will be held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, phone: (808) 522–8220. The SPCC meeting will be held at the Council office and by teleconference at (888) 482–3560; Passcode: 5228220.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; phone: (808) 522–8220.
Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522–8220 (voice) or (808) 522–8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Issuance of one U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a)1(A) scientific enhancement permit (permit 20085).
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued Stillwater Sciences one section 10(a)1(A) scientific enhancement permit (permit 20085) for conducting invasive species removal from a south-central California watershed (Chorro Creek). Authorized activities within the permit are expected to affect the threatened South Central California Coast (SCCC) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead (
The permit application, the permit, and other related documents are available for review, by appointment, at the foregoing address: California Coastal Office, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, California 90802 (phone: 562–980–4026, fax: 562–980–4027, email at:
Matt McGoogan at 562–980–4026, or email:
Threatened SCCC steelhead.
Scientific research and enhancement permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
A receipt of application notice for Permit 20085 was published in the
Permit 20085 authorizes take of threatened SCCC steelhead in association with enhancement activities involving the removal of Sacramento pikeminnow (
Permit 20085 authorized field activities associated with the enhancement effort to begin on October 31, 2016 (the date the permit was issued), and ceases authorization of the subject activities when the permit expires on December 31, 2020. The annual take of threatened SCCC steelhead that permit 20085 authorizes Stillwater Sciences for the subject enhancement effort is as follows: (1) Non-lethal capture and release of up to 1,500 juvenile steelhead while electrofishing, (2) non-lethal capture and release of up to 150 juvenile steelhead while seining, (3) non-lethal capture and release up to 5 juvenile steelhead while hook-and-line fishing, and (4) non-lethal observation of up to 2,000 juvenile and 10 adult steelhead during instream snorkel surveys. The potential annual unintentional lethal take permit 20085 authorizes is up to 33 juvenile steelhead. Overall, no intentional lethal take of steelhead is authorized or expected as a result of these enhancement activities.
The subject scientific enhancement activities that permit 20085 authorize are expected to support steelhead recovery in the Chorro Creek watershed and are consistent with recommendations and objectives outlined in NMFS' South Central California Steelhead Recovery Plan. See the application for and issued permit 20085 for greater details on the associated scientific enhancement activities and related methodology authorized with this permit.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
Pursuant to section (102)(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the regulations implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500–1508), the Department of the Navy (DoN) announces its intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the July 2016 Final EIS for Land-Water Interface (LWI) and Service Pier Extension (SPE), Naval Base (NAVBASE) Kitsap Bangor, Washington. The Final EIS for LWI and SPE resulted in a Record of Decision (ROD) that was signed on September 8, 2016 for the LWI project only.
The SPE proposed action is to extend the existing Service Pier and construct associated support facilities. The purpose is to provide additional berthing capacity and improve associated support facilities for existing homeported and visiting submarines at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The SPE project is needed to provide alternative opportunities for berthing to mitigate restrictions at NAVBASE Kitsap Bremerton, Washington, on navigating SEAWOLF Class submarines through Rich Passage under certain tidal conditions and to improve long-term operational effectiveness for the three SEAWOLF Class submarines on NAVBASE Kitsap.
The Supplemental EIS will address the SPE project only and will evaluate resources based upon changes in design and new information relevant to environmental concerns per 40 CFR 1502.9. The DoN will evaluate this new, relevant information and incorporate that information into revised analyses where appropriate. The analysis will address, among others, changes to the Alternative 2 design and new regulatory guidance and requirements.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle, Silverdale, Washington 98315–1101, Attn: Ms. Kimberly Kler, LWI/SPE Supplemental EIS Project Manager, 360–396–0927, or project Web site:
The DoN announced its intent to prepare an EIS for the LWI and SPE in the
A Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental EIS will be published in the
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.060A.
Part I of EASIE Applications Available: March 31, 2017.
For questions about the Formula Grants program, contact Bernard Garcia, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202–6335. Telephone: (202) 260–1454 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the EDFacts PSC, toll free, at 1–888–403–3336 (888–403–EDEN).
Applicants must meet the deadlines for Part I to be eligible to complete Part II of the application process. EASIE Part II application dates will be announced in a separate notice inviting applications. Applicants must meet the deadlines for both EASIE Part I and Part II to be eligible to receive a grant. Any application not meeting the Part I and Part II deadlines will not be considered for funding. Failure to submit the required supplemental documentation, described under
As authorized under section 6116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),
Under the Formula Grants program, all applicants are required to develop the project for which an application is made in open consultation with parents of Indian children and teachers of Indian children, representatives of Indian tribes on Indian lands located within 50 miles of any school that the LEA will serve if such tribes have any children in such school, Indian organizations (IOs), and, if appropriate, Indian students from secondary schools, including through public hearings held to provide to the individuals described above a full opportunity to understand the program and to offer recommendations regarding the program (ESEA section 6114(c)(3)(C)). LEA applicants are required to develop the project for which an application is made with the participation and written approval of a parent committee whose membership includes parents and family members of Indian children in the LEA's schools; representatives of Indian tribes on Indian lands located within 50 miles of any school that the LEA will serve if such tribes have any children in such school; teachers in the schools; and if appropriate, Indian students attending secondary schools of the LEA (ESEA section 6114(c)(4)). The majority of the parent committee members must be parents and family members of Indian children (ESEA section 6114(c)(4)).
(a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93–638). That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee—
(1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
(2) Give to IOs and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.
(b) For purposes of this section, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian tribe.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2. a.
b.
1.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
a. Changes to Part I for EASIE FY 2017 due to the ESEA reauthorization include the following:
(i) Application types. IOs and ICBOs have been added as eligible applicants (ESEA section 6112(a)).
(ii) Application time span. All applicants must indicate whether they are submitting an application for a single year or a multiyear period. All applicants are required to start a new application cycle regardless of what the applicant selected the previous year.
b.
(i) Applicants that are tribes, IOs, or ICBOs must upload verification of their eligibility no later than April 28, 2017. The details of the verification process, which are necessary to meet the statutory eligibility requirements for tribes, IOs, and ICBOs, are in the application package. Applicants are required to use the correct applicant type eligibility verification document, all of which are available in EASIE as downloadable documents.
(ii) An applicant that is the lead applicant for a consortium must upload a consortium agreement that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.128(b) no later than April 28, 2017. Applicants must use the consortium agreement that is available in EASIE as a downloadable document.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using EASIE. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirements, please refer to
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN,
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Formula Grants program, CFDA number 84.060A, must be submitted electronically using the EASIE application located in the EDFacts System Portal at
Applications submitted in paper format will be rejected unless you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement described later in this section under
Part I, student count, provides the appropriate data-entry screens to submit your verified Indian student count totals. All applicants must submit a current Indian student count for FY 2017. Applicants must use the Indian Student Eligibility Certification Form (ED 506 Form) to document eligible Indian students; however, BIE schools may use either the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) count or the ED 506 Form count to verify their Indian student counts. All individual data collected shall be protected and only aggregated data shall be reported to the Secretary.
Applicants that verify their Indian student counts with the ED 506 form must document their Indian student counts by completing the following procedures: (1) Each year, the LEA must verify there is a valid ED 506 Form for each Indian child included in the count; (2) all ED 506 Forms included in the count must be completed, signed, and dated by the parent, and be on file; (3) the LEA must maintain a copy of the student enrollment roster(s) covering the same period of time indicated in the application as the “count period”; and (4) each Indian child included in the count must be listed on the LEA's enrollment roster(s) for at least one day during the count period. BIE schools that enter an ISEP count must use the most current Indian student count certified by the BIE.
Once an Indian child is determined to be eligible to be counted for such grant award, the applicant shall maintain a record of such determination and shall not require a new or duplicate determination or form to be made for such child for a subsequent application for a grant under this subpart.
Applicants will also indicate the time span for the project objectives and corresponding activities and services for AI/AN students. Applicants can choose to set objectives that remain the same for up to four years in order to facilitate data collection and enhance long-term planning.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload documents to the EASIE system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date for Part I (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Bernard Garcia, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202–6335. FAX: (202) 205–0606.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline dates for both Part I and Part II, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, Attention: CFDA Number 84.060A, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202–6335.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date for Part I or Part II.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline dates for both Part I and Part II, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, Attention: CFDA Number 84.060A, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202–6335.
The program office accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the program under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The program office will mail you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should contact the program office at (202) 260–3774.
1.
2.
3.
(b) You must submit a performance report using the EDFacts System Portal at
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
5.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP): Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.334S.
Karmon Simms-Coates, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5W250, Washington, DC 20202–6450. Telephone: (202) 453–7917 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
In this notice we invite applications for State grants only. We will invite applications for partnership grants in another notice. Required services under the GEAR UP Program are specified in sections 404D(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(a)), and permissible services under the GEAR UP Program are specified in section 404D(b) and (c) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(b) and (c)). For State grantees, services must include providing financial aid information, encouraging enrollment in challenging coursework in order to reduce the need for remediation at the postsecondary level, implementing activities to improve the number of students who obtain a high school diploma and complete applications for and enroll in a program of postsecondary education, and provision of scholarships as specified in section 404E of the HEA. GEAR UP funds may also be used to provide a number of additional support services such as mentoring, tutoring, academic English language development, academic and career counseling, and exposure to college campuses.
The GEAR UP Program is a critical component of the Department's efforts to improve college access and completion for students who have been traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education. The Department believes that GEAR UP projects can play an essential role in improving postsecondary outcomes of their participants by placing a greater emphasis on increasing readiness for success once students reach the postsecondary level.
Each year, rather than being able to enroll in entry-level general education courses in subject areas such as reading or math that are required as a part of almost any postsecondary program of study, hundreds of thousands of beginning college students are referred to noncredit-bearing “developmental” or “remedial” courses based on their performance on a placement test or academic reference. Remedial or developmental courses are designed to bring academically underprepared students to expected competency levels for college-level work.
Remediation needs are common at all types of colleges. According to recent National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) research, 68 percent of public two-year students and 40 percent of public four-year students who began their postsecondary education in 2003 took at least one remedial course by 2009.
Unfortunately, for too many students remedial education represents a barrier to postsecondary persistence and completion.
GEAR UP grantees can improve college readiness by identifying at an early age students likely to be referred to remediation at the postsecondary level and by engaging in strategies to address their needs at the secondary level, limiting their need to take remedial courses in college. For these reasons, this notice includes a competitive preference priority intended to encourage applicants to propose GEAR UP projects that address remediation strategies designed to help students address deficiency gaps well before they graduate and enroll in postsecondary education.
In addition, to more strategically align GEAR UP grants with broader reform strategies intended to improve postsecondary access and completion, this notice includes a competitive preference priority that encourages applicants to propose activities that are supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice). The Department is particularly interested in receiving applications that include plans to provide services for students, supported by evidence, that increase the likelihood that students will complete high school and enroll in and complete a program of postsecondary education.
This priority is:
We give priority to an eligible applicant for a State GEAR UP grant that has: (a) Carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to August 14, 2008, determined on the basis of data (including outcomes data) submitted by the applicant as part of its annual and final performance reports from prior GEAR UP state grants administered by the applicant and the applicant's history of compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements; and (b) a prior demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading to college access through collaboration and replication of successful strategies.
This priority is:
Projects designed to reduce the need for remedial education for secondary school students, including students with disabilities, at the postsecondary level.
GEAR UP projects begin well before participating students are ready to apply for admission to a postsecondary institution. Therefore, as they consider how to respond to this competitive preference priority, we encourage applicants to think about how their projects will determine throughout the project period what services students will need in order to reduce or eliminate their need for remedial education at the postsecondary level. In addition, we encourage all applicants applying for a seventh project year to think about how the services they would provide during a seventh project year will include strategies to help those new postsecondary-level students progress into college-level coursework.
This priority is:
Projects designed to implement at least one strategy supported by evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “moderate evidence of effectiveness” in 34 CFR 77.1(c) (and as defined in this notice).
To address the priority, an applicant may submit up to two studies that it believes supports the implementation of an authorized activity proposed in the application that meets the moderate evidence of effectiveness standard. The Department will review the studies cited by the applicant to determine if they meet requirements for moderate evidence of effectiveness, which, depending on methodology, may require reference to either one or two studies) as well as whether they are sufficiently aligned with the project proposed.
Cited studies may include both those already listed in the Department's What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Database of Individual Studies (see
As they consider the activities they propose to implement in their GEAR UP projects and how to respond to this competitive preference priority, we encourage applicants to review research related to authorized GEAR UP activities to identify evidence that meets the moderate evidence of effectiveness standard.
For State grantees, required GEAR UP services are specified in sections 404D(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(a)), and permissible services under the GEAR UP Program are specified in section 404D(b) and (c) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(b) and (c)).
(i) There is at least one study that is a
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design (QED) study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial (RCT) that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically
(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the WWC Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the WWC), and includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.
(ii) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the WWC Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the WWC), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample.
Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 and subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
An applicant that wishes to seek funding for a seventh project year (
1.
2.a.
b.
3.
1.
You also can request a copy of the application package from the following: Karmon Simms-Coates, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5W250, Washington, DC 20202–6450. Telephone: (202) 453–7917 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1–877–576–7734.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margin.
• Each page on which there is text or graphics will be counted as one full page.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions may be singled spaced.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limits do not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the budget narrative and summary form; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested and required for the application, these items will be counted as part of the narrative for the purposes of the page limit.
Any application addressing the competitive preference priorities may include up to four additional pages for each priority. These additional pages must be used to discuss how the application meets the competitive preference priority. The additional pages allotted to address the competitive preference priority cannot be used for or transferred to the project narrative or any other section of the application.
We will reject your application if—
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the program contact person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the GEAR UP Program, CFDA number 84.334S, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the GEAR UP Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the program contact person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days; or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Eileen Bland, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5C135, Washington, DC 20202–6450. Fax: (202) 260–7464.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.334S), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.334S), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this grant notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
a.
The Secretary evaluates the need for a GEAR UP project in the proposed target area on the basis of—
• The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project; and
• The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
b.
In determining the quality of project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:
• The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
• The extent to which the project design reflects up-to- date research and the replication of effective practices;
• The extent to which the project supports systemic changes from which future cohorts of students will benefit; and
• The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory.
c.
In determining the quality of project services provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(1) The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
• The extent to which the project services are likely to increase the percentage of students taking rigorous courses that reflect challenging academic standards and reduce the need for remedial education at the postsecondary level; increase the percentage of secondary school completion; increase students' knowledge of and access to financial assistance for postsecondary education; increase the percentage of students enrolling and succeeding in postsecondary education; and are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and
• The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.
d.
In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers:
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability.
(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
• The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator; and
• The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key personnel.
e.
In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
• The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
• The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project;
• The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project; and
• How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.
f.
In determining the quality of the project evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
• The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;
• The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible;
• The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes;
• The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings; and
g.
In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
• The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;
• The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
• The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits; and
• The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of non-Federal reviewers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria in 75.217(d)(3) and the competitive preference priorities. The individual scores of the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer review score received in the review process.
If there are insufficient funds for all applications with the same total scores, the Secretary will choose among the tied applications so as to serve geographic areas with consideration to the
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report and biennial report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
The effectiveness of this program depends on the rate at which program participants complete high school and enroll in and complete a postsecondary education. Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), we developed the following performance measures to track progress toward achieving the program's goals:
1. The percentage of GEAR UP students who pass Pre-algebra by the end of 8th grade.
2. The percentage of GEAR UP students who pass Algebra 1 by the end of 9th grade.
3. The percentage of GEAR UP students who take two years of mathematics beyond Algebra 1 by the 12th grade.
4. The percentage of GEAR UP students who are on track for graduation at the end of each grade.
5. The percentage of GEAR UP students who are on track to apply for college as measured by completion of the SAT or ACT by the end of 11th grade.
6. The percentage of GEAR UP students who graduate from high school.
For each GEAR UP project, the State's high school graduation rate is defined in the State's approved accountability plan under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
7. The percentage of GEAR UP students who complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
8. The percentage of GEAR UP students and former GEAR UP students who are enrolled in college.
9. The percentage of GEAR UP students who place into college-level Math and English without need for remediation.
10. The percentage of current GEAR UP students and former GEAR UP students enrolled in college who are on track to graduate college.
In addition, to assess the efficiency of the program, we track the average cost in Federal funds, of achieving a successful outcome, where success is defined as enrollment in postsecondary education of GEAR UP students immediately after high school graduation. These performance measures constitute GEAR UP's indicators of the success of the program. Under Section 1116 of the HEA, grant recipients must collect and report data on steps they have taken toward achieving these goals. Accordingly, we request that applicants include these performance measures in conceptualizing the design, implementation, and evaluation of their proposed projects.
5.
In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 12, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Robyn Wood, 202–453–7744.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 12, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Alfreida Pettiford, 202–245–6110.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Grant Application Form for Project Objectives and Performance Measures Information form and instructions are used by many ED discretionary grant programs to enable grantees to meet ED deadline dates for submission of performance reports to the Department.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995, ED is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a new information collection.
Approval by the OMB has been requested by 3/13/2017. A regular clearance process is also hereby being initiated. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 12, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Melissa Siry, 202–260–0926.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how
On December 10, 2015, the programs above were reauthorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). On November 29, 2016, the Department received information collection clearance approval for a Consolidated State Plan aligned to the Notice of Final Regulations for Accountability and State Plans published in the
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, the Department requests that OMB review this collection under its emergency procedures. This request for emergency clearance is based on two factors: (1) The joint resolution of disapproval under the CRA presents an unanticipated event beyond the Department's control; and (2) further uncertainty of the requirements for submission of consolidated State plans would prevent States from implementing the new ESSA requirements in school year 2017–2018.
Section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, permits each SEA, in consultation with the Governor, to apply for program funds through submission of a consolidated State plan (in lieu of individual program State plans). The purpose of Consolidated State Plans as defined in ESEA is to improve teaching and learning by encouraging greater cross-program coordination, planning, and service delivery; to enhance program integration; and to provide greater flexibility and less burden for SEAs. The Department will use the information from the Consolidated State Plan as the basis for approving funding under the included programs for the duration of the reauthorization. Failure to collect this information in a timely manner will bar the Department from receiving the comprehensive data and information that is necessary to fulfill its fiduciary and oversight responsibilities, and endanger the missions of the individual programs.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of waivers.
The Secretary waives the requirements that generally prohibit project periods exceeding five years and project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. These waivers enable the 22 current grantees under the Comprehensive Centers program to continue to receive Federal funding for up to an additional 24 months through September 30, 2019.
These waivers are effective April 12, 2017.
Britt Jung, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E206, Washington, DC 20202–6400. Telephone: (202) 205–4513 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Under the Comprehensive Centers program, the Department of Education (Department) supports grants to operate regional technical assistance centers and national content centers as authorized by sections 203 through 207 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9602–9606). The purpose of these centers is to provide technical assistance to States as States work to help local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools close achievement gaps in core content areas and raise student achievement in schools.
Eligible applicants for Comprehensive Center grants are research organizations, institutions, agencies, institutions of higher education, partnerships among these types of entities, or individuals with the demonstrated ability or capacity to carry out the activities described in the notice inviting applications published in the
On January 9, 2017, the Department published a notice in the
No parties submitted comments regarding the proposed waivers. There are no differences between the proposed and the final waivers.
In the January 2017 notice, we discussed the background and purposes of the Comprehensive Centers program and our reasons for proposing the waivers. As outlined in that notice, it would not be in the public interest to hold a new competition under the Comprehensive Centers program until after the Department has finalized its guidance on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and until all the new statutory requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, have gone into effect. One of the primary purposes of the Comprehensive Centers program is to help States, LEAs, and schools implement key school improvement provisions of the ESEA. Delaying the competition until after the Department and States have begun to implement the new provisions under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, would allow applicants to familiarize themselves with the new statutory requirements and submit proposals that will best serve States under the new law. In addition, it would be contrary to the public interest to have a lapse in Comprehensive Centers' services pending the implementation of new provisions of the ESSA. Implementing these waivers will ensure that the important services provided by the current Comprehensive Centers can continue uninterrupted as States transition to the ESSA.
The Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250(a), which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), which limit the extension of a project period if the extension involves the obligation of additional Federal funds.
Under these waivers—
(1) Current grantees are authorized to receive continuation awards annually for up to two fiscal years.
(2) The Department will not announce a new competition or make new awards under the Comprehensive Centers program in FY 2017.
(3) During the extension period, any activities carried out must be consistent with, or be a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantees' approved applications from the 2012 Comprehensive Centers competition.
(4) Each grantee that receives a continuation award must also continue to comply with the requirements established in the program regulations and the 2012 NIA (77 FR 33564).
The waivers of 34 CFR 75.250(a) and 75.261(c)(2) do not affect the applicability of the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 (continuation of a multi-year project after the first budget period) to any current Comprehensive Centers grantee that receives a continuation award as a result of the waivers.
In addition, these waivers do not exempt current Comprehensive Centers grantees from the account-closing provisions in 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), nor do they extend the availability of funds previously awarded to current Comprehensive Centers grantees. Under 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), appropriated funds may be used for payment of valid obligations for only five years after the expiration of their period of availability for Federal obligation. After that time, the unexpended balance of those funds is canceled and returned to the U.S. Treasury Department and is unavailable for restoration for any purpose. These waivers do not change this requirement.
The Secretary certifies that these waivers will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that will be affected are:
(a) The FY 2012 grantees currently receiving Federal funds; and
(b) The entities that are eligible for an award under the Comprehensive Centers program (
The Secretary certifies that the waivers will not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the waivers and the activities required to support the additional years of funding impose minimal compliance costs to extend projects already in existence, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding will not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision. The waivers will impose minimal requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds, including requirements that are standard for continuation awards.
These waivers do not contain any information collection requirements.
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of Federal financial assistance. This document provides notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
The official version of this document is the document published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 9602–9606.
Take notice that on March 6, 2017, Emily C. Shults filed an application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b), and part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.
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.
j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, 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 and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
On October 28, 2016, Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. (Texas Eastern) filed an application in Docket No. CP17–6–000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Idle Line 1 Abandonment Project (Project), and would involve abandonment of approximately 165 miles of pipeline and appurtenant facilities located in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania that have been previously removed from service.
On November 9, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The facilities to be abandoned under Section 7 (b) include: (1) Approximately 165 miles of existing 24-inch-diameter Line 1 pipeline in the states of Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania; (2) approximately 0.5 mile of 8-inch-diameter Line 10–M pipeline in Marshall County, West Virginia; (3) 0.07 mile of Line 10–L pipeline in Greene County, Pennsylvania; (4) removal of two meter and regulation stations, in Marshall County and Greene County; and (5) removal of aboveground facilities associated with these pipeline segments and laterals including launcher/receiver barrels, mainline valves, and other appurtenant facilities. Most abandonment would be in place; however, Texas Eastern proposes to abandon aboveground facilities associated with the pipeline segments by removal, as indicated above. Pipe segments would also be removed in certain locations; primarily under waterbodies where the pipeline has become exposed.
On December 28, 2016, the Commission issued a
In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, and three landowners. The primary issues raised by the commentors are impacts on waterbodies during pipeline removal; the potential effect on Indiana bats, freshwater mussels, and other listed species; and pipeline removal activities on State of Ohio parkland. The three landowners requested further information about how the work would affect their properties; however, no project-related abandonment activities are being proposed for these properties. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve, with a focus on rural areas.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898–7043.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its Continuation at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting on March 9, 2017.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This Meeting was Closed to the Public.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694–1220.
The LIHEAP leveraging report obtains information on the resources leveraged by LIHEAP grantees each fiscal year (as cash, discounts, waiver, and in-kind); the benefits provided by low-income households by these resources (for example, as fuel and payments for fuel, as home heating and cooling equipment, and as weatherization materials and installation); and the fair market value of these resources/benefits. HHS needs this information in order to carry out statutory requirements for administering the LIHEAP leveraging incentive program, to determine countability and valuation of grantees' leveraged non-federal home energy resources, and to determine grantees' shares of leveraging incentive funds.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 12, 2017.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
Heather Menne at 202–795–7733 or
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The National Survey of Older Americans Act (OAA) Participants information collection will include consumer assessment surveys for the Congregate and Home-delivered meal nutrition programs; Case Management, Homemaker, and Transportation Services; and the National Family Caregiver Support Program. This survey builds on earlier national pilot studies and surveys, as well as performance measurement tools developed by ACL grantees in the Performance Outcomes Measures Project (POMP). Changes identified as a result of these initiatives were incorporated into the last data collection package that was approved by OMB and are included in this proposed extension of a currently approved collection. This information will be used by ACL to track performance outcome measures; support budget requests; comply with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) reporting requirements; provide national benchmark information; and inform program development and management initiatives.
Descriptions of previous National Surveys of OAA Participants can be found under the section on OAA Performance Information on ACL's Web site at:
ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing a regional public meeting entitled “U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada Joint Regional Consultation on International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH).” The goal of this meeting is to provide information and receive comments on the current activities of ICH, as well as the upcoming ICH meetings in Montreal. The topics to be covered in the public meeting are the topics for discussion at the forthcoming ICH Assembly Meeting in Montreal. The purpose of this public meeting is also to solicit public input prior to the ICH Assembly meeting and the Expert Working Group meetings in Montreal, Canada, scheduled for May 28 through June 1, 2017.
The public meeting will be held on April 24, 2017, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Eastern Time. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by May 12, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 12, 2017. The
The public meeting will be held at 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503 Section A, Silver Spring, MD 20993. It will also be broadcast on the Web allowing participants to join in person OR via the Web. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Amanda Roache, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Strategic Programs, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1176, Silver Spring MD, 20993, 301–796–4548, email:
The ICH, formerly known as the International Conference on Harmonisation, was established in 1990 as a joint regulatory/industry project to improve, through harmonization, the efficiency of the process for developing and registering new medicinal products in Europe, Japan, and the United States without compromising the regulatory obligations of safety and effectiveness. In 2015 the ICH was reformed to make the ICH a true global initiative that expands beyond the previous ICH members. More involvement from regulators around the world is expected, as they will join their counterparts from Europe, Japan, USA, Canada, and Switzerland as ICH regulatory members. The reforms build on a 25-year track record of successful delivery of harmonized guidelines for global pharmaceutical development, and their regulation. In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for medical product development among regulatory Agencies. ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. The ICH process has achieved significant harmonization of the technical requirements for the approval of pharmaceuticals for human use in the ICH regions over the past two decades. The current ICH process and structure can be found at the following Web site:
If you wish to attend the meeting, please register at the following Web site:
Interested persons may present data, information, or views orally or in writing on issues pending at the public meeting. Public oral presentations will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2 p.m. Time allotted for oral presentations may be limited to 5 minutes. Those desiring to make oral presentations should notify Amanda Roache (see
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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is 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 description follows.
The N6 antibody has evolved a unique mode of binding that depends less on a variable area of the HIV envelope known as the V5 region and focuses more on conserved regions, which change relatively little among HIV strains. This allows N6 to tolerate changes in the HIV envelope, including the attachment of sugars in the V5 region, a major mechanism by which HIV develops resistance to other VRC01-class antibodies. N6 was shown in pre-clinical studies to neutralize approximately 98 percent of HIV isolates tested. The studies also demonstrate that N6 neutralizes approximately 80 percent of HIV isolates which were resistant to other antibodies of the same class, and does so very potently. Its breadth and potency makes N6 a highly desirable candidate for development in therapeutic or prophylactic strategies.
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.
• Neutralized 98 percent of HIV isolates tested.
• Neutralized 80 percent of HIV isolates which were resistant to other antibodies of the same class, and does so very potently.
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.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Notice of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Quarterly Business Meeting.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will hold its next quarterly meeting on Thursday, March 23, 2017. The meeting will be held in Room SR325 at the Russell Senate Office Building at Constitution and Delaware Avenues NE., Washington, DC, starting at 8:30 a.m. EST.
The quarterly meeting will take place on Thursday, March 23, 2017, starting at 8:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held in Room SR325 at the Russell Senate Office Building at Constitution and Delaware Avenues NE., Washington, DC.
Cindy Bienvenue, 202–517–0202,
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation's diverse historic resources, and advises the President and the Congress on national historic preservation policy. The goal of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which established the ACHP in 1966, is to have federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our nation's resources when their actions affect historic properties. The ACHP is the only entity with the legal responsibility to encourage federal agencies to factor historic preservation into their decision making. For more information on the ACHP, please visit our Web site at
The agenda for the upcoming quarterly meeting of the ACHP is the following:
The meetings of the ACHP are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Bienvenue, 202–517–0202 or
54 U.S.C. 304102.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded in the final determination that the United States is the country of origin of the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation for purposes of U.S. government procurement.
The final determination was issued on March 7, 2017. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination no later than April 12, 2017.
Elif Eroglu, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade (202) 325–0277.
Notice is hereby given that on March 7, 2017, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H280512, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, the country of origin of the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation is the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the
This is in response to your correspondence of September 29, 2016 requesting a final determination on behalf of Ergotron Inc. (“Ergotron”), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR 177.21
This final determination concerns the country of origin of the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation. We note that Ergotron is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
The merchandise at issue is the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation. You state that the WorkFit-TL is an ergonomic, height adjustable desk intended to help promote a healthy work environment by giving the user the ability to easily adjust between a standing or sitting positon. The WorkFit-TL can be adjusted by releasing the hand-brake levers on either side of the unit to position the surface higher or lower to accommodate sitting or standing position. The WorkFit-TL is assembled in the United States from U.S. and Chinese components. Ergotron received a country of origin marking ruling for the WorkFit-T Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation from the National Commodity Specialist Division (New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N276731, dated July 15, 2016). You state that WorkFit-TL features a larger keyboard tray and wider work surface than the WorkFit-T but the products and the assembly processes are otherwise identical.
You have submitted photographs, an assembly drawing, a process flow map, and two bills of materials for the WorkFit-TL. The first bill of materials is for materials utilized for all processing performed in the United States. The second bill of materials is for all processing performed in China. You state that of the total cost of production, 57 percent is attributable to materials of U.S. origin and U.S. labor costs (including overhead).
You state that the WorkFit-TL is comprised of three main components: A Chinese origin lift assembly, a U.S. origin laminated particle board work surface and keyboard tray. The lift assembly consists of base metal and provides user assisted lift functionality by means of spring force to allow adjustment of the product between sitting and standing positions. The lift assembly from China is assembled with components fabricated in Ergotron's facility in the United States including the work surface, keyboard tray, right and left keyboard support brackets, and metal support bar. The design and development of the WorkFit-TL occurs in the United States. The production that occurs in the United States includes the following:
• Laser cutting sheet metal components
• Press braking to bend sheet metal components to create the right and left brackets and the metal support bar
• Stud insertion into the sheet metal components
• Painting the sheet metal components
• Assembling the sheet metal components to the imported lift mechanism.
• Sawing raw Medium-Density Fiberboard (“MDF”) to the size of the work surface and keyboard tray
• Routing of profiles on the MDF sheets
• Sanding of MDF to prepare for the vinyl laminate
• Applying glue to the MDF
• Pressing the vinyl laminate onto the MDF
• Removing the excess laminate from the work surface and keyboard tray
• Removing the excess glue from the bottom of the work surface and keyboard tray
• Printing the Ergotron logo onto work surface
• Attaching the work surface and keyboard tray to the lift mechanism of Chinese origin.
What is the country of origin of the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation for the purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulations.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article.
In
In HQ 561258, dated April 15, 1999, CBP determined that the assembly of numerous imported workstation components with the U.S.-origin work surface, which was the essential and largest component of the workstation, into finished workstations constituted a substantial transformation. CBP held that the imported components lost their identity as leg brackets, drawer units, panels etc. when they were assembled together to form a workstation. In HQ H083693, dated March 23, 2010, CBP held that a certain wood chest assembled in the United States was a product of the United States for purposes of U.S. government procurement. The wood chest was assembled from over twenty U.S. and foreign components. Of the total cost of production, 40 percent was attributable to materials of U.S. origin, U.S. warehouse overhead and U.S. labor costs (including overhead). CBP held that the components that were used to manufacture the wood chest, when combined with a U.S. origin laminate top, were substantially transformed as a result of the assembly operations performed in the United States.
In the instant case, the lift assembly, manufactured in China, is assembled in the United States with laminated particle board work surface and keyboard tray, right and left keyboard support brackets, and metal support bar which are fabricated in the United States by Ergotron. The processes that occur in the United States include sawing, profiling, sanding, hot-pressing and trimming to manufacture the work surface and keyboard tray as well as laser-cutting, bending and painting of the sheet metal components followed by final assembly of the U.S. origin and the imported components. Based on the facts provided and consistent with the CBP rulings cited above, we find that the imported lift assembly is substantially transformed as a result of the assembly performed in the United States to produce the finished WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation. In support of this conclusion, we agree that the lift assembly is not functional to an end user by itself as it does not include the primary features of the U.S. origin work surface and keyboard tray which allow the work to be conducted, and without which, the lifting mechanism is incapable of being used as a workstation. Accordingly, we find that the country of origin of the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is the United States.
The country of origin of the WorkFit-TL Sit-Stand Desktop Workstation for government procurement purposes is the United States.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 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: General Declaration (CBP Form 7507). CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the
Written comments should be received on or before May 12, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1651–0002 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP Form 7507 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1431, 1433, and 1644a; and provided for by 19 CFR 122.43, 122.54, 122.73, and 122.144. This form is accessible at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 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: Bonded Warehouse Proprietor's Submission (CBP Form 300). CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a reduction to the burden hours. No change has been made to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before May 12, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1651–0033 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, or via email (
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.3 dual community
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before June 12, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1673, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of June 7, 2017 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA–4277–DR), dated August 14, 2016, and related determinations.
Effective February 24, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J. Doran III, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Gerard M. Stolar as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before June 12, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1671, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before June 12, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1670 to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given in
•
•
Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator, 404–679–7097 (telephone) or 404–679–7081 (fax).
We invite review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on applications we have received for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The applicant requests amendment of her permit to increase the number of Florida bonneted bats (
The applicant requests renewal of their permit to continue take (capture; band; radio-tag; collect blood; collect chest feathers; salvage carcasses, eggshells, and infertile eggs; and treat for parasites) the endangered Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk (
The applicant requests amendment of his permit to add authorization to take (capture with mist nets or harp traps, handle, identify, and release) Virginia big-eared bats (
The applicant requests renewal of their permit to continue take (capture, identify, and release) of gopher tortoise (
The applicant requests a permit to take (enter nesting colony, monitor nests, float eggs, capture chicks, and band chicks) interior least terns (
The applicant requests amendment of their permit to add the following States to their permit to take (enter hibernacula or maternity roost caves, salvage dead bats, capture with mist nets or harp traps, handle, identify, collect hair
The applicant requests a permit to take (enter hibernacula or maternity roost caves, salvage dead bats, capture with mist nets or harp traps, handle, identify, collect hair samples, band, radio-tag, light-tag, swab, and wing-punch) Indiana bats (
The applicant requests amendment of his permit to add authorization to take (capture with mist nets, handle, band, and radio-tag) up to 5 adult Indiana bats (
The applicant requests a permit to conduct the following activities with the Virgin Islands tree boa (
The applicant requests amendment of her permit to authorize take (relocate into in-stream enclosures, attach individually labeled fishing line) of up to 800 southern clubshells (
The applicant requests amendment of his permit to add authorization to take (capture with mist nets and harp traps, handle, identify, band, and attach radio transmitters) gray bats (
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before April 12, 2017.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Joyce Russell, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests renewal of a permit to take captive-bred sooty mangabeys (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological specimens from wild and captive-held grey wolves (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Barashingha (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing the culling of excess barasinghas (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an incidental take permit application for the federally listed American burying beetle. The applicant anticipates the take of American burying beetle as a result of impacts to habitat the species uses for breeding, feeding, and sheltering in Oklahoma. The take would be incidental to the applicant's activities associated with oil and gas well field and pipeline infrastructure (gathering, transmission, and distribution), including geophysical exploration (seismic), construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation. If approved, the permit would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before April 12, 2017.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicant's Incidental Take Permit (ITP) application by one of the following methods. Please refer to the proposed permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Review Division, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505–248–6651.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If approved, the permit would be issued to the applicant under the
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application under the ICP, for incidentally taking the federally listed American burying beetle. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (
Applicant requests an amended permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including oil and gas well field infrastructure, geophysical exploration (seismic), and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning, as well as oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation in Oklahoma.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under the Act, Section 10(c) (16 U.S.C. 1531
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) Nevada will hold a joint meeting of its three Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC, the Northeastern Great Basin RAC, and the Mojave-Southern Great Basin RAC. The meeting is open to the public and a public comment period is scheduled for April 5, 2017.
The RACs will meet on Tuesday, April 4, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Wednesday, April 5, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and Thursday, April 6, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. A public comment period will be held on Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 3:30 p.m. The agenda and additional information will be posted 2 weeks prior to the meeting at
The meetings will be held at the Elko Convention Center, 700 Moren Way, Elko, Nevada. Comments may also be submitted by email to
Chris Rose by telephone at (775) 861–6480, or by email at
The three 15-member Nevada RACs advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM Nevada State Director, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Agenda topics include presentations on public lands, wild horses and burros, the Great Basin Landscape Conservation Cooperative, and the National Conservation Lands program. Training conducted during the meeting will include the National Environmental Policy Act, RAC roles
Individuals who plan to attend and need further information about the meeting or need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations may contact Chris Rose at the phone number or email address above. 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Dr. Rick L. Weathermon, Curator, Human Remains Repository, Department 3431, Anthropology, 1000 East University Avenue, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, telephone (307) 314–2035, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. The human remains were removed from the west side of the Miners Point site (HR330), Kodiak Island, AK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Native Village of Larsen Bay.
Prior to 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the west side of the Miner's Point site (HR330), Kodiak Island, AK, probably by a Rock Springs, WY, physician. By 1991, the human remains had been given to Western Wyoming College in Rock Springs, WY. In October 2016, the University of Wyoming evaluated the NAGPRA status of all human remains in their possession. Following analysis, in December of 2016, the Miner's Point individual (HR330) was formally accessioned into the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming. The remains consist of a fragmentary human cranium of a Native American male, over the age of 50. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains are of an unknown age. The Alutiiq people assert that they have continuously lived on Kodiak Island and the surrounding areas for at least 7,000 years, which is the entire human history of the location. The human remains exhibit skeletal characteristics consistent with an assessment of Alaskan Native.
Officials of the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), no objects are present that are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Native Village of Larsen Bay.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Rick L. Weathermon, Curator, Human Remains Repository, Department 3431, Anthropology, 1000 East University Avenue, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, telephone (307) 314–2035, email
The Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Dr. Thomas Foster, Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa, Harwell Hall, Tulsa, OK 74104, telephone (918) 631–3082, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK. The human remains were removed from unknown locations in the state of Oklahoma.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
During an unknown period of time, human remains representing, at minimum, 30 individuals were removed from multiple locations in the state of Oklahoma. In 2015, these human remains were identified in the collection of the Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa. The collection of human remains has no credible documentation. They were apparently accumulated over a number of years with varying documentation and association. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on physical indicators of age and condition, associated documentation, cranial morphology, and associated human remains.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 30 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas Foster, Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa, Harwell Hall, Tulsa, OK 74104, telephone (918) 631–3082, email
The Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. If no
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology and NAGPRA Officer, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370–6378, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Between 1959 and 1968, Mary and Francis Crane purchased six cultural items from multiple collectors. The six sacred objects are four False Face masks (AC.4167, AC.4392, AC.9720, and AC.9743) and two corn husk masks (AC.8552 and AC.10791). Two False Face masks (AC.4167 and AC.4392) may have been part of a group stolen in 1959 from Onondaga keepers, Andrew Pierce, or his son, Stanley Pierce. Andrew Pierce was known to have sold False Face masks, though the sale, trade, collection, and display of False Face masks and corn husk masks has long been a controversial practice. Erich Kohlberg of Kohlberg's Antiques and Indian Arts obtained AC.4167 from Andrew Pierce on an unknown date, it is unclear whether the mask was purchased or not. The mask was then sold to Mary and Francis Crane on June 10, 1959, and the Cranes donated it to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science (DMNS; then called the Denver Museum of Natural History) in November 1972. Willis G. Tilton of Tilton Relics obtained AC.4392 from Andrew Pierce on an unknown date, it is unclear whether the mask was purchased or not. The mask was then sold to the Cranes on August 22, 1959, the Cranes then donated it to the DMNS on May 27, 1983. The False Face masks (AC.9720 and AC.9743) were purchased by the Cranes on December 15, 1965, from Gerald Fenstermaker, and were donated to the DMNS on May 27, 1983. The corn husk mask (AC.8552) was purchased from Fenstermaker by the Cranes on August 14, 1965, and was donated to the DMNS on May 27, 1983. The corn husk mask (AC.10791) was originally owned by Josephine Hill, a member of the Onondaga Nation born in 1896. Fenstermaker obtained the mask from her and sold it to Mary and Francis Crane on April 5, 1968. The Cranes then donated it to DMNS on May 27, 1983.
Museum accession, catalogue, and documentary records, as well as consultation with representatives of the Onondaga Nation, New York, indicate that the six cultural items are Haudenosaunee, and are from the Onondaga Reservation, New York. The six cultural items relate to the False Face Society and the Corn Husk Mask Society. The False Face masks and the spirits they represent are called Hodo'wi by the Onondaga. These masks are used ceremonially by the False Face Society, a medicine society of the Haudenosaunee. The corn husk masks are associated with the Corn Husk Mask Society and are used in its ceremonies.
Officials of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the six cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and the Onondaga Nation.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology and NAGPRA Officer, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370–6378, email
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying the Onondaga Nation that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Human Remains Repository, Department of
Dr. Rick L. Weathermon, Curator, Human Remains Repository, Department 3431, Anthropology, 1000 East University Avenue, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, telephone (307) 314–2035, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from an unknown location near Julesburg, Sedgwick County, CO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming. The following tribes were invited to consult but did not participate in consultation: Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
At some time prior to 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in near Julesburg, Sedgwick County, CO. The human remains and associated funerary objects were given to an instructor at the University of Wyoming in 1995. That individual transferred the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, in 1997. The human remains represent a single male individual of American Indian ancestry, over the age of 65 years. The human remains and associated funerary objects are recorded as HR201 in the Human Remains Repository records. No known individual was identified. The four associated funerary objects are one (bison) first rib, one partial leather knife scabbard, one brass wire bracelet, and one lot of leather and fur fragments.
Officials of the Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on features of the cranium.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the four objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Rick L. Weathermon, Curator, Human Remains Repository, Department 3431, Anthropology, 1000 East University Avenue, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, telephone (307) 314–2035, email
The Human Remains Repository, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, is responsible for notifying the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Nebraska State Historical Society (NSHS) has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the NSHS at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Rob Bozell, Nebraska State Historical Society, P.O. Box 82554, Lincoln, NE 68501, telephone (402) 471–4789, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln, NE. The human remains were removed from the Linwood site (25BU1) in Butler County, NE.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the NSHS professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; and Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.
At some time before 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from the Linwood site (25BU1) in Butler County, NE. The human remains are part of a large collection of archeological material donated by Alfred Ticacek to the Butler County Museum in 1973. In October of 2015, these human remains were discovered in storage at the Butler County Museum, and were given to the NSHS on October 21, 2015. The human remains were examined by a physical anthropologist, who indicated that the human remains are co-mingled, and they lack site feature-specific information. Based on crania and select post-cranial elements, the human remains represent, at minimum, three adults (one male, one female, and one indeterminate with regard to sex) and three children (one infant, one individual about 2 years in age, and one individual between 8 and 10 years in age). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The Linwood Site (25BU1) is a major Pawnee earthlodge village and cemetery complex that was occupied during A.D. 1750–1809 and again during A.D. 1850–1853. It is associated principally with the Grand and Republican bands of the Pawnee Confederacy. The affiliation is clearly documented through archeological materials (particularly architecture style, ceramic decoration and Euroamerican trade goods), as well as archival and historic cartographic sources. Human remains and associated funerary objects from the Linwood Site have previously been repatriated by the NSHS to the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma.
Officials of the Nebraska State Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Rob Bozell, Nebraska State Historical Society, P.O. Box 82554, Lincoln, NE 68501, telephone (402) 471–4789, email
The NSHS is responsible for notifying the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; and Ponca Tribe of Nebraska that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Museum of Northern Arizona has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Museum of Northern Arizona. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these
Elaine Hughes, Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 North Fort Valley Road, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, telephone (928) 774–5211 x228, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ. The human remains were removed from the Van Liere Site, Maricopa County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Museum of Northern Arizona professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
In January and February of 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Van Liere site (NA12552) in Maricopa County, AZ, during archeological investigations conducted by the Museum of Northern Arizona. The Van Liere site (NA12552) is a Hohokam settlement in central Arizona, located north of both the community of Liberty and the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers. The cremated human remains represent a minimum of four adults of indeterminate sex, and are comprised of one cranial fragment from Area 4, grid square 16 south, 24 west, level 2; one cranial fragment from Trench 436, backdirt 200; two cranial fragments from Trench 447, unit 2, plow zone; and fragments of one cranium, two vertebrae, and three ribs from Trench 444, backdirt 200. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Archeological evidence indicates that the Van Liere site (NA12552) was occupied during the period A.D. 950–1150 by the Hohokam people, for whom cremation was a common mortuary practice. Hopi and Zuni oral traditions also indicate that segments of the prehistoric Hohokam population migrated to areas occupied by the ancestors of the Hopi and Zuni, where they were assimilated into the resident populations. Archeological, historical, and oral tradition evidence indicate that there is a relationship of shared group identity between the Hohokam people and present-day Piman and O'odham cultures, which are represented by the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Officials of the Museum of Northern Arizona have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of a minimum of 4 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Elaine Hughes, Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 North Fort Valley Road, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, telephone (928) 774–5211 x228, email
The Museum of Northern Arizona is responsible for notifying the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The Museum of Northern Arizona has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Museum of Northern Arizona at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Elaine Hughes, Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 North Fort Valley Road, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, telephone (928) 774–5211 x228, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Cashion site (NA14690), Maricopa County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
The 800 associated funerary objects are 325 pottery and ceramic fragments; 102 jewelry items and fragments; 1 reed mat; 2 different pieces of cloth; 123 soil, faunal bone, C–14, pollen, and wood samples; and 247 tools and implements.
In the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Elaine Hughes, Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 North Fort Valley Road, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, telephone (928) 774–5211 x228, email
The Museum of Northern Arizona is responsible for notifying the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak-Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region (USFWS–SER) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the USFWS–SER. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the USFWS–SER at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Richard S. Kanaski, Regional Historic Preservation Officer & Regional Archaeologist, Savannah Coastal Refuges, Office of the Regional Archaeologist, 694 Beech Hill Lane, Hardeeville, SC 29927–8958, telephone (843) 784–6310, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the USFWS–SER, Hardeeville, SC. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Limestone and Morgan Counties, AL, and Decatur County, TN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Office of the Regional Archaeologist's professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Chickasaw Nation, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation were invited to participate, but declined.
In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 40DR7 in Decatur County, TN. This one fragmentary human femur was removed during a general surface collection. Based upon the artifact assemblage recovered during the surface collection, site 40DR7 appeared to have been occupied during the Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and the Historic Periods. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1953, human remains representing, at a minimum, three individuals, were removed from site 1LI48 in Limestone County, AL, during salvage excavations of the eroding shell midden. Based upon the recovered artifact assemblage, site 1LI48 was occupied during the Late Archaic through Late Woodland Periods. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1953, human remains representing, at a minimum, one individual, were removed from site 1MG107 in Morgan County, AL during salvage excavation of the eroding shell midden. Based upon the artifact assemblage, site 1MG107 was occupied during the Early Archaic through the Middle Woodland Periods. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1969, human remains representing, at a minimum, seven individuals, were removed from site 1MG74 in Morgan County, AL during salvage excavations. The site was identified during Alabama Highway's construction of Interstate 65 across Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and the Tennessee River.Site 1MG74 dates to the Early-Middle Woodland Periods. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1997, human remains representing, at a minimum, four individuals, were removed from site 1MG39 in Morgan County, AL as part of a federal law enforcement investigation of an archeological resource violation. Site 1MG39 was occupied at least as early as the Early Archaic [7000–8000 B.C.] and into the Mississippian Period [A.D. 1000]. The bulk of the occupation occurs during the Woodland Period [300 B.C.–A.D. 900]. No known individuals were identified. The 21 associated funerary objects include one left White-tailed deer scapular fragment, 10 UID mammal diaphyseal fragments, 1 UID turtle carapace fragment, 4 UID shell fragments, 1 sandstone abrader fragment, and 4 sand-temper plain ceramic sherds.
Officials of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 16 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 21 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be jointly to The Chickasaw Nation, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Richard S. Kanaski, Regional Historic Preservation Officer & Regional Archaeologist, Savannah Coastal Refuges, Office of the Regional Archaeologist, 694 Beech Hill Lane, Hardeeville, South Carolina 29927–8958, telephone (843) 784–6310, email
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region is responsible for notifying The Chickasaw Nation, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Nebraska State Historical Society (NSHS) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the NSHS. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the NSHS at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Rob Bozell, Nebraska State Historical Society, P.O. Box 82554, Lincoln, NE 68501, telephone (402) 471–4789, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln, NE. The human remains were removed from the Woodcliff site (25SD31) in Saunders County, NE.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the NSHS professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; and Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.
In April of 2002, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Woodcliff Archeological Site (25SD31) in Saunders County, NE. The human remains, which belong to two adults of undetermined age and sex, were removed from two adjacent but separate rectangular grave features. The human remains were discovered during county road construction. Construction was halted, and the NSHS was contacted to remove the human remains. The human remains were examined by a physical anthropologist, but are too fragmentary to determine biological affinity. No known individuals were identified. The 270 associated funerary objects include: Two white clay pipe bowl fragments, one ceramic body sherd, one daub, 262 glass trade beads, one lot of fragmented leather, one metal knife blade, one metal handle, and one lot of copper stained soil. The associated funerary objects date to the same time period as a documented Oto village at this location (A.D. 1750–1770).
In the late 1960s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual, were removed from the Woodcliff site (25SD31) in Saunders County, NE. The human remains were given to The Valley Community Historical Society in Valley, NE, by Darwin Jorgenson. In 2004, The Valley Community Historical Society gave the human remains and associated funerary objects to the NSHS. The human remains were examined by a physical anthropologist, who determined they are most likely from a Native American female between 20–24 years of age. The 594 associated funerary objects include: 556 glass trade beads, one lot of coal, one copper ring, three copper bangles, one metal key, one copper pot, one unknown metal item with adhering glass beads, four unknown metal fragments, 10 pemmican pieces, eight textile fragments, two bone or wooden comb fragments, and six wood fragments.
The Woodcliff Site (25SD31) is a Native American village and cemetery complex that was occupied around A.D. 1700–1800 based on the archeological material recovered (particularly native-made ceramics and Euroamerican trade goods). The ceramics are most similar to Pawnee wares, although it is known that the Oto moved to eastern Nebraska in the early 1700s, were in close contact with the Pawnee, and made Pawnee-like ceramics. By the mid-1700s, the Pawnee were living in a series of villages located between 50 and 100 miles to the west of Woodcliff, and the Oto were living in the immediate vicinity of the Woodcliff area. Human remains and associated funerary objects from the Woodcliff Site (25SD31) have previously been repatriated by the NSHS to the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma.
Officials of the Nebraska State Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 864 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Rob Bozell, Nebraska State Historical Society, P.O. Box 82554, Lincoln, NE 68501, telephone (402) 471–4789, email
The NSHS is responsible for notifying the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; and Ponca Tribe of Nebraska that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Ouachita National Forest. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Ouachita National Forest at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Norman Wagoner, Forest Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71901, telephone (501) 321–5202, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from McCurtain County, OK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Ouachita National Forest professional staff in consultation with representatives of Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Between March 1997 and April 2005, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were removed from sites 34Mc254, 34Mc665, 34Mc762, and 34Mc898 in McCurtain County, OK. These human remains were removed during archeological excavations conducted on private land owned by the Weyerhauser Company. Under terms of a programmatic agreement with the Weyerhauser Company, the human remains and associated funerary objects are under the control of Ouachita National Forest. Dr. Terrance J. Martin, Curator and Chair of Anthropology, Illinois State Museum, Research and Collections Center, thoroughly examined the human remains, along with all associated excavation notes. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Based on the available information and evidence, the human remains from sites 34Mc254, 34Mc665, 34Mc762, and 34Mc898 are culturally affiliated with Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
Between March 1997 and April 2005, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from sites 34Mc590 and 34Mc733 in McCurtain County, OK. These human remains were removed during archeological excavations conducted on private land owned by the Weyerhauser Company. Under terms of a programmatic agreement with the Weyerhauser Company, the human remains and associated funerary objects are under the control of the U.S. Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest. Dr. Terrance J. Martin, Curator and Chair of Anthropology, Illinois State Museum, Research and Collections Center, thoroughly examined the human remains, along with all associated excavation notes. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Based on archeological evidence, the human remains from sites 34Mc590 and 34Mc733 are culturally affiliated with The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Between March 1997 and April 2005, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from site 34Mc850 in McCurtain County, OK. These human remains were removed during archeological excavations conducted on private land owned by the Weyerhauser Company. Under terms of a programmatic agreement with the Weyerhauser Company, the human remains and associated funerary objects are under the control of Ouachita National Forest. Dr. Terrance J. Martin, Curator and Chair of Anthropology, Illinois State Museum, Research and Collections Center, thoroughly examined the human remains, along with all associated excavation notes. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Based on archeological evidence, the human remains from site 34Mc850 are culturally affiliated with Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Officials of Ouachita National Forest, have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of a minimum of 12 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects removed from sites 34Mc254, 34Mc665, 34Mc762, and 34Mc898 and Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects removed from sites 34Mc590 and 34Mc733 and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects removed from site 34Mc850 and Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects, should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Norman Wagoner, Forest Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71901, telephone (501) 321–5202, email
Ouachita National Forest is responsible for notifying Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The San Diego Museum of Man has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the San Diego Museum of Man at the address in this notice by April 12, 2017.
Ben Garcia, Deputy Director, San Diego Museum of Man, 1350 El Prado, San Diego, CA 92101, telephone (619) 239–2001 ext. 17, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from various locations in the La Jolla area of San Diego, San Diego County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
The 283 associated funerary objects are 9 metates, 20 manos, 8 mortars, 17 stone pestles, 1 arrow shaft straightener, 2 stone pendants, 2 stone bowl fragments, 1 fire-effected modified stone, 1 round stone (possible weight), 2 heating stones, 2 donut stones, 6 hammerstones, 1 weight, 2 battered stones, 22 arrows, 2 dart points, 1 reamer, 1 fragment of a chert blade, 2 chert flakes, 12 cores, 17 core tools, 15 utilized flakes, 15 flakes, 6 lots of flakes, 7 soil samples, 11 ecofacts, 5 stones, 7 ceramic pottery fragments, 5 lots of sherds, 1 wood pestle, 6 unmodified shells, 8 shell pendants, 5 shell disks, 1 abalone fish hook, 14 lots of assorted shell, 3 bone awls, 13 unmodified faunal bones, 18 lots of faunal remains, 1 piece of metal, and 11 olivella shell beads.
In the
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the vicinity of site CA–SDI–39 (W–1) or site CA–SDI–18307 (W–2). These human remains lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, name of the collector, or collection documentation beyond their association with sites CA–SDI–39 (W–1) or CA–SDI–18307 (W–2). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 7 individuals were removed from site CA–SDI–18307 (W–2). These human remains lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, name of the collector, or collection documentation beyond their association to site CA–SDI–18307 (W–2). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from the La Jolla Shores site (CA–SDI–18307 (W–2)) and are believed to have been collected by George Carter. These human remains lack specific collection documentation beyond their association to site CA–SDI–18307 (W–2). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In the
Between 1929 and 1945, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from site CA–SDI–4670 (W–5) by Malcolm J. Rogers on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man as a part of salvage archeology operations. No known individuals were identified. The 126 associated funerary objects are 4 metates, 15 manos, 1 scraper/plane, 1 pestle, 10 battered stones, 15 cores, 28 core tools, 18 utilized flakes, 6 flakes, 4 lot of unworked flakes, 1 hammerstone, 2 bone arrow points, 1 dart point, 1 dart point fragment, 2 lots of shell, 1 modified shell, 3 biface tools, 4 unmodified faunal bones, 3 lots of unmodified faunal bone, 2 lots of ecofacts, 1 lot of tourmaline, 1 soil sample, 1 reamer, and 1 lot of 110 olivella shell beads.
In the
In the
The 192 associated funerary objects include 1 chopper, 12 manos, 1 metate, 1 mortar, 1 stone pestle, 1 stone pendant, 1 dart, 1 lot of modified stone, 4 cores, 4 flakes, 10 lots of unworked flakes, 20 battered stones, 3 arrows, 3 arrow fragments, 1 shell, 14 lots of shell, 4 unmodified faunal bones, 6 lots of unmodified faunal bone, 2 unmodified stones, 1 peach pit, 2 lots of unmodified stone, 2 soil samples, 30 utilized flakes, 5 olivella shell beads, 2 olivella shells, 1 lot of 309 olivella shell beads, 42 core tools, 1 protothaca shell, 13 lots of mixed earth, stone, shell, and faunal bone, 2 pieces of fire affected wood, and 1 piece of stone.
In the
In the
In 1949, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected from the Scripps Plateau site (CA–SDI–525 (W–9)) by Al Allanson. No known individuals were identified. The 3 associated funerary objects are 1 discoidal and 2 manos.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from site CA–SDI–525 (W–9). These human remains lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, name of the collector, or collection documentation beyond their association with site CA–SDI–525 (W–9). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In the
The 470 associated funerary objects are 4 metates 41 manos, 1 scraper plane, 3 donut stones, 1 abrader, 61 battered stone tools, 66 cores, 76 core tools, 87 utilized flakes, 4 flakes, 29 lots of unworked flakes, 5 biface tools, 1 arrow, 2 ceramic fragments, 1 olivella shell bead, 20 lots of unworked shell, 14 pieces of modified faunal bone, 1 piece of burnt bone, 5 unmodified faunal bones, 13 lots of faunal bone, 22 lots of ecofacts, 1 piece of metal, 1 piece of red ceramic, 5 soil samples, and 6 lots of unworked stone.
In the
From 1947 to 1948, human remains representing, at minimum, 14 individuals were collected from site CA–SDI–4669 (W–12) during San Diego Museum of Man field work, possibly done by H. T. Cain and George Carter. No known individuals were identified. The 57 associated funerary objects are 1 piece of unmodified faunal bone, 1 piece of metal, 4 battered stones, 4 utilized flakes, 6 stones, 1 core tools, 2 bone awls, 1 ring stone, 24 flakes, and 13 shells.
In the
In 1956, human remains representing at minimum, 11 individuals were recovered due to construction on the William H. Black Estate, site (CA–SDI–4669 (W–12)). These human remains lack specific information on the date of donation, name of the collector, or collection documentation beyond their association with site CA–SDI–4669 (W–12). No known individuals were identified. The 95 associated funerary objects are 29 manos, 1 metate, 5 cores, 4 core tools, 9 utilized flakes, 6 lots of unworked flakes, 19 battered stones, 1 olivella shell bead, 5 lots of unmodified shell, 2 lots of unmodified faunal bone, 2 soil samples, 9 lots of stone, 1 tile sherd, 1 lot of ceramic debris, and 1 ceramic sherd.
In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, 9 individuals were removed by Dr. Jason Smith of Cal State Northridge and analyzed by Dr. Gail Kennedy of the University of California, Los Angeles, during a joint field school excavation class. The primary location for this excavation was the William H. Black Estate site (CA–SDI–4669 (W–12)), but collection documentation indicates that some work may have been done at the adjacent site CA–SDI–4670 (W–5) during this same field school collection. At an unknown date, these human remains were transferred to the San Diego Museum of Man. No known individuals were identified. The 10 associated funerary objects are 10 lots of faunal remains.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were removed from an unknown location. These human remains lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, name of the collector, or collection documentation beyond a general designation of prehistoric La Jollan, a classification previously used for individuals excavated from sites CA–SDI–39 (W–1), CA–SDI–18307 (W–2), CA–SDI–4670 (W–5), CA–SDI–525 (W–9), or CA–SDI–4669 (W–12). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In the
These sites were originally identified by Malcolm J. Rogers. Excavations from these sites were conducted by Rogers, as well as numerous other individuals, including many former San Diego Museum of Man staff. Many of these excavations occurred while Rogers was employed by the San Diego Museum of Man. These sites are all located within well-known and documented aboriginal territories of the Kumeyaay Nation. Based on a systematic review of collection documentation, bio-cultural and archeological evidence, geographic location, ethnographic information, and oral history evidence, these remains have been identified as Native American.
In the
In the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ben Garcia, Deputy Director, San Diego Museum of Man, 1350 El Prado, San Diego, CA 92101, telephone (619) 239–2001 ext. 17, email
The San Diego Museum of Man is responsible for notifying the Kumeyaay Nation that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (“Order No. 32”) amending the complaint and notice of investigation to reflect a corporate name change.
Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
On March 14, 2016, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Nautilus Hyosung Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea, and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “Nautilus”). 81 FR 13419 (Mar. 14, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of claims 1–3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,891,551 (“the '551 patent”); claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,950,655 (“the '655 patent”); claims 1–4, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,152,165 (“the '165 patent”); and claims 1–3, 6, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,523,235 (“the '235 patent”).
On February 6, 2017, the administrative law judge issued Order No. 32, the subject ID, which granted an unopposed motion filed by Nautilus to amend the complaint and the Commission's Notice of Investigation to reflect a corporate name change “such that the name Diebold, Incorporated be amended to recite Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated.” No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed. After consideration, the Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Broadcom Corporation on March 7, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3200”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Electric Mirror, LLC and Kelvin 42 LLC on March 8, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mirrors with internal illumination and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Aptations, Inc. of Dublin, CA; Foundation Art Services, Inc. of Deerfield Beach, FL; Lumidesign Inc. of Canada; Majestic Mirrors & Frame, LLC of Miami, FL; and Project Light, LLC of Stow, OH. The complainants request that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3202”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation Nos. 731–TA–1334–1337 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, provided for in subheading 4002.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be sold at less-than-fair-value.
Effective February 24, 2017.
Nathanael Comly (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Macronix International Co., Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc. on March 7, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain non-volatile memory devices, and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents Toshiba Corporation of Japan; Toshiba America, Inc. of New York, NY; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. of Irvine, CA; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, CA; and Toshiba Information Equipment (Philippines), Inc. of the Philippines. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3199”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before May 12, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 14, 2016, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., Attn: RA, 100 GBC Drive, Mailstop 514, Newark, Delaware 19702 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Ecgonine (9180) a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to produce the listed controlled substance in bulk to be used in the manufacture of DEA exempt products.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 12, 2017.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Mrs. Amy C. Blasher, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Information Services Division, Module E–3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625–3566.
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.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Notice.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a component of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), is seeking comments on revisions to the confidentiality pledge it provides to its respondents. These revisions are required by the passage and implementation of provisions of the federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, which requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide Federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. More details on this announcement are presented in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 12, 2017.
Questions about this notice should be addressed to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, ATTN: Devon Adams, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Allina Lee by telephone at 202–305–0765 (this is not a toll-free number); by email at
Federal statistics provide key information that the Nation uses to measure its performance and make informed choices about budgets, employment, health, investments, taxes, and a host of other significant topics. Most federal surveys are completed on a voluntary basis. Respondents, ranging from businesses to households to institutions, may choose whether or not to provide the requested information. Many of the most valuable federal statistics come from surveys that ask for highly sensitive information such as proprietary business data from companies or particularly personal information or practices from individuals. BJS protects all personally identifiable information collected under its authority under the confidentiality provisions of 42 U.S.C. 3789(g). Strong and trusted confidentiality and exclusively statistical use pledges under 42 U.S.C. 3789(g) and similar statutes are effective and necessary in honoring the trust that businesses, individuals, and institutions, by their responses, place in statistical agencies.
Under statistical confidentiality protection statutes, federal statistical agencies make statutory pledges that the information respondents provide will be
As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114–113) signed on December 17, 2015, the Congress included the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 (codified in relevant part at 6 U.S.C. 151). This act, among other provisions, permits and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. The technology currently used to provide this protection against cyber malware is known as Einstein 3A. Einstein 3A electronically searches internet traffic in and out of federal civilian agencies in real time for malware signatures.
When such a signature is found, the internet packets that contain the malware signature are shunted aside for further inspection by DHS personnel. Because it is possible that such packets entering or leaving a statistical agency's information technology system may contain a small portion of confidential statistical data, statistical agencies can no longer promise their respondents that their responses will be seen only by statistical agency personnel or their agents. However, federal statistical agencies can promise, in accordance with provisions of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, that such monitoring can be used only to protect information and information systems from cybersecurity risks, thereby, in effect, providing stronger protection to the integrity of the respondents' submissions.
Consequently, with the passage of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, the federal statistical community has an opportunity to welcome the further protection of its confidential data offered by DHS' Einstein 3A cybersecurity protection program. The DHS cybersecurity program's objective is to protect federal civilian information systems from malicious malware attacks. The federal statistical system's objective is to endeavor to ensure that the DHS Secretary performs those essential duties in a manner that honors the statistical agencies' statutory promises to the public to protect their confidential data. DHS and the federal statistical system have been successfully engaged in finding a way to balance both objectives and achieve these mutually reinforcing objectives.
However, pledges of confidentiality made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3789(g) and similar statutes assure respondents that their data will be seen only by statistical agency personnel or their agents. Because it is possible that DHS personnel could see some portion of those confidential data in the course of examining the suspicious Internet packets identified by Einstein 3A sensors, statistical agencies are revising their confidentiality pledges to reflect this process change. Therefore, BJS is providing this notice to alert the public to these confidentiality pledge revisions in an efficient and coordinated fashion.
The following is the revised statistical confidentiality pledge for applicable BJS data collections, with the new line added to address the new cybersecurity monitoring activities bolded for reference only:
The following listing shows the current BJS Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) OMB numbers and information collection titles whose confidentiality pledges will change to reflect the statutory implementation of DHS' Einstein 3A monitoring for cybersecurity protection purposes.
BJS has also added information about the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act and Einstein 3A to the BJS Data Protection Guidelines to provide more details to interested respondents about the new cybersecurity monitoring requirements. The following text has been added to Section V. Information System Security and Privacy Requirements:
The Census Bureau collects data on behalf of BJS for BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and its supplements. These collections are protected under Title 13 U.S.C. 9. The Census Bureau issued a
The following listing includes the BJS information collections that are administered by the Census Bureau whose confidentiality pledge will be revised.
The 60-day FRN submitted by the Census Bureau can be accessed at
Comments are invited on the efficacy of BJS's revised confidentiality pledge above. Comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public record. If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Arts will be held in Conference Rooms A & B at Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506. Agenda times are approximate.
Friday, March 31, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Office of Public Affairs, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682–5570.
The meeting, in Conference Rooms A & B, is scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and will be open to the public on a space available basis. The tentative agenda is as follows: The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. with opening remarks and voting on recommendations for funding and rejection and guidelines, followed by updates from the Chairman. There also will be presentations related to several Arts Education projects supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, including: The Regional Arts and Culture Council (Oregon) presenting on their Right Brain Initiative; Paper Mill Playhouse (New Jersey) presenting on their autism-friendly theater performances; Architecture Resource Center (Connecticut) presenting on their design education program; ProjectSTEP (Massachusetts) presenting on their music education program, including a student presentation/performance; and Adventure Theatre (Maryland) presenting on its programs, including a vocal performance by students. After the presentations there will be concluding remarks from the Chairman and announcement of voting results. The meeting will adjourn at 12:00 p.m.
The session also will be webcast. To register to watch the webcasting of this open session of the meeting, go to
If, in the course of the open session discussion, it becomes necessary for the Council to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of intrinsic value, the Council will go into closed session pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and in accordance with the July 5, 2016 determination of the Chairman. Additionally, discussion concerning purely personal information about individuals, such as personal biographical and salary data or medical information, may be conducted by the Council in closed session in accordance with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Any interested persons may attend, as observers, Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of Accessibility, National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682–5567, Voice/T.T.Y. 202/682–5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Foundation, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Foundation's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments on this notice must be received by April 12, 2017, to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Ms. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292–7556; or send email to
NSF 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 Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) program recommends, prioritizes, and funds interdisciplinary initiatives at the emerging frontier of engineering research and education. These investments represent transformative opportunities, potentially leading to: New research areas for NSF, ENG, and other agencies; new industries or capabilities that result in a leadership position for the country; and/or significant progress on a recognized national need or grand challenge.
Established in 2007, EFRI supports cutting-edge research that is difficult to fund through other NSF programs, such as single-investigator grants or large research centers. EFRI seeks high-risk opportunities with the potential for a large payoff where researchers are encouraged to stretch beyond their ongoing activities. Based on input from workshops, advisory committees, technical meetings, professional societies, research proposals, and suggestions from the research community the EFRI program identifies those emerging opportunities and manages a formal process for funding their research. The emerging ideas tackled by EFRI are “frontier” because they not only push the understood limits of engineering but actually overlap multiple fields. The EFRI funding process inspires investigators with different expertise to work together on one emerging concept.
EFRI awards require multi-disciplinary teams of at least one Principal Investigator and two Co-Principal Investigators. The anticipated duration of all awards is 4-years. The anticipated funding level for each project team may receive support of up to a total of $2,000,000 spread over four years, pending the availability of funds. In that sense EFRI awards are above the average single-investigator award amounts.
EFRI-funded projects could include research opportunities and mentoring for educators, scholars, and university students, as well as outreach programs that help stir the imagination of K–12 students, often with a focus on groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
We are seeking to collect additional information from the grantees about the outcomes of their research that goes above and beyond the standard reporting requirements used by the NSF and spans over a period of 5 years after the award. This data collection effort will enable program officers to longitudinally monitor outputs and outcomes given the unique goals and purpose of the program. This is very important to enable appropriate and accurate evidence-based management of the program and to determine whether or not the specific goals of the program are being met.
Grantees will be required to submit this information on an annual basis to support performance review and the management of EFRI grants by EFRI officers. EFRI grantees will be required to submit these indicators to NSF via a data collection Web site that will be embedded in NSF's IT infrastructure. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of project personnel and students; sources of complementary cash and in-kind support to the EFRI project; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the EFRI effort. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.
Each submission will address the following major categories of activities: (1) Knowledge transfer across disciplines, (2) innovation of ideas in areas of greater opportunity, (3) potential for translational research, (4) project results advance the frontier/creation of new fields of study, (5) innovative research methods or discoveries are introduced to the classroom, and (6) fostering participation of underrepresented groups in science. For each of the categories, the report will enumerate specific outputs and outcomes.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Preliminary draft guidance; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment preliminary draft guidance on non-light water reactor security design considerations. The Commission's “Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Reactors” states that the design of advanced reactors should consider safety and security requirements together in the design process such that security issues (
Submit comments by April 27, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Because this is a preliminary draft, comments will not be responded to individually but will be considered by the NRC staff when developing the draft guidance document.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specified subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
George Tartal, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–0016, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–0073 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2017–0073 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment preliminary draft guidance on non-light water reactor security design considerations. This document would set forth a set of “security design considerations” that a designer should consider while developing the facility design. Consistent with the Commission's “Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Reactors,” these considerations should be considered early in the design process. The preliminary draft guidance document is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16305A328.
After receiving and considering comments, the NRC staff intends to include the security design considerations in a guidance document that is being developed for advanced reactor design criteria for non-light water reactors (non-LWRs). These design criteria address the safety aspects of non-LWRs. The NRC staff intends that the guidance document will include both safety design criteria and security design considerations.
Please note that some of the referenced documents within the security design considerations are not publicly available because they contain safeguards information, security-related information, or other types of information that the NRC cannot release to the public.
This preliminary draft guidance would set forth a set of security design considerations that a designer should consider while developing the facility design. These considerations, if adequately implemented through detailed design, along with the adequate implementation of administrative controls and security programs, are one way to protect a nuclear power reactor against the design basis threat for radiological sabotage. These considerations do not limit designers or applicants from applying other methods or approaches in designing engineered systems to perform intended security functions.
The purpose of this preliminary draft guidance is to assist the NRC staff and future applicants. The security design considerations are not regulatory requirements. Parts 50 and 52 of title 10 of the
This preliminary draft guidance, if finalized, for example, in a regulatory guide, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and would not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” This guidance, if finalized, would represent the first NRC guidance on this subject. Issuance of new guidance, by itself, does not represent backfitting unless the NRC intends to impose the guidance on existing licensees and currently-approved design certification rules issued under 10 CFR part 52. The NRC does not have such an intention.
Existing licensees and applicants of final design certification rules would not be required to comply with this guidance, unless the licensee or design certification rule applicant seeks a voluntary change to its licensing basis with respect to resolving security matters through facility design.
Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exceptions discussed in the next paragraph—were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. Therefore, this guidance, if finalized and imposed on applicants, would not represent backfitting (except as discussed below).
The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever a combined license applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–43, issued to DTE Electric Company (DTE), for operation of the Fermi, Unit 2. The proposed amendment revises technical specifications (TS) for emergency core cooling system (ECCS) instrumentation (TS 3.3.5.1) and reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system instrumentation (TS 3.3.5.2). The proposed changes add footnotes indicating that the injection functions of “Drywell Pressure—High” for high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI) and “Manual Initiation” for HPCI and RCIC are not required to be operable under low reactor pressure conditions.
Submit comments by April 12, 2017. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by May 12, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–0072 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:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Sujata Goetz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–8004, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–0072 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2017–0072 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NFP–43, issued to DTE, for operation of the Fermi, Unit 2, located in Monroe County, Michigan. The proposed amendment requests modification of the TSs for emergency core cooling system (ECCS) instrumentation (TS 3.3.5.1) and reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system instrumentation (TS 3.3.5.2). The proposed changes add footnotes indicating that the injection functions of “Drywell Pressure—High” for HPCI and “Manual Initiation” for HPCI and RCIC are not required to be operable under low reactor pressure conditions.
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve the addition of clarifying footnotes to the HPCI [High Pressure Cooling Injection] and RCIC [Reactor Core Isolation Cooling] actuation instrumentation TS [Technical Specification] to reflect the as-built plant design and operability requirements of HPCI and RCIC instrumentation as described in the Fermi 2 UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
HPCI is an initiator of the increase in reactor coolant inventory accident in UFSAR (Reference 7.1) Section 15.5.1. However, the accident assumes inadvertent manual startup of HPCI. The change being requested in this amendment is administrative in nature and does not make any changes to the HPCI system or procedures that would increase the probability for inadvertent manual startup of HPCI. RCIC is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. In addition, the manual initiation of HPCI and RCIC are not credited to mitigate the consequences of design basis accidents or transients within the current Fermi 2 design and licensing basis and automatic actuation of the HPCI system on the high drywell pressure signal is not required for the HPCI to perform its system safety functions in mitigating the consequences of a LOCA initiating at low reactor pressure.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no adverse effect on plant operation. The plant response to the design basis accidents does not change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by May 12, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated February 23, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard review plan-final section revision; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a final revision to sections in Chapter 3, “Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems” of NUREG–0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.” The changes to these Standard Review Plan (SRP) sections reflect responses to public comments and additional guidance based on current NRC staff review methods and practices based on lessons learned from the NRC's reviews of design certification and combined license applications completed since the last revision of this chapter.
The effective date of this Standard Review Plan (SRP) update is April 12, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0229 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:
•
•
•
Mark Notich, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301–415–3053; email:
On September 29, 2015 (80 FR 58512), the NRC published for public comment the proposed revisions to these sections of the SRP. The staff made changes to the proposed revisions after consideration of comments received from one (1) commenter. A summary of the comments and the staff's disposition of the comments is available in a separate document, “Response to Public Comments on Draft Standard Review Plan Section from Chapter 3: Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16133A361). The additional guidance for staff reviews includes the following:
These sections have been developed to assist the NRC staff review the design of structures, components, equipment, and systems under parts 50 and 52 of title 10 of the
Following the NRC staff's evaluation of public comments, the NRC intends to finalize the proposed revisions of the subject SRP Sections in ADAMS and post them on the NRC's public Web site at
Issuance of these revised SRP sections does not constitute backfitting as defined in § 50.109 of title 10 of the
The SRP provides guidance to the staff on how to review an application for the NRC's regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in internal staff guidance are not matters for which either nuclear power plant applicants or licensees are protected under either the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52.
The staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in the SRP to existing (already issued) licenses and regulatory approvals. Therefore, the issuance of a final SRP—even if considered guidance that is within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—need not be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP on holders of already issued licenses in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.
Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions discussed in the next paragraph—were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants.
The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
This action is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection request (ICR), Letter Reply to Request for Information and Information on Electing a Survivor Annuity for Your Former Spouse.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 12, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206–0235) was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Form RI 20–64, Letter Reply to Request for Information, is used by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to provide information about the amount of annuity payable after a survivor reduction, to explain the annuity reductions required to pay for the survivor benefit, and to give the beginning rate of survivor annuity. Form RI 20–64A, Former Spouse Survivor Annuity Election, is used by the CSRS to obtain a survivor benefit election from annuitants who are eligible to elect to provide survivor benefits for a former spouse. Form RI 20–64B, Information on Electing a Survivor Annuity for Your Former Spouse, is a pamphlet that provides important information to retirees under the CSRS who want to provide a survivor annuity for a former spouse.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Order; correction.
The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the
Steve Kuan, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551–5624.
In the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and make corresponding changes to its Certificate of Incorporation. Specifically the Exchange proposes to amend its Board size range and eliminate its Compensation Committee.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws relating to Board size range. Currently, Section 3.1 of the Bylaws provide that the Board shall consist of not less than 12 and not more than 16 directors. The Exchange proposes to change the Board size range such that the Board shall consist of no less than 5 directors. The Exchange believes the proposed change will provide greater flexibility by permitting the Board to increase or decrease the size of the board without the need to further amend the Bylaws.
Next, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Exchange-level Compensation Committee. The Exchange seeks to eliminate the Compensation Committee because it believes that the Compensation Committee's functions are duplicative of the functions of the Compensation Committee of its parent company, CBOE Holdings.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change to amend the Board size range in the Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation provides the Board with flexibility. Additionally, the Exchange is not proposing to amend any of the compositional requirements currently set forth in the Bylaws. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed changes will provide greater flexibility to the Exchange in populating a Board of Directors that includes directors with relevant and diverse expertise, while continuing to ensure that the Board is of adequate size and the existing compositional requirements of the Exchange are met, including the provision relating to the fair representation of members.
The Exchange believes eliminating the Exchange-level Compensation Committee allows the Exchange to eliminate a board committee whose responsibilities overlap with, and are adequately handled by, the corresponding committee of the Exchange's ultimate parent. This will allow directors of the Exchange to focus their attention on matters falling directly within the purview of the Exchange's board, including its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change relates to the corporate governance of C2 and not the operations of the Exchange. This is not a competitive filing and, therefore, imposes no burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Notice of application for an exemptive order under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
Katahdin Asset Management LLC (the “Applicant”).
Exemption requested under Section 202(a)(11)(H) of the Advisers Act from Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act.
The Applicant requests that the Commission issue an order declaring the Applicant to be a person not within the intent of Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act, which defines the term “investment adviser.”
The application was filed on September 2, 2016, and amended on December 14, 2016 and February 9, 2017.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving the Applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 3, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0–5 under the Advisers Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. Applicant, Katahdin Asset Management LLC, c/o Dan L. Jaffe, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, 52 East Gay Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
James McGinnis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–3025 or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551–6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site either at
1. The Applicant, a Delaware limited liability company, is a multi-generational single-family office that provides services to the family and descendants of Joseph A. Jeffrey (1836–1928) (“J.A. Jeffrey”) through the provision of services to Jeffrey LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and to The Jeffrey Company, an Ohio corporation (“TJC”). The securities of each of Jeffrey LLC and TJC are 100% owned directly or indirectly by the descendants of J.A. Jeffrey. The managing member of Jeffrey LLC is TJC. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms have the same meaning as defined in the Family Office Rule.
2. The Applicant provides a wide array of services (both advisory and non-advisory) to, and conducts the day-to-day operations of, Jeffrey LLC and TJC with the Applicant's own employees (neither Jeffrey LLC nor TJC having employees of its own), subject to the direction of the board of directors of TJC (the “Board”). TJC is managed by the Board, a majority of the members of which are Family Members as defined in paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 202(a)(11)(G)–1 (the “Family Office Rule”) (with J.A. Jeffrey being the “common ancestor” for this purpose). The Applicant is wholly owned and controlled by the same individual who is TJC's chief executive officer, and who also is a Family Member.
3. The Applicant represents that (i) each of the persons served by the Applicant is a Family Client,
4. The Applicant represents that Jeffrey LLC currently relies on an exception from the definition of investment company pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “ICA”). Jeffrey LLC would like to offer to additional Family Clients the opportunity to invest in Jeffrey LLC (subject to securities law compliance, including complying with applicable federal and state exemptions from the registration of its securities). The Applicant states that the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA would cause family friction by denying to many Family Clients the opportunity to invest in Jeffrey LLC. The Applicant states that there are approximately 350 Family Members. Accordingly, on March 11, 2016, Jeffrey LLC filed an application with the Commission pursuant to Section 6(c) of the ICA requesting an exemption from all of the provisions of the ICA and all rules and regulations thereunder. Such exemption would permit Jeffrey LLC to allow all Family Clients the opportunity to invest in Jeffrey LLC without imposing on Jeffrey LLC the costs of registering under, and complying with, the ICA.
5. The Applicant represents that, in the event Jeffrey LLC were to exceed the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA, the Applicant would continue to meet the three general conditions of the Family Office Rule set forth in item 3 above, with the exception that Jeffrey LLC would not qualify as a Family Client, as more fully described below. The Applicant represents that the assets owned
6. The Applicant represents that the membership interests of Jeffrey LLC (“units”) have not been, and will not be, offered or sold to the public. The Applicant states that under Jeffrey LLC's limited liability company agreement, sales or other transfers of units for value to any purchaser, other than to Jeffrey LLC itself, are prohibited. The Applicant further states that transfers for value to existing members or other Family Clients are prohibited.
7. The Applicant represents that TJC, since 1974, has relied on an exception from the definition of investment company pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA. As of December 31, 2016, however, virtually all of TJC's assets consist of managing member units of Jeffrey LLC, which Jeffrey LLC has determined are not securities. Applicant represents that TJC no longer is required to rely on Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA and does not require an exemption from the provisions of the ICA.
1. Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act defines the term “investment adviser” to mean “any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities . . . .”
2. The Applicant currently complies with the Family Office Rule, and thus the Applicant is not considered to be an “investment adviser” under Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act. In the event that Jeffrey LLC were to exceed the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA and thereby no longer would be excepted from the definition of “investment company” under the ICA, the Applicant would not comply with the Family Office Rule exclusion from the term “investment adviser” because the Applicant's “client” (Jeffrey LLC) would not qualify as a Family Client under paragraph (d)(4)(xi) of the Family Office Rule. The Applicant does not qualify for any of the exemptions from registration as an investment adviser set forth in Section 203(b) of the Advisers Act and, because the Applicant has regulatory assets under management of more than $100 million, the Applicant is not prohibited from registering with the Commission under Section 203A(a) of the Advisers Act. Therefore, absent relief, the Applicant would be required to register as an investment adviser under Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act.
3. The Applicant submits that, in the event Jeffrey LLC were to exceed the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA, the Applicant's relationship with Jeffrey LLC would not change the nature of the Applicant into that of a commercial advisory firm. In support of this argument, the Applicant notes that the Applicant would continue to be held entirely by Family Clients, and the Applicant would continue not to hold itself out to the public as an investment adviser. The Applicant represents that Jeffrey LLC would continue to be managed and controlled by TJC, which in turn is managed by the Board, a majority of the members of which are Family Members.
4. The Applicant states that, in requesting the order, the Applicant is not attempting to expand its operations or engage in any level of commercial activity to which the Advisers Act is designed to apply. Further, in the event Jeffrey LLC receives from the Commission an order exempting Jeffrey LLC from all of the provisions of the ICA and all rules and regulations thereunder, given the conditions of such exemptive order, which are designed to alleviate the policy concerns implicated by expanding Jeffrey LLC beyond one hundred investors, the Applicant submits that there is no practical difference from a regulatory standpoint between (i) a pooled investment vehicle created exclusively for the benefit of and wholly owned by Family Clients that is “excepted from the definition” of “investment company” under the ICA, and (ii) such a pooled investment vehicle that is, by virtue of a Commission order, exempt from all the provisions of the ICA and all rules and regulations thereunder.
5. The Applicant also submits that there is no public interest in requiring the Applicant to be registered under the Advisers Act. The Applicant is a private organization that was formed to be the “family office” for descendants of J.A. Jeffrey. The Applicant's clients are Jeffrey LLC and TJC; the Applicant has no clients other than Family Clients. Applicant represents that such services would not change or be affected in the event Jeffrey LLC were to exceed the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA.
6. The Applicant argues that, although the Family Office Rule largely codified the exemptive orders that the Commission had previously issued before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Commission recognized in proposing the Family Office Rule that the exact representations, conditions, or terms contained in every exemptive order could not be captured in a rule of general applicability. The Commission noted that family offices would remain free to seek a Commission exemptive order to advise an individual or entity that did not meet the proposed “family client” definition, and that certain situations may raise unique conflicts and issues that are more appropriately addressed through an exemptive order process where the Commission can consider the specific facts and circumstances, than through a rule of general applicability.
7. The Applicant notes that the Commission has issued orders subsequent to the adoption of the Family Office Rule, and that each of those orders treated the applicant as a Family Office even though the applicant was providing services to persons who did not fall within the definition of “Family Client.” The Applicant submits that those orders recognized unusual circumstances in which an entity provided services to such persons while remaining focused on a single family's needs. The Applicant maintains that its unusual circumstances—providing services to an entity that currently qualifies as a Family Client because it is excepted from the definition of “investment company” under the ICA but would not be so excepted if it were to exceed 100 beneficial owners—would not change the nature of the Applicant's operations into that of a commercial advisory business, and that an
8. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests an order declaring it to be a person not within the intent of Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act. The Applicant submits that the order is necessary and appropriate, in the public interest, consistent with the protection of investors, and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers Act.
1. The Applicant will offer and provide services only to: (i) Jeffrey LLC, which will generally be deemed to be, and treated as if it were, a Family Client, and (ii) other Family Clients.
2. The Applicant at all times will be wholly owned by Family Clients and exclusively controlled (directly or indirectly) by one or more Family Members and/or Family Entities as defined in paragraph (d)(5) of the Family Office Rule.
3. Jeffrey LLC at all times will be wholly owned by Family Clients.
4. At all times the assets beneficially owned by Family Members and/or Family Entities (including assets beneficially owned by Family Members and/or Family Entities indirectly through Jeffrey LLC) will account for at least 75% of the assets for which the Applicant provides services.
5. The Applicant will comply with all the terms for exclusion from the definition of “investment adviser” under the Advisers Act set forth in the Family Office Rule except for the limited exception requested by the application.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
This proposed rule change by OCC would amend OCC's By-Laws, Rules, Board of Directors Charter (“Board Charter”), Compensation and Performance Committee Charter (“CPC Charter”), Dividend Policy, and Refund Policy to address organizational changes within OCC's management structure. Specifically, OCC is proposing the following changes: (1) Amendment of OCC's By-Laws to provide that the Executive Chairman would also serve as Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”); (2) amendment of OCC's By-Laws and Rules to reflect that the President would no longer be a recognized officer of OCC; (3) amendment of OCC's By-Laws to provide that the Board would appoint the Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) and a newly recognized Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”); (4) amendment of OCC's By-Laws and Rules to provide that the COO and CAO would each have authority to take certain actions or grant exceptions where that authority was previously granted to the President; (5) conforming changes to OCC's Board Charter, CPC Charter, and the Dividend and Refund Policies reflecting the proposed amendments described above; (6) amendment of OCC's By-Laws to separate the positions of Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”); and (7) a number of administrative and clean-up edits to the By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to implement organizational changes to OCC's management structure in OCC's By-Laws and Rules. Specifically, OCC is proposing the following changes: (1) Amendment of OCC's By-Laws to provide that the Executive Chairman would also serve as CEO; (2) amendment of OCC's By-Laws and Rules to reflect that the President would no longer be a recognized officer of OCC; (3) amendment of OCC's By-Laws to provide that the Board would appoint the COO and a newly recognized CAO; (4) amendment of OCC's By-Laws and Rules to provide that the COO and CAO would each have authority to take certain actions or grant exceptions where that authority was previously granted to the President; (5) conforming changes to OCC's Board Charter, CPC Charter, and the Dividend and Refund Policies reflecting the proposed amendments described above; (6) amendment of OCC's By-Laws to separate the positions of Treasurer and CFO; and (7) a number of administrative and clean-up edits to the By-Laws and Rules. These changes are proposed as a result of the Board's continual evaluation of OCC's governance arrangements, and OCC believes that they represent leadership enhancements that promote OCC's efficient management and operation and would therefore improve OCC's ability to serve Clearing Members and the markets for which it clears.
The organizational structure of OCC's management is primarily addressed in Article IV of the By-Laws (Officers). Under Article IV, Section 1, the Board is required to elect an Executive Chairman from among OCC's full-time employees and is also required to elect a President, Secretary, and a Treasurer, who are not required to be members of the Board at the time of their election.
Pursuant to OCC's By-Laws, the Executive Chairman is responsible for OCC's control functions, including, but not limited to, enterprise risk management, internal audit and compliance, and external affairs.
In addition to officers who are elected by the Board, the Executive Chairman and President may, to the extent that they deem it necessary and appropriate, appoint officers and agents to carry out the functions that are assigned to them.
OCC proposes a number of management structure changes in its By-Laws and Rules that are primarily related to the elimination of the office of President. Accordingly, the President's powers and duties would be allocated among other officers in OCC's management, and in many cases, the proposed changes are designed to vest the powers and duties of the President in the COO and CAO, without otherwise modifying OCC's management structure. In addition, OCC is proposing an amendment to its By-Laws to separate the positions of Treasurer and CFO. The proposed changes are described in detail below.
Under the proposed rule change, the Executive Chairman would continue to be appointed by the Board and be responsible for OCC's control functions. However, OCC proposes to amend Article IV, Section 6 of the By-Laws to provide that the Executive Chairman would also serve as a newly recognized CEO. In that capacity, the Executive Chairman and CEO would be responsible for all aspects of OCC's business and the day-to-day administration of its affairs that are not otherwise assigned to the COO or CAO. OCC notes that, under its current By-Laws, the President is responsible for all aspects of OCC's business that do not report directly to the Executive Chairman and is responsible for the day-to-day administration of OCC's affairs in accordance with the directions of the Executive Chairman. The proposed rule change would provide the Executive Chairman/CEO with explicit responsibility for overseeing all aspects of OCC's business and the day-to-day administration of its affairs, with the COO and CAO each being responsible for aspects of the business of OCC that do not report directly to the Executive Chairman and CEO and administering the day to day affairs and business of OCC in accordance with the directions of the Executive Chairman and CEO. In connection with this change, OCC's senior management would be reorganized within an Office of the Executive Chairman that would be comprised of the Executive Chairman (who would also serve as CEO), the COO and the CAO. OCC believes that this new management structure will combine the breadth and depth of experience and skill necessary within OCC's senior management team to provide for the efficient and effective management and operation of OCC, improve OCC's ability to serve Clearing Members and the markets for which it clears, and help to ensure that OCC is so organized and has the capacity to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of the transactions it clears.
OCC proposes a number of amendments throughout its By-Laws and Rules to remove references to the office of President to reflect the fact that the President would no longer be a recognized officer within OCC's management. As described in more detail below, all references to the authority and responsibilities of the President would generally be replaced with references to the COO and newly appointed CAO. OCC believes that eliminating the role of President and distributing the wide range of authority and responsibilities associated therewith to two senior officers (the CAO and COO) would provide for an even broader range of knowledge, skills, and experience within OCC's senior management team, promote more efficient and effective management and operation of OCC, improve OCC's ability to serve Clearing Members and the markets for which it clears, and help to ensure that OCC is so organized and has the capacity to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of the transactions it clears.
OCC proposes to amend Article IV, Sections 1, 8 and 13 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board would elect a COO and a CAO and would set the salaries for such officers. Accordingly, OCC would continue to have a COO within its management structure because, as noted above, the President also serves as COO under OCC's existing By-Laws. The CAO, however, is a newly recognized officer within OCC's management structure. As is currently the case regarding the President, neither the COO nor the CAO would be required to be a member of the Board upon election. Also, consistent with the existing prohibition against the same person holding any two of the offices of Executive Chairman, President and Member Vice Chairman,
The responsibility of management to carry out OCC's affairs is frequently assigned to groups of officers, including the Executive Chairman, President, and other officers of appropriate seniority. This approach provides important flexibility to help ensure that responsibility is not unduly concentrated in any one officer, that OCC's affairs are carried out efficiently, and that management has the capacity to continue carrying out OCC's business and day-to-day affairs even if a particular officer is absent or becomes disabled. To preserve the benefits of this structure given the elimination of the office of President, OCC proposes that the COO and CAO would instead assume certain responsibilities in the By-Laws and Rules where they are currently assigned, at least in part, to the President.
Under the proposed changes to Article IV, Section 8 of the By-Laws, the COO and CAO would be responsible for the aspects of OCC's business that do not report directly to the Executive Chairman, as determined by the Board to promote the efficient and effective management and operation of OCC, and they would administer their responsibilities in accordance with directions from the Executive Chairman. Under the proposed management structure changes, the COO initially would be responsible for the oversight of OCC's technology and operations functions while the CAO would be responsible for the oversight of the finance, human resources, financial risk management, corporate planning, product and business development, and project management aspects of OCC's business. In addition, in the event of any absence or disability of the Executive Chairman, the COO and CAO would each have the authority and responsibility to fulfill the duties and have the powers of the Executive Chairman. However, in the absence or disability of the Executive Chairman, neither the COO nor the CAO would be permitted to preside at meetings of the Board or stockholders. This same restriction currently applies to the President.
Under the proposed amendments to Article IV, Sections 2, 3, 9, and 13 of the By-Laws, the COO and CAO each would have authority, consistent with the authority previously granted to the President, to appoint officers and agents as they deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the functions assigned to them. This includes, but is not limited to, the authority to appoint certain Vice Presidents within management. Any officers or agents who are appointed by the COO or CAO would be subject to their supervision and would be able to be removed by the COO and CAO, respectively, at any time, with or without cause. Such officers or agents would exercise powers and perform duties as determined by the COO or the CAO and the term and salary
Other examples of the responsibilities of the President being reallocated to the COO and CAO in the By-Laws and Rules include, but are not limited to, that the COO and CAO would, under certain conditions, have shared authority with the Executive Chairman and other officers to: (1) Approve banks or trust companies as Approved Custodians; (2) declare the existence of an emergency and take related actions; (3) approve clearing membership applications and grant related extensions; (4) impose restrictions on options exercises; (5) determine reasonable means through which to borrow or otherwise obtain funds using Clearing Fund contributions; (6) sign certificates representing shares in OCC; (7) waive or suspend OCC's By-Laws, Rules, policies, procedures or any other of OCC's rules in emergency circumstances to protect OCC or the public interest; (8) impose restrictions on certain Clearing Member transactions, positions and activities; (9) extend settlement times in emergency conditions; (10) waive the required margin deposit of a Clearing Member in the interest of maintaining fair and orderly markets;
OCC believes the proposed changes described above will result in an appropriate and effective management structure that combines the breadth and depth of experience and skill necessary within OCC's senior management team to provide for the efficient and effective management and operation of OCC, improve OCC's ability to serve Clearing Members and the markets for which it clears, and help to ensure that OCC is so organized and has the capacity to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of the transactions it clears. Moreover, the proposed changes to OCC's management structure would provide important flexibility to help ensure that responsibility is not unduly concentrated in any one officer, that OCC's affairs are carried out efficiently, and that management has the capacity to continue carrying out OCC's business and day-to-day affairs even if a particular officer is absent or becomes disabled.
OCC also proposes to amend Article IV, Section 12 of the By-Laws to provide that, in the event of a vacancy of the office of Controller, the Executive Chairman (in addition to the Board) would have the authority to designate a person to serve as chief accounting officer of OCC until the office of Controller is filled. OCC believes it would be appropriate for the Executive Chairman to replace the President in this role given the Executive Chairman's capacity as Management Director.
In connection with the proposed changes described above, OCC also proposes to change certain references to the President that appear in its Board Charter, CPC Charter, Dividend Policy and Refund Policy. These changes are described below and would not otherwise modify OCC's management structure.
OCC proposes to amend the Board Charter to reflect that the Board has responsibility for selecting, overseeing and, where appropriate, replacing the COO and CAO, and that the Board evaluates and sets the compensation of these officers. The proposed amendments would also state that the Board provides counsel and advice to the COO and CAO and oversees those officers as part of the Board's evaluation of whether OCC's business is being appropriately managed. OCC notes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Board's existing obligations with respect to the election and oversight of the President.
Additionally, OCC proposes to amend the CPC Charter to reflect that the CPC would generally oversee the compensation, benefits and perquisites of the COO and CAO, including responsibility for making associated recommendations to the Board, and to identify that the CPC is responsible for reviewing and approving the annual goals and objectives of the COO and CAO. OCC also proposes to amend the CPC Charter to reflect that the CPC will now meet at least annually with the COO and CAO (instead of the President) to discuss and review compensation and performance levels of senior management and other key officers. In addition, the CPC Charter would be amended to reflect that the CPC reviews OCC's employment contracts with the COO and CAO (in place of the President) and makes recommendations to the Board regarding related approvals.
OCC's Refund Policy would be amended to reflect that, in addition to the Executive Chairman, the COO or CAO would have authority under certain conditions to determine the payment date of refunds. This authority is currently reserved to the Executive Chairman and the President. OCC would also amend the Dividend Policy to reflect that, in addition to the Executive Chairman, the COO or CAO (rather than the President) would have authority under certain conditions to determine the payment date of dividends if for any reason OCC's Refund Policy is not in effect. As a housekeeping matter that is unrelated to the COO and CAO assuming certain responsibilities of the President, OCC is also updating its Dividend Policy and Refund Policy to reflect that the Commission recently adopted its Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies.
OCC proposes to amend Article IV, Section 11 of the By-Laws to eliminate a sentence that provides that OCC's Treasurer shall also serve as CFO absent another person being designated by the Board to serve in that capacity. Under the proposed rule change, the Board would continue to appoint OCC's Treasurer as currently required under Article IV, Section 1 of the By-Laws; however, the Treasurer would no longer automatically serve as CFO, and the Board would not be responsible for appointing OCC's CFO. OCC believes that separating these positions and eliminating this provision of the By-Laws will allow for greater flexibility relative to the structure, management and operation of OCC's corporate finance group.
OCC is proposing a number of administrative and clean-up changes to its By-Laws and Rules. Specifically, OCC proposes to add a definition of “Designated Officer” in Article I, Section 1 of the By-Laws. The term is already used elsewhere in OCC's By-Laws and Rules (
Additionally, OCC proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .01 of Article III, Section 7 of the By-Laws, which concerns the use of the criteria of OCC's Fitness Standards for Directors, Clearing Members and Others in the election of Management Directors, to remove a reference to the President. OCC notes that, in addition to the proposed elimination of the office of President in this proposed rule change, in 2014, the Commission approved a proposed rule change providing that OCC's President would no longer be considered a Management Director.
Finally, OCC proposes a number of non-substantive amendments to correct typographical errors in the By-Laws and Rules (
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act
In addition, OCC believes that centralizing the definition of “Designated Officer” in Article I, Section 1 and making other clarifying, conforming and clean-up changes to OCC's governing documents would promote organizational consistency and clarity in OCC's legal framework to ensure that it remains well-founded, transparent and enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions in accordance with Rule 17Ad–22(d)(1).
Finally, recently adopted Rule 17Ad–22(e)(2)
The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–OCC–2017–002 and should be submitted on or before April 3, 2017.
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 102 prohibits distribution participants, issuers, and selling security holders from purchasing activities at specified times during a distribution of securities. Persons otherwise covered by these rules may seek to use several applicable exceptions such as an exclusion for actively traded reference securities and the maintenance of policies regarding information barriers between their affiliates.
There are approximately 998 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 1,898 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes on average approximately 1.902 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 1,898 burden hours. The total internal compliance cost for all respondents is approximately $123,370.00, resulting in a cost of compliance per respondent of approximately $124.00 (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 103 permits passive market-making in Nasdaq securities during a distribution. A distribution participant that seeks use of this exception would be required to disclose to third parties its intention to engage in passive market making.
There are approximately 309 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 309 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 response annually. Each response takes approximately 1 hour to complete. Thus, the total hourly burden per year is 309 hours. The total estimated internal labor cost of compliance for the respondents is approximately $20,085.00 per year, resulting in an estimated internal labor cost of compliance per response of approximately $65.00 (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation. Specifically the Exchange proposes to amend its Board size range and eliminate its Compensation Committee.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws relating to Board size range. Currently, Section 3.1 of the Bylaws provide that the Board shall consist of not less than 12 and not more than 16 directors. The Exchange proposes to change the Board size range such that the Board shall consist of no less than 5 directors. The Exchange believes the proposed change will provide greater flexibility by permitting the Board to increase or decrease the size of the board without the need to further amend the Bylaws.
Next, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Exchange-level Compensation Committee. The Exchange seeks to eliminate the Compensation Committee because it believes that the Compensation Committee's functions are duplicative of the functions of the Compensation Committee of its parent company, CBOE Holdings.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change to amend the Board size range in the Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation provides the Board with flexibility. Additionally, the Exchange is not proposing to amend any of the compositional requirements currently set forth in the Bylaws. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed changes will provide greater flexibility to the Exchange in populating a Board of Directors that includes directors with relevant and diverse expertise, while continuing to ensure that the Board is of adequate size and the existing compositional requirements of the Exchange are met, including the provision relating to the fair representation of members.
The Exchange believes eliminating the Exchange-level Compensation Committee allows the Exchange to eliminate a board committee whose responsibilities overlap with, and are adequately handled by, the corresponding committee of the Exchange's ultimate parent. This will allow directors of the Exchange to focus their attention on matters falling directly within the purview of the Exchange's board, including its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change relates to the corporate governance of CBOE and not the operations of the Exchange. This is not a competitive filing and, therefore, imposes no burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Advanced Series Trust, Prudential's Gibraltar Fund, Inc., The Prudential Series Fund, Prudential Global Total Return Fund, Inc., Prudential Government Money Market Fund, Inc., The Prudential Investment Portfolios, Inc., Prudential Investment Portfolios 2, Prudential Investment Portfolios 3, Prudential Investment Portfolios 4, Prudential Investment Portfolios 5, Prudential Investment Portfolios 6, Prudential Investment Portfolios 7, Prudential Investment Portfolios 8, Prudential Investment Portfolios 9, Prudential Investment Portfolios, Inc. 10, Prudential
The application was filed on February 3, 2016, and amended on June 30, 2016, February 7, 2017 and March 1, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 3, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0–5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090; Applicants, c/o Jonathan D. Shain, Esq., Prudential Investments LLC, 655 Broad Street, 17th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102.
Kaitlin C. Bottock, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–8658 or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short-term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Among others, an Adviser, through a designated committee, would administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management and administrative agreements with the Funds and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the facility. The facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds.
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Notice of application for an exemptive order under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
The Jeffrey Company (the “Applicant”).
Exemption requested under Section 202(a)(11)(H) of the Advisers Act from Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act.
The Applicant requests that the Commission issue an order declaring the Applicant to be a person not within the intent of Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act, which defines the term “investment adviser.”
The application was filed on September 2, 2016, and amended on December 14, 2016 and February 9, 2017.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving the Applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 3, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0–5 under the Advisers Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. Applicant, The Jeffrey Company, c/o Dan L. Jaffe, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, 52 East Gay Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
James McGinnis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–3025 or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551–6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site either at
1. The Applicant, an Ohio corporation, is the managing member of Jeffrey LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. By acting as managing member of Jeffrey LLC, the Applicant provides services to the family and descendants of Joseph A. Jeffrey (1836–1928) (“J.A. Jeffrey”); all of the membership interests in Jeffrey LLC (“units”) are owned directly or indirectly by the descendants of J.A. Jeffrey. The securities of the Applicant also are 100% owned directly or indirectly by the descendants of J.A. Jeffrey. The Applicant is managed by a board of directors (the “Board”), a majority of the members of which are Family Members as defined in paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 202(a)(11)(G)–1 (the “Family Office Rule”) (with J.A. Jeffrey being the “common ancestor” for this purpose). Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms have the same meaning as defined in the Family Office Rule.
2. The Applicant provides services (both advisory and non-advisory) to Jeffrey LLC in its capacity as the managing member of Jeffrey LLC.
3. The Applicant has engaged Katahdin Asset Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“KAM”), to provide advisory and non-advisory services to, and to conduct the day-to-day operations of, Jeffrey LLC and the Applicant, with KAM's own employees (neither Jeffrey LLC nor the Applicant having employees of its own), subject to the direction of the Board. The Board also has the responsibility to establish and periodically review and change as necessary the policies, directives, and goals of Jeffrey LLC, as well as the right to monitor and evaluate the performance of KAM in implementing the policies and directives and in obtaining the goals of Jeffrey LLC.
4. The Applicant represents that (i) each person served by the Applicant is a Family Client,
5. The Applicant represents that Jeffrey LLC currently relies on an exception from the definition of investment company pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “ICA”). Jeffrey LLC would like to offer to additional Family Clients the opportunity to invest in Jeffrey LLC (subject to securities law compliance, including complying with applicable federal and state exemptions from the registration of its securities). The Applicant states that the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA would cause family friction by denying to many Family Clients the opportunity to invest in Jeffrey LLC. The Applicant states that there are approximately 350 Family Members.
6. The Applicant represents that, in the event Jeffrey LLC were to exceed the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA, the Applicant would continue to meet the three general conditions of the Family Office Rule set forth in item 4 above, with the exception that Jeffrey LLC would not qualify as a Family Client, as more fully described below. The Applicant represents that the assets owned beneficially by Family Members and/or Family Entities (including assets beneficially owned by Family Members and/or Family Entities indirectly through Jeffrey LLC) will account for at least 75% of the assets for which the Applicant provides services.
7. The Applicant represents that units have not been, and will not be, offered or sold to the public. The Applicant states that under Jeffrey LLC's limited liability company agreement, sales or other transfers of units for value to any purchaser, other than to Jeffrey LLC itself, are prohibited. The Applicant further states that transfers for value to existing members or other Family Clients are prohibited.
1. Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act defines the term “investment adviser” to mean “any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities . . . .”
2. The Applicant currently complies with the Family Office Rule, and thus the Applicant is not considered to be an “investment adviser” under Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act. In the event that Jeffrey LLC were to exceed the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA and thereby no longer would be excepted from the definition of “investment company” under the ICA, the Applicant would not comply with the Family Office Rule exclusion from the term “investment adviser” because the Applicant's “client” (Jeffrey LLC) would not qualify as a Family Client under paragraph (d)(4)(xi) of the Family Office Rule. The Applicant does not qualify for any of the exemptions from registration as an investment adviser set forth in Section 203(b) of the Advisers Act and, because the Applicant has regulatory assets under management of more than $100 million, the Applicant is not prohibited from registering with the Commission under Section 203A(a) of the Advisers Act. Therefore, absent relief, the Applicant may be required to register as an investment adviser under Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act.
3. The Applicant submits that, in the event Jeffrey LLC were to exceed the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the ICA, the Applicant's relationship with Jeffrey LLC would not change the nature of the Applicant into that of a commercial advisory firm. In support of this argument, the Applicant notes that the Applicant would continue to be held entirely by Family Clients, and the Applicant would continue not to hold itself out to the public as an investment adviser. The Applicant represents that Jeffrey LLC would continue to be managed and controlled by the Applicant, which in turn is managed by the Board, a majority of the members of which are Family Members.
4. The Applicant states that, in requesting the order, the Applicant is not attempting to expand its operations or engage in any level of commercial activity to which the Advisers Act is designed to apply. Further, in the event Jeffrey LLC receives from the Commission an order exempting Jeffrey LLC from all of the provisions of the ICA and all rules and regulations thereunder, given the conditions of such exemptive order, which are designed to alleviate the policy concerns implicated by expanding Jeffrey LLC beyond one hundred investors, the Applicant submits that there is no practical difference from a regulatory standpoint between (i) a pooled investment vehicle created exclusively for the benefit of and wholly owned by Family Clients that is “excepted from the definition” of “investment company” under the ICA, and (ii) such a pooled investment vehicle that is, by virtue of a Commission order, exempt from all the provisions of the ICA and all rules and regulations thereunder.
5. The Applicant also submits that there is no public interest in requiring the Applicant to be registered under the Advisers Act. The Applicant's services as managing member of Jeffrey LLC are specifically and exclusively tailored to the needs of Jeffrey LLC. In the event Jeffrey LLC were to exceed 100 beneficial owners, the Applicant's only “client” would continue to be Jeffrey LLC (and possibly other Family Clients).
6. The Applicant argues that, although the Family Office Rule largely codified the exemptive orders that the Commission had previously issued before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Commission recognized in proposing the Family Office Rule that the exact representations, conditions, or terms contained in every exemptive order could not be captured in a rule of general applicability. The Commission noted that family offices would remain free to seek a Commission exemptive order to advise an individual or entity that did not meet the proposed “family client” definition, and that certain situations may raise unique conflicts and issues that are more appropriately addressed through an exemptive order process where the Commission can consider the specific facts and circumstances, than through a rule of general applicability.
7. The Applicant notes that the Commission has issued orders subsequent to the adoption of the Family Office Rule, and that each of those orders treated the applicant as a Family Office even though the applicant was providing services to persons who did not fall within the definition of “Family Client.” The Applicant submits that those orders recognized unusual circumstances in which an entity provided services to such persons while remaining focused on a single family's needs. The Applicant maintains that its unusual circumstances—providing services, in its capacity as a managing member, to an entity that currently qualifies as a Family Client because it is excepted from the definition of
8. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests an order declaring it to be a person not within the intent of Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act. The Applicant submits that the order is necessary and appropriate, in the public interest, consistent with the protection of investors, and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers Act.
1. The Applicant will offer and provide services only to: (i) Jeffrey LLC, which will generally be deemed to be, and treated as if it were, a Family Client, and (ii) other Family Clients.
2. The Applicant at all times will be wholly owned by Family Clients and exclusively controlled (directly or indirectly) by one or more Family Members and/or Family Entities as defined in paragraph (d)(5) of the Family Office Rule.
3. Jeffrey LLC at all times will be wholly owned by Family Clients.
4. At all times the assets beneficially owned by Family Members and/or Family Entities (including assets beneficially owned by Family Members and/or Family Entities indirectly through Jeffrey LLC) will account for at least 75% of the assets for which the Applicant provides services.
5. The Applicant will comply with all the terms for exclusion from the definition of “investment adviser” under the Advisers Act set forth in the Family Office Rule except for the limited exception requested by the application.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from all provisions of the Act and all rules and regulations thereunder.
Applicant requests an order for an exemption from all provisions of the Act and all rules and regulations thereunder, as Applicant is a private investment company wholly owned and controlled by a single family.
Jeffrey LLC (“Applicant”).
The application was filed on March 11, 2016 and amended on September 2, 2016, December 14, 2016, and February 9, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 3, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicant: Jeffrey LLC, 100 East Broad Street, Suite 1700, Columbus, OH 43215.
James D. McGinnis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–3025, or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551–6825 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicant is a Delaware limited liability company. Applicant's managing member is The Jeffrey Company, an Ohio corporation (“TJC”). All of the outstanding shares of capital stock of TJC are owned by trusts for descendants of Joseph A. Jeffrey (1836–1928) (“J.A. Jeffrey”). Approximately 50% of the units of membership interest in Applicant (“units”) are owned by TJC as the managing member, with the remaining units being owned by trusts for descendants of J.A. Jeffrey. 100% of Applicant's units are owned directly or indirectly by trusts for descendants of J.A. Jeffrey.
2. J.A. Jeffrey created the Joseph A. Jeffrey Trust (the “Trust”) on May 6, 1914, for the benefit of his descendants, and transferred virtually all of the TJC shares to the Trust. TJC was founded to manufacture the world's first coal-mining machines. TJC sold its operating assets to Dresser Industries in 1974 and became a pure investment enterprise. TJC thereafter relied on an exception from the definition of investment company pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”). In 2002, the Trust was divided into separate trusts, one for each current income beneficiary (each an “Individual Trust”), but still operating pursuant to the terms of the instrument establishing the Trust. In 2009, in connection with the formation of Applicant, TJC contributed marketable securities to Applicant in exchange for 100% of the units in Applicant, and immediately distributed the non-managing member units to TJC's shareholders. In 2010 and then again in 2011, TJC distributed marketable securities to its shareholders, who in turn contributed those securities to Applicant in exchange for additional units in Applicant.
3. TJC contributed to Applicant, as of December 31, 2016, 100% of TJC's marketable securities and other assets (excluding its managing member units in Applicant and any assets associated with TJC's deferred compensation plans) in exchange for additional managing member units in Applicant.
4. On January 17, 2017, the Trust terminated pursuant to its terms, and the assets of each Individual Trust (substantially all of which consist of units in Applicant and shares of TJC) became distributable to the then-current
5. Applicant represents that, to date, Applicant has met the requirements of Section 3(c)(1) of the Act. Applicant has 62 non-managing members, each of which is an Individual Trust, plus TJC as its sole managing member. Forty-eight of the 62 Individual Trusts are beneficial owners within the meaning of the Act, having made investments into Applicant in exchange for units in 2010 and 2011. The remaining fourteen Individual Trusts received their non-managing member units in Applicant involuntarily, after the 2011 investments were made and pursuant to the operation of the Trust, in accordance with Rule 3c–6 under the Act. These fourteen Individual Trusts collectively stepped into the shoes of five former Individual Trusts that had made investments into Applicant in 2010 and 2011. Thus, the 62 Individual Trusts today represent 53 beneficial owners.
6. Applicant will limit its security holders to “family clients,” as defined under Rule 202(a)(11)(G)–1 (the “Family Office Rule”) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), with J.A. Jeffrey being the “common ancestor” for this purpose (“Family Clients”). Applicant further does not intend to offer to key employees or their entities the opportunity to invest in Applicant unless a key employee is also a “family member,” as defined under the Family Office Rule (a “Family Member”). Thus, Applicant's owners will consist of a subset of Family Clients.
7. Applicant would like to offer to such subset of Family Clients the opportunity to invest in Applicant (subject to securities law compliance, including complying with applicable federal and state exemptions from registration of its securities). Applicant states that the 100 beneficial owner limitation of Section 3(c)(1) of the Act potentially would cause family friction by denying to many Family Members the opportunity to invest in Applicant. Applicant states that, as of the date of the Application, there are approximately 350 Family Members.
8. Units in Applicant have not been and will not be offered or sold to the public. Under Applicant's limited liability company agreement, sales or other transfers of units for value to any purchaser, other than to Applicant itself, are prohibited. Transfers for value to existing members or other Family Clients are prohibited.
9. TJC is the sole managing member of Applicant. TJC is managed by a board of directors (the “Board”). At all times, a majority of Board directors will be Family Members; provided, however, that if by reason of the death, disqualification or bona fide resignation of any director or directors, a majority of the directors are not Family Members, the vacancy or vacancies will be filled in order to reestablish such majority within 90 days (consistent with Act Rule 10e–1(a)). The directors are paid on the basis of fixed fees and expenses, and do not receive any form of commission or performance-based compensation. None of the directors is affiliated with Applicant's investment advisers. All directors are elected annually, thereby providing an opportunity to evaluate the continued contribution of each director on an annual basis.
10. Applicant has no employees of its own. Applicant has a management agreement with Katahdin Asset Management LLC (the “Family Management Co.”). The Family Management Co. conducts the day-to-day operations of Applicant with the Family Management Co.'s own employees, subject to the direction of the Board. The Family Management Co. is wholly owned and controlled by the same individual who is TJC's chief executive officer, who also is a Family Member. Applicant states that, because the Family Management Co.'s owner is both a Family Member and a current income beneficiary of an Individual Trust, the Family Management Co.'s interests are aligned with those of fellow owners of Applicant. Applicant states that Applicant, TJC and the Family Management Co. together function like a cooperative association for the benefit of the owners.
11. In addition to the Family Management Co., Applicant relies on Commission-registered investment advisers in managing its investments, subject to the oversight of the Board. Applicant states that currently, substantially all of Applicant's assets are managed by six unrelated investment advisers, all of which are registered with the Commission. Applicant states that all investment management fees paid by Applicant to these investment advisers are based on either a fixed or graduated fee calculated as a percentage of assets under management. Applicant further states that Applicant does not pay any performance-based fees.
12. Applicant states that Applicant has provided detailed quarterly and annual reports to investors, and held Board meetings with family guests and frequent meetings with the current income beneficiaries of the Individual Trusts. The financial statements of Applicant are audited by a nationally recognized accounting firm annually.
1. Applicant is seeking an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from all of the provisions of the Act and all rules and regulations thereunder, except as otherwise specified in the application. Applicant submits that Section 3(c)(1) of the Act evidences the intention of Congress to exclude “private” investment companies from the scope of the Act. Under Section 6(c) of the Act, the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicant submits that the requested exemption from all provisions of the Act and all rules and regulations thereunder (except as otherwise specified in the application) meets these standards, as Applicant is a private investment company wholly owned and controlled by a single family.
2. Applicant states that similarly situated companies typically may rely on Section 3(c)(1) of the Act for an exclusion from registration under the Act. Section 3(c)(1) excepts from the definition of “investment company” any issuer whose outstanding securities are
3. Applicant submits that the exemption requested is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicant further submits that the exemption requested is consistent with relief granted by the Commission to other private investment companies that have more than 100 beneficial owners and that are substantially owned and controlled by a single family.
4. Applicant submits that one of the key purposes of the Act is to ensure that every investment company properly identifies and mitigates conflicts of interest and legal, compliance, financial, and operational risks. Applicant submits that the Board's structure and practice, including its review of compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, evaluation of operational risk management processes, establishment of a Code of Ethics (addressing, among other things, conflicts of interest) and provision of periodic reports to investors, are designed to protect Applicant's investors. Applicant submits that Applicant's “co-op” style, where no money is taken off the top for management (
Applicant agrees that the order of the Commission granting the requested relief shall be subject to the following conditions, which conditions shall continue for so long as Applicant seeks to rely on such relief:
1. Interests in Applicant have not been and will not be offered or sold to the public. Applicant will neither admit as a new investor, nor permit the assignment or transfer of any interest in Applicant to, any individual or entity that is not a Family Client.
2. Applicant at all times will be controlled by Family Members and/or “family entities” (as defined under the Family Office Rule) that are Family Clients.
3. Applicant will not have as an investment adviser any investment adviser other than (i) a Commission-registered investment adviser, (ii) a “family office” as defined in the Family Office Rule or (iii) an entity that has obtained an order from the Commission declaring it to be a person not within the intent of the Advisers Act to the extent that it cannot satisfy all of the conditions to be a “family office”, as defined in the Family Office Rule.
4. A majority of the Board will consist of Family Members; provided, however, that if by reason of the death, disqualification or bona fide resignation of any director or directors, a majority of the directors are not Family Members, the vacancy or vacancies will be filled in order to reestablish such majority within 90 days (consistent with Act Rule 10e–1(a) under the Act).
5. Applicant will continue to hold annual meetings of its investors for the purpose of electing Board members and transacting such other business as may properly come before such meetings.
6. The Board will meet no less frequently than quarterly to review Applicant's investment portfolio to review compliance with all applicable investment restrictions and policies.
7. Applicant will not knowingly make available to any broker or dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, any financial information concerning Applicant for the purpose of knowingly enabling such broker or dealer to initiate any regular trading market in any interests in Applicant.
8. Applicant will provide each investor in Applicant annual financial statements audited by an independent public accountant.
9. Applicant will comply with the provisions set forth in subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B)(i) of Section 12(d)(1) of the Act as if Applicant were an investment company relying on the exemption set forth in Section 3(c)(1) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 104 permits stabilizing by a distribution participant during a distribution so long as the distribution participant discloses information to the market and investors. This rule requires disclosure in offering materials of the potential stabilizing transactions and that the distribution participant inform the market when a stabilizing bid is made. It also requires the distribution participants (
There are approximately 848 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 170 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately 0.20 hours (12 minutes) to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 170 hours. The total internal labor cost of compliance for the respondents is approximately $11,050.00 per year, resulting in an internal cost of compliance of about $13.03 (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
On November 18, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.11 to specify continued listing requirements for products listed under that rule, which include products listed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(e) under the Act (“generically-listed products”) and products listed pursuant to proposed rule changes filed with the Commission (“non-generically-listed products”).
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 14.11(a) to specify issuer notification requirements related to failures to comply with continued listing requirements. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.11(a) to require a company with securities listed under Rule 14.11 to promptly notify the Exchange after the company becomes aware of any non-compliance by the company with the requirements of the rule. As proposed, the Exchange would initiate delisting proceedings for a product listed under Rule 14.11 if any of its continued listing requirements (including those set forth in an Exchange Rule and those set forth in an applicable proposed rule change) is not continuously maintained.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 14.12 to specify the delisting procedures for products listed under Rule 14.11. Under proposed Rule 14.12(f)(2)(A), unless the company is currently under review by an Adjudicatory Body for a Staff Delisting Determination, the Listing Qualifications Department may accept and review a plan to regain compliance when the company fails to meet a continued listing requirement contained in Rule 14.11. Under the proposed rule, the company would be required to submit its compliance plan within 45 calendar days of the Exchange staff's notification of deficiencies.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming and technical changes throughout Rule 14.11 to maintain consistency in its rules. For example, the Exchange proposes to consistently use the language “initiate delisting proceedings pursuant to Rule 14.12” when describing the delisting procedures for a product that fails to meet continued listing requirements;
The Exchange proposes to implement the rule changes by October 1, 2017.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission received nine comment letters that express concerns regarding the proposal.
The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act. As the Commission previously stated, the development, implementation, and enforcement of standards governing the initial and continued listing of securities on an exchange are activities of critical importance to financial markets and the investing public.
With respect to commenters' concerns regarding the inability of certain ETFs to assure compliance with the proposal, the Commission believes that a variety of means are available to ETP (including ETF) issuers to monitor for a product's compliance with the continued listing standards. For example, information regarding the composition of a third party index may be publicly available, or may be obtained from the index provider pursuant to provisions in the index licensing agreement, so that the ETP issuer can monitor its compliance on an ongoing basis. If an index approaches the thresholds set forth in the continued listing standards, the issuer may decide to engage in discussions with the index provider regarding potential modifications to the index so that the ETP can continue to be listed on the Exchange. If an index provider is unwilling to modify the index in order to comply with the Exchange's listing requirements, the Exchange may submit a rule proposal to continue to list the product based on the index.
For an example of an exchange rule proposal to continue the listing of a product that no longer meets generic listing standards,
With respect to commenters' concerns that the proposed listing standards would treat ETPs fundamentally differently than other types of listed equity securities, the Commission notes that ETPs and other types of equity securities each have certain listing standards that are higher on an initial basis and lower on a continuing basis.
Finally, with respect to commenters' questions regarding the purpose of the proposal and its impact on the potential for manipulation and investor protection, the Commission notes that, in approving a wide variety of ETP listing standards, including standards that apply to underlying indexes or portfolios, the Commission has consistently explained that these standards, among other things,
For exchange listing standards to effectively achieve their goals, including to effectively address the potential for manipulation of a listed ETP, their application cannot be linked to only a single point in time (
Because the proposal specifies continued listing requirements for products listed pursuant to Rule 14.11, the Commission believes the proposal is designed to achieve on a continuing basis the goals of the listing requirements, including ensuring that the Exchange lists products that are not susceptible to manipulation and maintaining fair and orderly markets for the listed products. In particular,
As noted above, the proposal specifies the delisting procedures for products listed pursuant to Rule 14.11. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 14.12 would provide transparency regarding the process that the Exchange will follow if a listed product fails to meet its continued listing requirements. Also, as noted above, the process surrounding compliance plans already exists in Rule 14.12. As a result, the proposed delisting procedures are not novel.
Finally, the Commission believes that the conforming and technical proposed changes do not raise novel issues, are designed to further the goals of the listing standards, and provide clarity and consistency in the Exchange's rules.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the Act.
As noted above, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (i) Further amended Rule 14.11(a) to require a Company with securities listed under Rule 14.11 to provide the Exchange with prompt notification if the Company (rather than an Executive Officer of the Company) becomes aware of its non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 14.11; (ii) further amended Rule 14.11 to reflect that certain listing requirements apply on an initial and ongoing basis; (iii) further amended Rule 14.11 to consistently state that the Exchange will initiate delisting proceedings if continued listing requirements are not maintained; (iv) further amended Rule 14.11 to provide that the Exchange would initiate delisting proceedings due to an interruption to the dissemination of index, reference asset, or intraday indicative values (as applicable to the product) only if the interruption persists past the trading day in which it occurred; (v) further amended Rule 14.11 to consistently state that the Exchange will implement and maintain surveillance procedures for the applicable product; and (vi) made other technical, clarifying, and conforming changes throughout Rule 14.11. The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 furthers the goals of the proposed rule change as discussed above, and enhances consistency between the Exchange's proposal and a recently approved proposal from another exchange.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, gives notice of a public meeting to discuss possible work by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the area of cloud computing. The public meeting will take place on Monday, April 10, 2017 from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. EDT. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
At its 2016 annual meeting, the Commission decided that UNCITRAL's Working Group IV could take up work on the topics of identity management and cloud computing. The Commission asked the UNCITRAL Secretariat and Working Group IV to conduct preparatory work on both topics so that the Commission might make an informed decision about future work on these topics. In this regard, the UNCITRAL Secretariat has drafted a note on contractual aspects of cloud computing, A/CN.9/
The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain the views of concerned stakeholders on the issues presented in the Secretariat's note as well as the need for an UNCITRAL instrument on this topic. Participants in the public meeting should read the Secretariat's note in advance of the meeting and should be prepared to discuss the issues presented within the note as well as the sample text included as an annex to the note. Those who cannot attend but wish to comment are welcome to do so by email to Michael Coffee at
Data from the public is requested pursuant to Public Law 99–399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107–56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities.
The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS–D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 130 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0355; FMCSA–2010–0386; FMCSA–2012–0347; FMCSA–2012–0348; FMCSA–2014–0310; FMCSA–2014–0311 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202–366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 130 individuals listed in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
This notice addresses 130 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 130 drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified according to the renewal date.
The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of January and are discussed below.
As of January 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 65931; 78 FR 1926):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0347. Their exemptions are effective as of January 9, 2017 and will expire on January 9, 2019.
As of January 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 69734; 76 FR 1495):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0355. Their exemptions are effective as of January 10, 2017 and will expire on January 10, 2019.
As of January 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 40 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 74159; 80 FR 8926):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0310. Their exemptions are effective as of January 15, 2017 and will expire on January 15, 2019.
As of January 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 70530; 78 FR 5559):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0348. Their exemptions are effective as of January 25, 2017 and will expire on January 25, 2019.
As of January 28, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 77947; 76 FR 5243):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0386. Their exemptions are effective as of January 28, 2017 and will expire on January 28, 2019.
As of January 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 49 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 78938; 80 FR 12545):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0311. Their exemptions are effective as of January 31, 2017 and will expire on January 31, 2019.
Each of the 130 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the 130 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA–2010–0355; FMCSA–2010–0386; FMCSA–2012–0347; FMCSA–2012–0348; FMCSA–2014–0310; FMCSA–2014–0311.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by April 12, 2017.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 130 individuals from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Request for comments.
The Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) administers the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIP or Program), including the issuance of regulations and procedures regarding the Program. The Federal Insurance Office assists the Secretary in the administration of the Program. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on: Approved information collections that are due for extension by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (under OMB 1505–0200); the extension of certain additional information collections previously approved by OMB that lapsed pending recent revisions to the Program Rules; and the approval of three new information collections that are authorized under recent revisions to the Program Rules.
Written comments must be received not later than May 12, 2017.
Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. In general, the Department will post all comments to
Richard Ifft, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, Room 1410, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622–2922 (this is not a toll-free number), Kevin Meehan, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, Room 1410, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622–7009 (this is not a toll-free number), or Lindsey Baldwin, Senior Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, Room 1410, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622–3220 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, as amended (TRIA),
Beginning after the inception of the Program in 2002, Treasury has previously sought and obtained from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approvals for certain information collections that will be necessary if Treasury is to process claims from participating insurers for the Federal share of compensation, and potentially to recoup amounts expended as authorized under TRIA. Most of these information collections are managed through forms that have been developed by Treasury to permit participating insurers to demonstrate that they are entitled to payment of the Federal share of compensation.
In January 2015, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 (2015 Reauthorization Act)
The changes to the Program rules require revisions to currently effective Program forms to incorporate terminology and regulatory reference changes, and Treasury seeks to extend these previously approved collections subject to these minor revisions. No additional burdens are imposed by these changes, either in terms of the estimates of the number of insurers affected or time burdens for compliance.
In addition, certain other information collections (relating to such Program administrative matters as the approval of certain settlement, and recoupment of the Federal share of compensation) lapsed pending finalization of the revised Program rules. Now that the revised Program rules are effective, Treasury seeks to reinstate these information collections subject to minor revisions. Again, no additional burdens would be imposed by these changes,
Finally, Treasury seeks approval for three additional information collections that are authorized and necessary under the revised Program rules. These collections: (1) Will permit (but not require) Treasury to obtain appropriate information directly from participating insurers during a certification process; (2) require claims reporting after certification of an act as an act of
Further information concerning each of these requirements is provided below.
Treasury Form TRIP 01: 1.0 hours × 1 response = 1 hours.
Treasury Form TRIP 02 (Initial and Supplementary): 1.5 hours × 6 responses = 9 hours.
Treasury Form TRIP 02A Schedule A: 6.5 hours × 1 response = 6.5 hours.
Treasury Form TRIP 02B Schedule B: 0.25 hours × 6 responses = 1.5 hours.
Treasury Form TRIP 02B Schedule C: 4 hours × 6 responses = 24 hours.
Treasury Forms TRIP 04A and TRIP 04B: 5 hours per month (60 hours per year).
Treasury Form TRIP 05: 5 hours.
All of the forms and associated instructional materials are available for review on Treasury's Web site at
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on the collection listed below.
Comments should be received on or before April 12, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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. The Department of the Treasury, Office of the Procurement Executive, is soliciting comments concerning on OMB Control Number 1505–0080, Post-Contract Award Information.
Written comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017.
You may submit comments by mail to: Thomas O'Linn, Office of the Procurement Executive, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington DC 20220. All responses to this notice will be included in the request for OMB's approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or request a copy of the information collection should be directed to Thomas O'Linn at (202) 622–2092.
44 U.S.C. 3501
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that a meeting of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation (VACOR) will be held on Thursday, April 6–7, 2017, in Room 501K, 1800 G Street NW., Washington DC 20006. The meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. EST and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. (EST) each day. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary on the rehabilitation needs of Veterans with disabilities and on the administration of VA's rehabilitation programs.
During the meeting, Committee members will be provided updated briefings on various VA programs designed to enhance the rehabilitative potential of recently-discharged Veterans. Members will also begin consideration of potential recommendations to be included in the Committee's next annual report.
Although no time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public, members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee to Sabrina Barry, Designated Federal Officer, Veterans Benefits Administration (28), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or via email at